LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:38 am**

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:45 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:15 am
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:21 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:06 am Little late to be asking that question. You were warned that sending in a light foot print ran this risk. Better to have gotten out when Trump entered office.
...& not finish off ISIS ? How big a footprint would you have sent in ?
It was time to get out - YEARS AGO. If it was up to me, we wouldn't be there, we would have left years ago We would not have made promises to the Kurds; we would have let the Turks fight their own battle at a time when they did not want to. We have not defeated ISIS. We are back to whack-a-mole, as predicted.

But this is not the first time you have heard this from me. It is clowns like you who wanted this and now you have it. Choke on it!
It's a fair argument, though I disagree as to when our 'moral responsibility' began.
I'd say that once we went into Iraq, we were stuck with that obligation to see it through.
Same for Afghanistan.

But bailing on allies who have fought and died in your support is never OK.

Do any of us REALLY know whether we are bailing on the Kurds? I see hyperbole from both sides and have yet to see hard evidence of either side's position.

The Kurds are a very sympathetic people. We have been strong allies for each other in the region. It would be a shame if we have sealed their doom with this move - but I ask ... have we? Do we know that? Is it obvious to someone other than folks who slept in a Holiday Inn Express? You know, someone who actually knows what they are talking about and doesn't have a political ax to grind? Because I have yet to hear from that person in any news outlet I follow.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am**

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:38 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:45 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:15 am
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:21 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:06 am Little late to be asking that question. You were warned that sending in a light foot print ran this risk. Better to have gotten out when Trump entered office.
...& not finish off ISIS ? How big a footprint would you have sent in ?
It was time to get out - YEARS AGO. If it was up to me, we wouldn't be there, we would have left years ago We would not have made promises to the Kurds; we would have let the Turks fight their own battle at a time when they did not want to. We have not defeated ISIS. We are back to whack-a-mole, as predicted.

But this is not the first time you have heard this from me. It is clowns like you who wanted this and now you have it. Choke on it!
It's a fair argument, though I disagree as to when our 'moral responsibility' began.
I'd say that once we went into Iraq, we were stuck with that obligation to see it through.
Same for Afghanistan.

But bailing on allies who have fought and died in your support is never OK.
Do any of us REALLY know whether we are bailing on the Kurds? I see hyperbole from both sides and have yet to see hard evidence of either side's position.

The Kurds are a very sympathetic people. We have been strong allies for each other in the region. It would be a shame if we have sealed their doom with this move - but I ask ... have we? Do we know that? Is it obvious to someone other than folks who slept in a Holiday Inn Express? You know, someone who actually knows what they are talking about and doesn't have a political ax to grind? Because I have yet to hear from that person in any news outlet I follow.

Whoa, Trump declared we're out.
Didn't tell his military, didn't tell his advisors, didn't tell the IC, didn't tell allies, didn't tell the Kurds.
We don't yet know exactly what he told Erdogan or Putin.

Turks are bombing the Kurds today.

The GOP Senators are PO'd both because of the move and because he didn't tell them; indeed it's very, very clear they'd advised directly against such a move.

And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am**

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?

no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:53 am**

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:36 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:16 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:58 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:45 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:15 am
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:21 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:06 am Little late to be asking that question. You were warned that sending in a light foot print ran this risk. Better to have gotten out when Trump entered office.
...& not finish off ISIS ? How big a footprint would you have sent in ?
It was time to get out - YEARS AGO. If it was up to me, we wouldn't be there, we would have left years ago We would not have made promises to the Kurds; we would have let the Turks fight their own battle at a time when they did not want to. We have not defeated ISIS. We are back to whack-a-mole, as predicted.

But this is not the first time you have heard this from me. It is clowns like you who wanted this and now you have it. Choke on it!
It's a fair argument, though I disagree as to when our 'moral responsibility' began.
I'd say that once we went into Iraq, we were stuck with that obligation to see it through.
Same for Afghanistan.

But bailing on allies who have fought and died in your support is never OK.
There have been any number of off ramps where we could have left with a relatively clean position (infinitely cleaner than now), not to mention there was no reason to have invaded Iraq in the first place. We are no longer fighting the Iraq war and haven't been for years.
Again, fair argument.
But ISIS needed to be fought.
The Kurds were the primary fighters at our behest.
11,000 Kurds died in that fight.

The Turks are now striking those very same Kurdish forces, and we've actually green-lit that attack.
Agreed, we can't just leave now (although I would disagree that ISIS was ever ours to fight and certainly not under the circumstances we chose to). We now have to push more chips in with the attendant consequences and likely American loss of life. This by the way is exactly the scenario I outlined when we decided to listen to Mattis et. al., a small US force being nothing more than a "hostage" force.
Again, fair argument. What if's.

However, how many of our troops have died battling ISIS in Syria/Iraq?

