CSNbbs

(10-10-2019 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]One fairly obvious thing here as well. trump makes this surprise announcement and in a matter of days Turkey has the plans ready to go forward?

Smells fishy.

Pretty sure Turkey has had these plans ready to roll for quite a while.

(10-10-2019 02:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]One fairly obvious thing here as well. trump makes this surprise announcement and in a matter of days Turkey has the plans ready to go forward?

Smells fishy.

Smells fishy? Sounds like Turkey said "We are coming in 3 days. This is your warning to get your people out of harms way." Trump could either get in a shooting war with a NATO ally with no US upside, or could pull back behind the 20 mile "neutral zone" line. This event is not that complicated. The situation---is hugely complicated and difficult to see any way for us to gracefully execute a final exit.

No doubt Turkey ordered trump to get out the way.

(10-10-2019 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]One fairly obvious thing here as well. trump makes this surprise announcement and in a matter of days Turkey has the plans ready to go forward?

Smells fishy.

Pretty sure Turkey has had these plans ready to roll for quite a while.

All they needed was president patsy to sell out our friends.

(10-10-2019 03:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]One fairly obvious thing here as well. trump makes this surprise announcement and in a matter of days Turkey has the plans ready to go forward?

Smells fishy.

Pretty sure Turkey has had these plans ready to roll for quite a while.

All they needed was president patsy to sell out our friends.

"Our friends" have been attacking Turkey for decades. Not sure I'd give a crap about what Canada said if Mexicans were setting off bombs in US cities.

(10-10-2019 01:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]One fairly obvious thing here as well. trump makes this surprise announcement and in a matter of days Turkey has the plans ready to go forward?

Smells fishy.

how so?

colluding with one ally vs. another that technically are only aligned...

it's obvious we knew beforehand what was getting ready to go downtown south of chinatown....

you'd rather see US troops in the crossfire....

what a fk'n idjut....

I didn't divulge my feelings about Trump moving out of the direct path of a possible war with Turkey. I think that Erdogan was intent on starting an offensive against the Kurds and there were US soldiers in the area. Can anyone who has a brain realize that by leaving the military there that there was a possibility of American military members getting hurt or killed? Then what? The same dipshiates that are angry with Trump moving them out would be clamoring for us to take retaliation against Turkey which would possibly escalate our involvement in Syria and now against Turkish forces to boot which claim that they're our friends, (yeah right). Turkey is for Turkey like Demoncraps are for Demoncraps regardless of who's wrong.

I say that it's about time for our military to disengage from being the world's policemen. That's not our job. If the Saudis are having problems with Iran and Yemen let them settle their own problems. Why do we need to have OUR young men dying for these despots? Shiate NO, let their people die for their countrys. I say Fudge the dissenters including our own Republicans. When they place their own children in harms way then they can preach to us.

Good job Trump, you still got my vote for 2020.

We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

So well stated. I wish I could have given you more than +3 for this one.

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Of course, Trump has managed to give us the worst of both worlds...we still have troops over there and we abandoned allies. don't move our troops to a different part of the country that will put Kurds in danger and give me this crap Trump is ending forever wars.

(10-10-2019 07:48 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Of course, Trump has managed to give us the worst of both worlds...we still have troops over there and we abandoned allies. don't move our troops to a different part of the country that will put Kurds in danger and give me this crap Trump is ending forever wars.

ewe wouldn't care if we pulled all troops out of everywhere until the msm 'told ya' it was "Trump"....

it has to suck to live in your skin.....

(10-10-2019 07:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 07:48 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Of course, Trump has managed to give us the worst of both worlds...we still have troops over there and we abandoned allies. don't move our troops to a different part of the country that will put Kurds in danger and give me this crap Trump is ending forever wars.

ewe wouldn't care if we pulled all troops out of everywhere until the msm 'told ya' it was "Trump"....

it has to suck to live in your skin.....

