out of Syria (ordered) out of Afghanistan (started) out of Iraq (next?) It seems that Trump had granted defence several "6 month extensions in Syria" and finally said "No more!" as/re Afghanistan see: https://theprint.in/opinion/india-needs-an-action-plan-after-us-troops-leave-afghanistan/168593/
Well, maybe Trump, his supporters, and the GOP should probably look at Syria as something else other than a political playground full of nonwhites for the killing. And that includes people like you who carried water while trying to pretend otherwise. It seems? Yeah, it seems Trump, his Party, and his antisocial advocates, are just a bunch of bloodthirsty supremacists just looking for an excuse. Because it seems that if that wasn't true, maybe Trump's Party and antisocial supporters could have failed to deliberately botch Iraq and Syria. You're all pretty disgusting. But, hey, at least you don't have to put up with a woman in the White House. Congratulations.
Ain't we killed enough people in syria to satisfy your bloodlust? How much longer did you want us to stay? How many more dead will it take for you to realize that the USA military should just stop participating?
Actually it's mostly Syrians fighting ISIS, not Americans. We're training the Syrians. I guess we are fortunate that the US didn't have more people like you back in the 1940's.
I am not a fan of these wars, I just don't think a moron tweeting on the shitter without notifying allies or the military is the way to go.
Another superpower using the Kurds to do their fighting, then throwing them under another bus. Nothing new there. https://www.capebretonpost.com/opinion/columnists/gwynne-dyer-the-kurds-betrayed-again-271358/
Over the past year Trump gave military leaders several “extensions” to finish their work in Syria. “They asked again recently, 'Could we have more time?' Trump said, ‘Nope. You can’t have any more time.
The appeal to "how many more dead" just doesn't work: The United States created by its actions certain results; history tells quite clearly what happens when we simply walk away from these atrocities. Your dualism is fallacious: People are going to die. But, hey, who cares about fallacy, right? At least you got to write that post. Just like pretending you care about the people who are going to die is complete bullshit. One of the unfortunate things about not-quite arbitrary symbols like the turning of the year is that it does encourage certain manners of reflection that can bring much negative emotion. This is a year in which the United States opened internment camps for children, using them for informal medical experimentation, and supervising their deaths in custody. By the time we get down the list of everything that has gone wrong in terms of the United States to President Trump's personal War On Christmas, the point of the politic being antisocial ought to be rather quite indelibly and unmistakably clear. And there are some people for whom these outcomes are precisely what they voted for. The rest just won't admit it. Nonetheless, just like it's been for how long in history—really, people ought to have learned by now—it not quite doesn't matter that people were told; they really, really wanted this even if they won't acknowledge it explicitly: In all the years this version of the swindle has been going on, the only thing the supporting masses get out of it are the supremacism and concomitant brutality. Not the voodoo economics. Not the magic salvation of heterosexual Christian marriage. Not the lower crime rate. Nothing. The only thing they get out of it is the preservation of asserting and effecting traditionalist supremacism under law as both entitlement of merit and equal protection; it's kind of a rush, even I can imagine, to believe one is not being treated equally unless they are treated as superior. In the moment, I suppose, they're getting something superficial and ephemeral; there is a sense of spectacle about it, like a pro-wrestling presidency. But as everyone else scrambles to clean up after the GOP's trump-card presidency, conservatives will push to the front of the line in order to complain that the mess exists at all. We've been through this, over and over again in American history. Meanwhile, what emerges is a postpolicy marketplace; if it seems weirdly counterintuitive, well, it is. The Bernie Sanders candidacy was strange in a particular context because it seemed willing to attempt to meet the postpolicy challenge. Unfortunately, the advocates cannot even properly describe what they were doing insofar as the pitch seemed to generate excitement for an idea and perhaps crowdsource the solution; and while there is merit to the idea in general, there was nothing to go on. Or, well, I can take that back: Apparently, everything would work