Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Syria is Russia's warm water port. That is so important to them that I remember hearing about it in seventh grade social studies. What exactly are our interests in Syria? Because Russia considers their warm water port absolutely vital. This could get ugly fast, and again, why are we trying to depose Assad?
Of course, if one takes the approach that Syria is "Obama's war" and nothing that Trump does from this point forward matters, then they must also accept that both Iraq and Afghanistan were NOT Obama's wars and nothing he did after taking office on those conflicts matters.
Obviously this is idiotic, each president has the ability to change direction and extract themselves from a conflict or find a new approach. In the case of Syria, we are far less involved than either Iraq or Afghanistan. It would be far easier to walk away from Syria right now than either of the two wars.
Whatever course Trump chooses is entirely his responsibility. I should add that I do not have any idea whether it is in our best interest to stay engaged in Syria or not. There are good arguments for both approaches, but whatever Trump chooses to do going forward is 100% his responsibility. There is absolutely nothing that prevents him from pulling out right now.
It was argued by Obama supporters though. Indeed though, once a president takes over his actions are his. If a president screws up it also doesn't negate the previous presidents stupid actions either.
It was argued by Obama supporters though. Indeed though, once a president takes over his actions are his. If a president screws up it also doesn't negate the previous presidents stupid actions either.
shaker281 makes a point of difference, though, in that the extent an earlier president has made in the situation complicates the ability of a succeeding president to extract the country from it.
Nixon really could not simply "pull out" of Vietnam in his first month of office. But Clinton could have easily pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf war (and probably avoided 9/11 if he had done so).
Obama could not easily pull out of either Iraq or Afghanistan. But Trump can easily pull out of Syria.
shaker281 makes a point of difference, though, in that the extent an earlier president has made in the situation complicates the ability of a succeeding president to extract the country from it.
That might be the case IF they actually try.
Quote:
Nixon really could not simply "pull out" of Vietnam in his first month of office. But Clinton could have easily pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf war (and probably avoided 9/11 if he had done so).
Obama could not easily pull out of either Iraq or Afghanistan. But Trump can easily pull out of Syria.
Of course Obama could have pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and on top of that there was zero reason for him to get us involved in Libya, Syria or Yemen.
Nixon might not have been able pull out of Vietnam the first month but he had less time than Obama and still did it.
Of course Obama could have pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and on top of that there was zero reason for him to get us involved in Libya, Syria or Yemen.
Nixon might not have been able pull out of Vietnam the first month but he had less time than Obama and still did it.
Well, Obama did eventually get the US pulled out of Iraq (rather, the Iraqi government made it impossible to stay)...and conservatives still blame him for "losing" Iraq because of it.
Getting out of Afghanistan was more difficult--the enemy didn't understand the Vietnam lesson of "peace with dignity."
And I won't disagree that there was no need for involvement in Libya, Syria, or Yemen, except as a proxy for Saudi Arabia.
First of all, The US military presence in Syria is illegal.
And it's NOT good to see the US Military openly helping ISIS. Yes, US military will bravely defend those animals and even ready to go to war with Russia to help them. But who can be proud of such stupid inglorious courage?
The US makes the rules so what do is never illegal.
Well, Obama did eventually get the US pulled out of Iraq (rather, the Iraqi government made it impossible to stay)...and conservatives still blame him for "losing" Iraq because of it.
We never left Iraq. We are still there.
Quote:
Getting out of Afghanistan was more difficult--the enemy didn't understand the Vietnam lesson of "peace with dignity."
And I won't disagree that there was no need for involvement in Libya, Syria, or Yemen, except as a proxy for Saudi Arabia.
Troops were drown down to practically nil by 2011. Occupation ended, combat operations ended. As for Vietnam, we were thrown out of the country when the North took Saigon. We had no intention of pulling every American out of the country if the South had been able to keep the North at bay.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 06-21-2017 at 08:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