Obviously the loss of any life is awful, but seems to me that ISIS presented all sorts of incredible evil to the world that we needed to play a role in defeating. We asked the Kurds to do the vast majority of the fighting and dying; now we abandon them to a brutal dictator with Russian support.

Not when the Arab states in the area didn't want to be part of the solution. ISIS was a very very small threat to the US and a very very large threat to these states. We made it easy for these states to do essentially nothing. The only ones who really fought were the Kurds, in hopes of winning a state for themselves. Now that the immediate threat to these states (I am talking about you Turkey) has been relieved, it is time to settle scores with the Kurds. Turkey has out played us, because we have allowed ourselves to be out played. If we had simply said adios and left the problem in the hands of the Arabs the situation would have resolved itself. Either the states in the region would have solved it, or ISIS would be a real state and no more dangerous to us than the existing states. Sure give the states who wanted to fight ISIS military aid / equipment, but that is it. Not fight their war for them!

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am**

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:02 am**

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

No, it was apparently not known in the chain of command.
It's now known that we are standing down, no longer shielding our allies.
Which means no air cover, no intelligence, no military response to attacks.

The Turks have officially said they are now attacking "militants.
But they also say that ALL Kurds are "militants" and "terrorists".
They make no differentiation, ever.

We know that. We're standing down.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am**

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.

You might phrase that a little differently as what America's elected representatives in Congress, both sides of the aisle, want. As well as the counsel of the generals.

Instead of what Erdogan and Putin and Assad and ISIS (and Salty) want.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am**

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.
You might phrase that a little differently as what America's elected representatives in Congress, both sides of the aisle, want. As well as the counsel of the generals.

Instead of what Erdogan and Putin and Assad and ISIS (and Salty) want.

Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).

You fools act like we have the leverage of an occupying army. We control no territory. We have a tiny embedded enabler force, operating out of Turkish bases. We didn't make the investment so we don't have a say in the post war settlement, unless we're ready to now send in an occupying force & pick up the tab for reconstruction.

What I don't want is our troops used as hostages in a position where they can't defend themselves.
They should never have been put in that position to start with.
You act as if the Kurds moved in to fight our battle. They were invaded by ISIS. We helped them repel the invader.
They've had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan, just like the Iraqi Kurds did.
They need to let the displaced Syrian Arabs back in. This was inevitable.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:08 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.
You might phrase that a little differently as what America's elected representatives in Congress, both sides of the aisle, want. As well as the counsel of the generals.

Instead of what Erdogan and Putin and Assad and ISIS (and Salty) want.
Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).

You fools act like we have the leverage of an occupying army. We control no territory. We have a tiny embedded enabler force, operating out of Turkish bases. We didn't make the investment so we don't have a say in the post war settlement, unless we're ready to now send in an occupying force & pick up the tab for reconstruction.

What I don't want is our troops used as hostages in a position where they can't defend themselves.
They should never have been put in that position to start with.
You act as if the Kurds moved in to fight our battle. They were invaded by ISIS. We helped them repel the invader.
They've had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan, just like the Iraqi Kurds did.
They need to let the displaced Syrian Arabs back in. This was inevitable.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even seem to understand the basic fundamentals here.

Earlier, you claimed Turkey wouldn’t start the slaughter of the Kurds while Turkey was trying to get back into the F-35 program. Turkey has already begun ... because Turkey has Trump’s endorsement to wipe them out.

You claim the U.S. has no leverage here. Ridiculous ... the United States has substantial economic, diplomatic, and military leverage over Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO. The U.S. is the primary supporter of the Kurds. Trump made an impulsive decision to garner favor with Erdogan (Trump Towers Istanbul?) and abandon the Kurds. The WH, Pentagon, State Department, and Congress are scrambling to deal with this impulsive decision (needless to mention the Kurds).

You say the Kurds have “had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan?” Are you kidding me? The Kurds have fought against the Turks since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The PKK alone has been fighting against Turkey for four decades. The Kurds in the SDF won’t give up a fight that Kurds have been waging for over two dozen generations. If by “ample” you mean anything less than two centuries, then NO, there hasn’t been ample time for reconciliation.

Unbelievable ....

DocBarrister

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:26 pm**

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:08 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.
You might phrase that a little differently as what America's elected representatives in Congress, both sides of the aisle, want. As well as the counsel of the generals.

Instead of what Erdogan and Putin and Assad and ISIS (and Salty) want.
Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).

You fools act like we have the leverage of an occupying army. We control no territory. We have a tiny embedded enabler force, operating out of Turkish bases. We didn't make the investment so we don't have a say in the post war settlement, unless we're ready to now send in an occupying force & pick up the tab for reconstruction.

What I don't want is our troops used as hostages in a position where they can't defend themselves.
They should never have been put in that position to start with.
You act as if the Kurds moved in to fight our battle. They were invaded by ISIS. We helped them repel the invader.
They've had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan, just like the Iraqi Kurds did.
They need to let the displaced Syrian Arabs back in. This was inevitable.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even seem to understand the basic fundamentals here.

