Trump pulls out of Syria

anatta is the poster girl for stupidity.

The American military units were raiding in ever greater number in 2004 and 2005, which was admitted by noise, and then anatta comes long with, "Duh, nuh uh."

What an idiot. Yes we have been in Africa and the Near and Middle East.

We need to stop and come home.

But we did not need to do it the way the Moron President Trump did it.

noise said:
special ops raids for counter -terrorism do not mean we are "in Somalia" any more then we were "in Libya" but do keep up the stupid conflation of a troop presence = a raid.. you are just digging that hole deeper. so you want out of AFRICOM as well? do you have any idea of what we do there? ( no)
Click to expand...
noise comes up with the silliest comparisons.

noise is so far in his own dug hole that he can't get out.

Yes, we were in Syria under Bush. Anyone who argues differently is an idiot and a homer for the Trump side.

We need to bring our troops home but that was not the way to do it.

I do enjoy hearing the neo-cons crying. That is sweet.
 
Last edited:
jimmymccready said:
anatta is the poster girl for stupidity.

The American military units were raiding in ever greater number in 2004 and 2005, which was admitted by noise, and then anatta comes long with, "Duh, nuh uh."

What an idiot. Yes we have been in Africa and the Near and Middle East.

We need to stop and come home.

But we did not need to do it the way the Mormon President Trump did it.

noise comes up with the silliest comparisons.

noise is so far in his own dug hole that he can't get out.

Yes, we were in Syria under Bush. Anyone who argues differently is an idiot and a homer for the Trump side.

We need to bring our troops home but that was not the way to do it.

I do enjoy hearing the neo-cons crying. That is sweet.
Click to expand...

AFRICOM is a specific cooperation between various states and US/Europe.

The examples I gave of Libya an Somalia were not in AFRICOM ( Lbya came in AFTER we killed Qadhafi)
and there is no government in Somalia to partner with.

So we were not in Somalia or Libya prior to the 2011 war. But we DID have CIA and special ops in each respectively.

I can't make it any clearer then that, but if y0u want to cling to a mantra that we were/are "in" either -go for it.
 
noise said:
I only know of 1, but even if we did run more raids we were no more "In Syria" then we were in Libya -
where we had CIA as well before we decided to assassinate Qadafi.

counter-terrorism raids are not forces in theater.
Click to expand...

"We" didn't assassinate Gaddafi.. He was killed by Libyans. Where is your proof that the CIA initiated the Arab Spring in Libya? I have known lots of CIA guys in the ME since I was a kid.. Its not like the novels and movie scripts the washouts produce.
 
kudzu said:
"We" didn't assassinate Gaddafi.. He was killed by Libyans. Where is your proof that the CIA initiated the Arab Spring in Libya? I have known lots of CIA guys in the ME since I was a kid.. Its not like the novels and movie scripts the washouts produce.
Click to expand...
I did not say the CIA "initiated the Arab Spring".
But Qadhafi was a a partner on anti-terrorism -specificallyLIFG ( Libyan Islamic Fighting group) - international terrorist.

Of course we assassinated him; we hit his convoy with a Predator ( as did the french) -that drove him to the drainage ditch where terrorists killed him. We made him a military target as well.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...f/news-story/f58be8c71d53d6cd27f6854185540b0e
Gaddafi, a long-time international pariah due to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other attacks blamed on Libyan spies, started to reconcile with the United States in 2003 and found common interests in fighting Al-Qaeda.

Speaking at a conference of the Marine Corps University, Mr Hayden said the CIA had worked well with Gaddafi and Mussa Kussa, the foreign minister who defected last month as Libyan forces moved against rebels.

"Whatever you think of Gaddafi and Mussa Kussa... they were good and they were good counter-terrorism partners," Mr Hayden told the conference near Washington.
 
noise said:
I did not say the CIA "initiated the Arab Spring".
But Qadhafi was a a partner on anti-terrorism -specificallyLIFG ( Libyan Islamic Fighting group) - international terrorist.

Of course we assassinated him; we hit his convoy with a Predator ( as did the french) -that drove him to the drainage ditch where terrorists killed him. We made him a military target as well.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...f/news-story/f58be8c71d53d6cd27f6854185540b0e
Gaddafi, a long-time international pariah due to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other attacks blamed on Libyan spies, started to reconcile with the United States in 2003 and found common interests in fighting Al-Qaeda.

Speaking at a conference of the Marine Corps University, Mr Hayden said the CIA had worked well with Gaddafi and Mussa Kussa, the foreign minister who defected last month as Libyan forces moved against rebels.

"Whatever you think of Gaddafi and Mussa Kussa... they were good and they were good counter-terrorism partners," Mr Hayden told the conference near Washington.
Click to expand...


Moammar Gadaffi’s government nationalized a lot of foreign oil facilities when it took power from King Idris in 1969, some major foreign, including U.S., oil companies have investments in Libya, in joint operations with the Libyan state. These include Marathon, Hess, Conoco, Gulf, Occidental, BP, Repasol (Spain), Eni (Italy) and Total (France) among others.

In 2009, Gadaffi started suggesting that he might nationalize the remaining foreign oil assets in Libya (AFRICOM had already been set up by that time), and he has renewed that threat since the NATO intervention began last week.