out if we achieved somewhere over five percent annual GDP growth throughout a ridiculous period. Honestly, we had just laughed at Republicans for pitching four and then four and a half percent annually for four years. As a juxtaposition, Trump on Syria is extraordinarily rougher. You would take that self-righteous position, sure, because it fits your political need in the moment, but this announced policy shift is undertaken blindly, and if the President intends to crowdsource his way through this drastic change, then we might expect a limited range of outcomes. To the one, the brass up and turn tail blindly, per the President's orders, and the death count virtually inevitably rises. To the other, the brass begin engineering a long-term plan to exit with some pretense of responsibility, in which case, the death toll continues pretty much as it is, at least. Honestly, you could come up with a better argument. But, in the meantime, remember— —one of the reasons we're in this as we are is because Trump's Party both wanted the U.S. involved but weren't willing to authorize the operation, thus leaving executives to keep coming back for extensions. We could have stayed out, we could have gotten in; wedipped our toe halfway the way we did for the sake of Republicans. Thoughtless opportunism is neither rational nore useful, and that goes for both you and Trump. For your part, if you're nearly as smart as you think you are, and if your appeal to the death toll is anything near to genuine, then you ought to be able to comprehend the dangers of tucking tail and running from Daa'ish in order for Donald Trump to distract from the troubles he faces at home. How we get out of Syria is a vital question; it's going to take a while, so maybe skip the fallacious appeals to emotion, because, really, the Trump twist is simply the latest turn in a known pursuit of barbarism against nations populated by Muslims that we've known about ever since a twenty-six year-old rejected National Security Strategy was reintroduced and implemented 2002. It's one of the ways we knew the argument against Clinton wasn't really about the policies. That is, sure, we can predict the Democratic centrist line on wars Republicans got us into; we can also predict the warring result of empowering Republicans. While it is perfectly valid to reject Democratic institutional tendencies toward warmongering, every once in a while the solution ought to aim to reduce the death toll, so electing Republicans just doesn't seem to match up with the complaint. A precipitous withdrawal will only increase the death toll; a careful extrication will take a while and continue spending lives. Your cynicism toward "people in Syria" tells us a bit about your own bloodlust. † On Edit: Y'know, we have it from Mr. Trump, himself: "We have defeated ISIS in Syria," the President tweeted↱, "my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency." And we all know that's bullshit. So now you're making up this story, or did you get it from somewhere? Yeah, seriously, don't give us croco'tears about about the death toll. ____________________ Notes: @realDonaldTrump. "We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency." Twitter. 19 December 2018. Twitter.com. 27 December 2018. http://bit.ly/2EQPUON (Edit note: Revise & extend my remarks; 14.32 PT.)
How quickly they forget. Under Obama and Clinton, the cia started this regime change war in Syria and then supplied the rebels along with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc in an attempt to overthrow a sovereign state which weakened them enough to open a window of opportunity for isis/isil. Remember: Obama's mantra: "Assad must go"? Obama/Clinton created this mess and we have spent billions and are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in an ill fated regime change attempt. Meanwhile, we are trillions in debt and have some serious problems here at home. We never should have started these regime change insanities. Maybe it is time that we quit. Or did you want this to last much much longer with no end in sight?
Are you saying there was no American presence in the region before 2008? Or that no previous American interventions had propped up corrupt/opportunist dictators or destabilized political balances in the region before 2008? And all of that happened between 2008 and 2016? Well, at least in getting rid of the debt, the fiscally responsible Trump administration has been making significant progress, yes? And solving the domestic problems, too, like better health insurance plan, and more soldiers apprehending hungry children at the border.
The rebellion was already in full swing, Syrian soldiers were defecting to the rebels and Assad was releasing terrorists from his prisons before any of that stuff happened.