Yawn. Come up with something better than that because I can promise you I don't care what the MSM says about Trump. In fact I hate that they're acting like this is the first time Kurds have been left out to dry. I can agree that basically we either leave the ME with unfinished business or we stay there forever. Just don't give me this crap that a guy who has been in office for 3 years is doing this now as impeachment inquiry is going on drawing down ME troop presence.

(10-10-2019 09:09 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 07:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 07:48 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Of course, Trump has managed to give us the worst of both worlds...we still have troops over there and we abandoned allies. don't move our troops to a different part of the country that will put Kurds in danger and give me this crap Trump is ending forever wars.

ewe wouldn't care if we pulled all troops out of everywhere until the msm 'told ya' it was "Trump"....

it has to suck to live in your skin.....

Yawn. Come up with something better than that because I can promise you I don't care what the MSM says about Trump. In fact I hate that they're acting like this is the first time Kurds have been left out to dry. I can agree that basically we either leave the ME with unfinished business or we stay there forever. Just don't give me this crap that a guy who has been in office for 3 years is doing this now as impeachment inquiry is going on drawing down ME troop presence.

how many years in office would make a difference.....

there is zero relevance with impeachment vs. the ME....

I'll give ya credence to the msm....at least ya got that part of the equation correct....

like too many others, you're neglecting the real value.....US lives....

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Well the Democrats did by tying a weakened Nixon's hand. American bombers might have saved South Vietnam, at least for another 5-10 years. But then they wouldn't have moved in such masses if they didn't know the Democrats wouldn't approve anything.

(10-10-2019 07:48 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:

1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."

You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).

I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.

The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Of course, Trump has managed to give us the worst of both worlds...we still have troops over there and we abandoned allies. don't move our troops to a different part of the country that will put Kurds in danger and give me this crap Trump is ending forever wars.

The worst of both worlds is our troops getting killed by Turks and NATO's southern flank disentegrating.

(10-10-2019 07:48 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-10-2019 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We have two options:
1) Stay there forever; or
2) Bring them home some day, and whoever we do we will inevitably "abandon our allies."
You got any other alternatives? If not, do you choose 1) or 2).
I actually do have another alternative. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. But that will never happen, and in this case I'm afraid it's too late.
The longer things go, the more it looks like we didn't learn anything from Vietnam. By the way, we "abandoned our allies" there too.

Of course, Trump has managed to give us the worst of both worlds...we still have troops over there and we abandoned allies. don't move our troops to a different part of the country that will put Kurds in danger and give me this crap Trump is ending forever wars.

OK, I'm betting that had Obama pulled our troops out, you would have been 100% supportive, despite the fact that would have been "abandoning our alllies" as well. It is quite disturbing to me to see so many people who have spent 15+ years calling for us to bring the troops home, now complaining when Trump starts the process, for no reason other than Orange Man Bad.

If you wanted us to bring troops home, then you wanted us to "abandon our allies." You can't have one without the other.

The whole Iraq adventure may be characterized as how not to do it.
1) The first thing we need to realize is that military forces, in the words of Norman Schwarzkopf, are good at two things--killing people and breaking things. Winning hearts and minds, particularly of people disinclined to like us, is not a military mission. We have the Peace Corps for that.
2) We should have waited until we had killed everybody who needed killing in Afghanistan (we still haven't done that), and broken everything that ended breaking there, before splitting our effort and going into Iraq. Had we gone into Afghanistan the right way, that would have been done within two years and we could then ave focused on Iraq if necessary (IOW, if Saddam hadn't gotten the message from Afghanistan that he needed to fly right). I have heard from sources which I believe to be reliable that we had drone shots at Osama and Mullah Omar during the first week of the war but we passed them up because of worries about collateral damage to civilians. The only way to end the practice of human shields is to be willing to accept collateral damage in order to prosecute high priority targets.
3) If and when we went into Iraq, we should have gone in full force, unburdened by ridiculously restrictive rules of engagement, killed everybody who needed killing, broken everything that needed breaking, then within two years GTFO and stay TFO, except leave the people in charge with the specific understanding that if they screw up, we will be back to kill them. US troops coming into your country should be every world leader's worst nightmare. Then maybe they will behave, and we can take care of the few who don't.
4) Once Iraq was done and dusted, we should have addressed as best we could the errors that the west made at San Remo in partitioning the region. Iraq should have been split into three separate countries--Kurdistan in the north, Shia Mesopotamia in the east, and Sunni Iraq in the west. Kurds get Mosul and Kirkuk, Shias get Baghdad and Basra, Sunnis get Fallujah and Samarrah.