But right now sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union have reduced Libya’s oil exports to a trickle, resulting in a worldwide jump in fuel prices. A drastic intervention leading to the removal of Gadaffi and greater freedom of operation for these oil companies might well be part of the motive for the intervention, especially on the part of major European Union countries dependent on Libya for their energy needs.

Another reason given by some analysts for the creation of AFRICOM is as a counter to Chinese commercial advances in Africa. AFRICOM is mainly a military entity, but includes civil operations that are supposed to win the hearts and minds of Africans through development projects.

Carmel Davis, Chairman of Roger Holdings, Inc., raised this issue in a 2008 paper. To Davis, countering Chinese influence in Africa is good, because Chinese companies tend not to interfere with the existing governments of African countries in which they invest.

Davis feels that this is bad; he’d rather use American commerce to bring about political changes in African countries so that they can develop in a democratic capitalist direction.

Though Davis’ company seems to be involved with restaurants and not petroleum, he may be onto something when he says, “The experience of China may resonate with African leaders” because of the way China has achieved massive growth without loss of power by the ruling Communist Party.

Further “What China offers may also resonate: Instead of the conditionalities of aid provided by the Bretton Woods organizations [the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank] and Western governments influenced by NGOs and public opinion, China offers a market-oriented relationship with willing buyers who explicitly eschew conditionality.”

continued

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/africom-and-the-libya-war/
 
kudzu said:
Moammar Gadaffi’s government nationalized a lot of foreign oil facilities when it took power from King Idris in 1969, some major foreign, including U.S., oil companies have investments in Libya, in joint operations with the Libyan state. These include Marathon, Hess, Conoco, Gulf, Occidental, BP, Repasol (Spain), Eni (Italy) and Total (France) among others.

In 2009, Gadaffi started suggesting that he might nationalize the remaining foreign oil assets in Libya (AFRICOM had already been set up by that time), and he has renewed that threat since the NATO intervention began last week.

But right now sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union have reduced Libya’s oil exports to a trickle, resulting in a worldwide jump in fuel prices. A drastic intervention leading to the removal of Gadaffi and greater freedom of operation for these oil companies might well be part of the motive for the intervention, especially on the part of major European Union countries dependent on Libya for their energy needs.

Another reason given by some analysts for the creation of AFRICOM is as a counter to Chinese commercial advances in Africa. AFRICOM is mainly a military entity, but includes civil operations that are supposed to win the hearts and minds of Africans through development projects.

Carmel Davis, Chairman of Roger Holdings, Inc., raised this issue in a 2008 paper. To Davis, countering Chinese influence in Africa is good, because Chinese companies tend not to interfere with the existing governments of African countries in which they invest.

Davis feels that this is bad; he’d rather use American commerce to bring about political changes in African countries so that they can develop in a democratic capitalist direction.

Though Davis’ company seems to be involved with restaurants and not petroleum, he may be onto something when he says, “The experience of China may resonate with African leaders” because of the way China has achieved massive growth without loss of power by the ruling Communist Party.

Further “What China offers may also resonate: Instead of the conditionalities of aid provided by the Bretton Woods organizations [the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank] and Western governments influenced by NGOs and public opinion, China offers a market-oriented relationship with willing buyers who explicitly eschew conditionality.”

continued

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/africom-and-the-libya-war/
Click to expand...

Nationalizing for a countries own interests is the easiest way for a leader to get killed by the US. It is what we did in Iran when Mosadeq tried to take controi of Irans oil. It is our corporatiions and super wealthy who determine international and military affairs. Read Smedley Butlers confessions of a general fighting for corporate interests across the globe.This is not new, it is the American system.
 
noise said:
we cannot protect anyone. we especially can't do any power projection from 1 base in the middle of Syria.

It made sense to be there, and I'm more then willing to give credit to Obama for setting up the coalition.
( even if he screwed up taking on ISIS to begin with)

But this idea we can really do much of anything except coordinate with existing coalition players is false.

we did the job, and it's time for us to leave
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the military is not going to agree with you on that!

We actually appreciate our allies, and would never hang them out to dry!

We may make some changes in our Syrian and Middle East involvement, but we'll still be in the picture, stay tuned.
 
download-11-740x895.jpeg
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
We all know Russia tucked-tail and ran from Afghanistan when the going got tough!

SO, yeah! Your inquiry about the Russians stepping back in- in any capacity is a Mute Point!
Click to expand...

Points are moot. Mute is a button you click on lol.

Shouldn’t we be encouraging Vlad to get into more Quagmires? Maybe we should suggest Syria to him.
 
The neo-cons are losing the argument here.

Time to bring our troops home.

Strengthen our aid to other nations, improve our naval and air and space shields, and increase our spec ops units so that we can insert them and retrieve them immediately in real time where necessary overseas.

We have no need of large overseas bases any longer.
 
anatta said:
Syria is a Russian client state. They upgraded ( in process) Tartus into full drydock facilities - a real naval base.

They can have it and Hmeimim Air Base too. They have been helping out Libya as well since we destroyed their country.

I got no problem with Russia in the ME backing Assad either ( best of bad choices)
Click to expand...

Agreed. France also plans to up its participation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top