2006-2011 Prior to the onset of the Syrian war, the U.S. stirs up opposition to Syrian government (Assad). An April 18, 2011 article reads “Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years, The Washington Post reports.” March 2011 Daraa violence launches Syrian war. “The Daraa ‘protest movement’ on March 17-18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence.” “In Daraa, roof top snipers were targeting both police and demonstrators.” https://www.globalresearch.ca/timeline-of-cia-interventions-in-syria/5479875 War, 2011–2017[edit] Main articles: Timber Sycamore and American-led intervention in Syria WikiLeaks has reported that the U.S. government has been covertly funding the Syrian opposition since 2006.[40] Special Activities Division teams are speculated to have been deployed to Syria during the uprising to ascertain rebel groups, leadership and potential supply routes.[41] In early September 2013, President Barack Obama told U.S. Senators that the CIA had trained the first 50-man insurgent element and that they had been inserted into Syria.[42] The deployment of this unit and the supplying of weapons may be the first tangible measure of support since the U.S. stated they would begin providing assistance to the opposition.[43][44]However, the CIA had been facilitating the flow of arms from Libya to Syria "for more than a year" beforehand in collaboration with "the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar"; "the operation was largely run out of a covert CIA annex in Benghazi." U.S. military intelligence predicted "the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria's takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya."[45] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria Columbia University professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, a writer of foreign policy textbooks and special adviser to the United Nations, issued a special plea to President Trump to stop the war in Syria now ... "And so what I would plead to President Trump is: Get out, like your instinct told you... Get out. We've done enough damage in seven years," Sachs explained: "This [Syrian civil war] happened because of [the United States]. These 600,000 [dead] are not just incidental. [The United States] started a war to overthrow a regime. It was covert. It was Operation: Timber Sycamore, people can look it up, the CIA operation. Together with Saudi Arabia, still shrouded in secrecy... A major war effort shrouded in secrecy, never debated by Congress, never explained to the American people. Signed by President Obama. Never explained."
It seems odd to me that so many would find fault with ending a war, while so few found fault with starting one.
Many, many, many found fault with starting all of them!! Ending a war - any of the hundred or more undeclared military actions in progress - would be fine - great - wonderful! If only they could be ended without leaving somebody else holding the dirty end of an explosive stick. You don't end a war by just walking away. You end a war by working out a treaty and establishing third-party oversight and arbitration of the conflict, insuring protection for your allies, neutralizing the instigators, securing the civilian population and reinstating vital services. You clean up your messes. And that's a lot more complicated (and a lot less profitable) than making them was.
I confess, I had a "Norman coordinate Norman Coordinate" moment, upon hearing Trump is pulling troops out of Syria. I have always despised Jingoism, but when Trump announced he was pulling troops out of Syria, I had a brief flash where I hated anything Trump likes more than I hated war. It was a weird moment.
globalresearch.ca is a private blog, not an accredited news source. Nice to know that they feel completely certain about the culprits in the Syrian war, even though they can't decide whether it was the CIA, Mossad or both. Your source says the second part only occurred in 2012 at the earliest, after the rebellion was already in full swing. As to the US funding of opposition groups and other forms of incitement prior to the war, let's say for argument's sake that it's all true. So the appropriate answer, in your mind, is for the regime to brutalize and massacre everyone involved in protests that may or may not relate to such funding? If someone funds a protest and then the target of the protest responds by shooting everyone, who's the greater villain? Would such a massacre not justify the purpose of the original protest, and would it not also justify external assistance to those who lack the basic right to express themselves? Let's see now, we know that the NRA accepts cheques from the Kremlin and meets with their leaders. Next time they speak out for private gun ownership, perhaps you feel they deserve a taste of their own medicine? Maybe abduct and torture some of their kids to death for good measure, just like your heroes in Damascus? Palestinians get global funding to stage riots and protests all the time, do you advocate Israeli air force bombing in response? Do you actually want people to believe you really care about 600,000 Syrian deaths? I'm asking because I've never seen you make an effort to convince anyone. I guess you missed the whole part where Obama called Assad a mass-murdering dictator who gasses his own people. It was before trump took office, so I can forgive you if the memories seem vague.
