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.
I am NOT a right winger. This is the right thing to do. There will be some hypocritical positions taken. Many of the rest of us have been wanting this for a long time.
I condemned Trump's continued bombing. I will applaud if he realizes it's a complete waste.
pknopp, I agree you are not a hypocrite or a right winger. You are one person that has credibility on this thread. It doesn't change that this is a bad move and will greatly weaken those moderate forces in the region we have been supporting, all while strengthening Assad. Trump's reasoning for doing this is purely to appease his boss.
Russia is supporting--and engaging in--war crimes.
And the US isn't?
Obama armed ISIS, Obama armed Al Qaeda, Obama armed other terrorist groups. Obama even let several hundred assault rifles fall into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels - of which over 300 Mexicans have been killed with and counting.
Obama's bombed twice as many countries as Bush, by some estimates has killed thousands of civilians.
Obama bombed a country not posing a threat without congressional approval.
Today, Radical Muslims will use Obama-Weapons to terrorize: kill gays for being gay, collect sex slaves, murder religious minorities, etc...
Please tell me why Trump should follow the Obama-Bush doctrine of creating power vacuums to be filled by extreme elements like ISIS - and continue arming "moderate rebels" that end up being ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.....
pknopp, I agree you are not a hypocrite or a right winger. You are one person that has credibility on this thread. It doesn't change that this is a bad move and will greatly weaken those moderate forces in the region we have been supporting, all while strengthening Assad. Trump's reasoning for doing this is purely to appease his boss.
These "moderate" forces are the same people we have started wars over.
Lol, no they have not. Hell, the US even assisted Saddam with the chemical attack on them. The US uses them then tosses them to the side when done.
You are mixing up two separate events. The US assisted Saddam Hussein with chemical attacks against Iranians during the Reagan Administration when the US was assisting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The direct assistance offered was targeting. No evidence has emerged that the US assisted Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds on the Kurdish front of the same conflict.
In a related practice, the US assisted Saddam Hussein in building a chemical weapons program in the early 1980s.
The United States was mostly indifferent to the Kurds until Gulf War I, when they become useful clients against Saddam Hussein, Iran, and Syria. The US has been supporting the Kurds since the early 1990s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
And the US isn't?
Obama armed ISIS, Obama armed Al Qaeda, Obama armed other terrorist groups. Obama even let several hundred assault rifles fall into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels - of which over 300 Mexicans have been killed with and counting.
Obama's bombed twice as many countries as Bush, by some estimates has killed thousands of civilians.
Obama bombed a country not posing a threat without congressional approval.
Today, Radical Muslims will use Obama-Weapons to terrorize: kill gays for being gay, collect sex slaves, murder religious minorities, etc...
Please tell me why Trump should follow the Obama-Bush doctrine of creating power vacuums to be filled by extreme elements like ISIS - and continue arming "moderate rebels" that end up being ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.....
As I said, US war crimes do not excuse Russian and Syrian war crimes.
Saudi Arabia armed ISIS. If any US President "armed" Al Qaeda, it was Ronald Reagan, who funneled arms to jihadis in Afghanistan who fought against the Soviets. Those jihadis were precursors to Al Qaeda, and many eventual senior Al Qaeda leaders were among them.
Your attempt at conflating the Obama and Bush foreign policies is a failure.
As I said, US war crimes do not excuse Russian and Syrian war crimes.
It isn't our job to fight every war crime everywhere unilaterally.
Especially as we are encouraging war crimes in Syria and elsewhere in the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Saudi Arabia armed ISIS.
And so did the US. Yeah, Hope and Change!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
If any US President "armed" Al Qaeda, it was Ronald Reagan, who funneled arms to jihadis in Afghanistan who fought against the Soviets. Those jihadis were precursors to Al Qaeda, and many eventual senior Al Qaeda leaders were among them.
Ummm, you are either ignorant of US history or you are distorting for partisan gain as you completely ignore the Democrats doing what you condemn.
Obama in all his genius looked at that history of Carter-Reagan, the power vacuums that he inherited from Bush, and decided to arm multiple rebel groups all over the tinder box known as the Muslim world so he could create more power vacuums.
ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists kept getting his weapons and the dunce kept dumping weapons into "moderate rebels."
In comes Trump and he doesn't want to make the same mistake that Reagan did, and you blow a gasket, because it ruins Obama's weapons dispersal programs.
Fact: Obama's policies armed ISIS and Al Qaeda. I am sure it was Obama's idiocy of thinking there were "moderate rebels," and not anything nefarious on his part. Yet Obama owns it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Your attempt at conflating the Obama and Bush foreign policies is a failure.
True or False: Both Obama and Bush created power vacuums in the Muslim world.
True or False: Both Obama and Bush through a series of blunders armed terrorists.
True or False: Both Obama and Bush used Drones in countries against those countries' will.
Why should Trump continue the Obama-Bush-Doctrine of seeing a Muslim dictator he doesn't like - then choosing to create a power vacuum in the Muslim world - and arming "moderate rebels" who keep turning out to be terrorists?
What benefit does it give the US to have Obama arm Al Qaeda and ISIS among other terrorists?
Who would run Syria better - Assad or ISIS?
Last edited by michiganmoon; 07-20-2017 at 08:12 PM..
President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. official.
Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests.
“This is a momentous decision,” said a current official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a covert program. “Putin won in Syria.”
Some analysts said the decision was likely to empower more radical groups inside Syria and damage the credibility of the United States.
“We are falling into a Russian trap,” said Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, who focuses on the Syrian resistance. “We are making the moderate resistance more and more vulnerable. . . . We are really cutting them off at the neck.”
Maybe Trump decided that he doesn't want Syria to end up like Libya did after Khadafi, or like Iraq did after Saddam
pknopp, I agree you are not a hypocrite or a right winger. You are one person that has credibility on this thread. It doesn't change that this is a bad move and will greatly weaken those moderate forces in the region we have been supporting, all while strengthening Assad. Trump's reasoning for doing this is purely to appease his boss.
It's not our place to decide what should happen to Assad, do you understand this?
Syria is not our country and arming these 'moderate' forces who are backed by al-qaeda in another country means we're committing an international war crime.
And before you come up with some B.S that we are only breaking international law because we are concerned about the Syrian people maybe we shouldn't have started a civil war there by arming extremists because Assad leaving would give us more political power. Why do we have 10 bases in a country that is not even ours?
Are we an invading force/occupying force? What is it then?
If you think Islamist should be in charge of Syria over the legitimate government maybe you should go in there with a gun and fight the government yourself.
A Free Syrian Army (FSA) commander said the U.S. decision risked triggering the collapse of the moderate opposition, which would benefit President Bashar al-Assad and jihadists linked to al Qaeda that have long sought to extinguish more moderate groups.
"We heard nothing about this," said an opposition official familiar with the program, describing the decision as a complete surprise.
So we didn't tell the terrorists trying to destroy their own country that we were going to stop arming them? Awwww.
You know what's odd? When one of the most respected Democrats in congress (Tulsi Gabbard) suggested that we quit arming and supporting terrorists in Syria, many leftists were on board. Now that Trump is actually doing so...he's a tool of Putin.
Is there any wonder why no one takes the left-wing seriously? They cry and throw tantrums like spoiled children.
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.