Turkey did not want Kurdistan, but that was a problem that could be handled. Trukey's number one economic and foreign relations priority at that time (not today) was membership in the EU, which looked like a good deal back then. Give the Halliburton contract for Kurdistan to Schlumberger, tell the French that this is the makeup call for the way they got screwed at San Remo, and that it's their job to convince Turkey that Kurdistan is the price of admission to EU. France would send some troops to protect their commercial interests, and we could equip the Kurds, and that should be enough to protect them without our having to sacrifice American lives and limbs. I don't think either Syria or Turkey would have been willing to surrender any territory occupied by Kurds, but if we gave Kurdistan enough help, and made it large enough to absorb an influx, I think it would have attracted significant inward migration of Kurds from those countries. For Turkey, that would have been not a bug but a feature.

The Shi'a east would pretty much work. They have oil and agriculture, and we could have installed a UN force to assist them in maintaining their borders.

Instead of totally dismantling the Ba'athist power structure--pretty much the only effective administrators in the country--we could have left them in control of Sunni Iraq. They still had something of a fighting force left over, and they would surely have gotten Saudi help. By giving them something, we could have hoped to avoid the radicalization that led to Daesh/ISIS. I would expect that at some point they, very likely with Saudi help, would have allied with the Syrian Sunnis--2/3 of the Syrian population occupying the eastern 2/3 of the country--to oppose Damascus. We could have hoped for sort of ISIS without the radical element. Russia would probably have tried to help Damascus, but I think they would have had a hard time overcoming the religious and ethnic splits. If we retained some influence over the Sunnis, we could probably have talked them into letting the Kurdish area of NE Syria go over to Kurdistan.

We would have ended up with the map of the region that we probably should have gotten in 1920.

There was only one option. I need to create a distraction from my impeachment. I don't care if some people get killed on my watch. I need a distraction now.

In Iraq, we went in heavy enough to win the war but too light to win the peace. And then we disenfranchised the Baathists. Two huge mistakes.

Partitioning quickly would have been the right decision. Sunnis had to have Mosul because of the oil. Kurds get Kirkurk for its oil. Shiites get Basra and its oil fields. Baghdad would have been an issue, but its probably majority Shia.

(10-11-2019 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]In Iraq, we went in heavy enough to win the war but too light to win the peace. And then we disenfranchised the Baathists. Two huge mistakes.

Partitioning quickly would have been the right decision. Sunnis had to have Mosul because of the oil. Kurds get Kirkurk for its oil. Shiites get Basra and its oil fields. Baghdad would have been an issue, but its probably majority Shia.

which continues to lend to the point, "don't fight a war unless you intend to win."...

the war machine since WWII has been nothing but hogwash and continually lining pockets at the expense of US FAMILIES!

at least the last democrat with a fk'n clue figured it out....enter LBJ to the rescue for the continuance of 'tard fk'n.....

(10-11-2019 09:03 AM)cb4029 Wrote: [ -> ]There was only one option. I need to create a distraction from my impeachment. I don't care if some people get killed on my watch. I need a distraction now.

IMO, Trump is looking out for the troops in spite of the Dems circus going on around him. I applaud him for taking care of the troops while the Dems continue to care only about regaining power by any means necessary.