Well, that's because you're not paying attention. Show me the end of a war. Show me the start of one. It wasn't even 1941, by what you offered, when President Roosevelt started a war in Germany. That is, according to the Sachs-TS standard presented, the U.S. started a war in Germany on 5 November 1939, which probably would have been news to Congress and the President. At any rate, let us, then, rewind to Timber Sycamore, and tell all the professional hands no; thus it never comes to the president and is never enacted. The Syrian Civil War was already underway, and the Assad government had just announced it had chemical weapons. The world has seen that moment before, and will see it again. The reason Americans shouldn't go is that while we are very good at making and settling wars when we are so inclined, we just haven't felt inclined over the course of recent decades; we're not as much into the settling as we are the picking and starting. But this is generally our mess; JTJ might have anti-Soviet reactionary prehistory, but we Americans empowered its transformation into Daa'ish. Regardless of what had come before, because of what Bush did, no matter how much you or I or any other American, holding the privilege of the presidency, would otherwise disdain war, and the wars our predecessors had gotten us into, most of us would have sent troops for the Yazidi. I'm trying to think what Obama could have won us by reneging the Iraqi-Bush SOFA and 2011 deadline, but it's probably important to recall that point as one or another of the allegedly sober Republicans supposedly making some sort of stand against Trump's excesses tried to mitigate the President's rash decision by comparing it to Obama's refusal to disrupt yearslong planning according to an agreement secured by his Republican predecessor. And here I will invoke a particular generalism: Most people, sir, can tell the difference. Yeah, invading Iraq apparently wasn't a bad idea, by this neoconservative argument, but how dare George W. Bush negotiate a withdrawal giving the military a period of years to figure out how to do it. Meanwhile, for President Trump, this is nothing more than twittery; on the seventh day of shutdown, one or another specialist of some sort could be heard discussing, with Ayman Mohyeldin, the points of what we weren't talking about, and toward that end it is worth nothing presidents usually start or escalate wars when warring to distract from other scandal. Still, as I suggested before, if the President intends to crowdsource his way through this drastic change, then we might expect a limited range of outcomes. And he's going to need to find the leadership team to pull it off; in addition to SecDef's resignation, Trump's policy shift has also cost him the Special Presidential Envoy to the coalition aligned against Daa'ish. To the other, Donald Trump has effed up so badly at this point that the public discourse has yet to get around to the implications of standing against Daa'ish in Iraq while bolting from Syria. And it might not insofar as it really is hard to imagine the Pentagon effecting a lightning withdrawal from Syria. Revisionist talking points, though, aren't helpful. Meanwhile, the withdrawal from Afghanistan that was underway stopped in 2015, and delayed again in 2016; Trump increased the troop presence. At the very least, ordering the Pentagon to draw up plans, which pretty much any president can do, is more than he managed for Syria. Such as it is, military commanders on the ground are telling troops they have no new orders, and are using the word "rumors" a lot when answering the press. So, really, the insincere, trumpist talking points do kind of stand out.
Why do you believe the things Trump says? Who are you talking about? The people who found plenty of fault with the launching of this play of the horrorshow are finding plenty of fault with the manner of its execution. That seems entirely not odd, eh?
I do not like TRump. I dislike war even more. (that goes deep) Meanwhile TRump went public about ordering an exit from Syria last February. (what if anything happened before that remains classified) If that (deleted expletives) person in the office of president will get us out of the accumulated silly regime change military adventurism of his predecessors: (and doesn't start a new "war") Then he will have done all that I wanted of him. So Speaking of countries destroyed by the previous (deleted expletives) person(s) holding the office of president: Is anyone doing anything for the Libyans? ............................... fyi The last time the USA declared war was in 1942. and yet We so casually use the word "war"..............................................how odd?