Earlier, you claimed Turkey wouldn’t start the slaughter of the Kurds while Turkey was trying to get back into the F-35 program. Turkey has already begun ... because Turkey has Trump’s endorsement to wipe them out.

You claim the U.S. has no leverage here. Ridiculous ... the United States has substantial economic, diplomatic, and military leverage over Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO. The U.S. is the primary supporter of the Kurds. Trump made an impulsive decision to garner favor with Erdogan (Trump Towers Istanbul?) and abandon the Kurds. The WH, Pentagon, State Department, and Congress are scrambling to deal with this impulsive decision (needless to mention the Kurds).

You say the Kurds have “had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan?” Are you kidding me? The Kurds have fought against the Turks since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The PKK alone has been fighting against Turkey for four decades. The Kurds in the SDF won’t give up a fight that Kurds have been waging for over two dozen generations. If by “ample” you mean anything less than two centuries, then NO, there hasn’t been ample time for reconciliation.

Unbelievable ....

DocBarrister

His tongue must be raw by now.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:29 pm**

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:08 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.
You might phrase that a little differently as what America's elected representatives in Congress, both sides of the aisle, want. As well as the counsel of the generals.

Instead of what Erdogan and Putin and Assad and ISIS (and Salty) want.
Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).

You fools act like we have the leverage of an occupying army. We control no territory. We have a tiny embedded enabler force, operating out of Turkish bases. We didn't make the investment so we don't have a say in the post war settlement, unless we're ready to now send in an occupying force & pick up the tab for reconstruction.

What I don't want is our troops used as hostages in a position where they can't defend themselves.
They should never have been put in that position to start with.
You act as if the Kurds moved in to fight our battle. They were invaded by ISIS. We helped them repel the invader.
They've had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan, just like the Iraqi Kurds did.
They need to let the displaced Syrian Arabs back in. This was inevitable.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even seem to understand the basic fundamentals here.

Earlier, you claimed Turkey wouldn’t start the slaughter of the Kurds while Turkey was trying to get back into the F-35 program. Turkey has already begun ... because Turkey has Trump’s endorsement to wipe them out.

You claim the U.S. has no leverage here. Ridiculous ... the United States has substantial economic, diplomatic, and military leverage over Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO. The U.S. is the primary supporter of the Kurds. Trump made an impulsive decision to garner favor with Erdogan (Trump Towers Istanbul?) and abandon the Kurds. The WH, Pentagon, State Department, and Congress are scrambling to deal with this impulsive decision (needless to mention the Kurds).

You say the Kurds have “had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan?” Are you kidding me? The Kurds have fought against the Turks since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The PKK alone has been fighting against Turkey for four decades. If by “ample” you mean anything less than two centuries, then NO, there hasn’t been ample time for reconciliation.

Unbelievable ....

DocBarrister

Trump has not endorsed the " slaughter of the Kurds". That's hyperbole.
If Kurds are "slaughtered", it will be because they resist or don't fall back to the south, ahead of an advancing superior Turkish force.

Our lack of effective diplomatic, economic & military leverage over Turkey got us to this point.
We're operating out of Turkish bases, at their discretion.
We failed to make the commitment on the ground in Syria when it mattered.
Now you think we can dictate terms for the post war reconstruction ?
Turkey's waited a year since IS was defeated to begin resettling their Syrian refugees.
The Kurds had their chance to reach an accommodation -- the Syrian Arabs & Turkmen need to return home.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:39 pm**

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:26 pm
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:08 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:44 am And you're really questioning whether Trump did this?
no I am not questioning whether Trump made the order.

But for that order to have been enacted that quickly - it was known in the chain of command.

More importantly - I was asking a question (or a bunch of muddled questions). The main one being: are they bombing the Kurds? I have no idea what the targets that are listed include. Are they ISIS strongholds? Kurdish pre-schools? I have no idea. I have yet to hear anyone say WHAT the presumed targets are - the only definitive thing I have heard are lists of towns.

I would actually like to know what is happening on the ground and what real experts - not blinded by being overly pro-Trump or anti-Trump have to say on the matter.

They have apparently bombed some bridges that would allow for Kurdish reinforcement, or presumably retreat. But I agree, the info coming out of the area and reported by the MSM is not much. I still believe that Trump will cave under pressure and give the generals what they want.
You might phrase that a little differently as what America's elected representatives in Congress, both sides of the aisle, want. As well as the counsel of the generals.

Instead of what Erdogan and Putin and Assad and ISIS (and Salty) want.
Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).

You fools act like we have the leverage of an occupying army. We control no territory. We have a tiny embedded enabler force, operating out of Turkish bases. We didn't make the investment so we don't have a say in the post war settlement, unless we're ready to now send in an occupying force & pick up the tab for reconstruction.

What I don't want is our troops used as hostages in a position where they can't defend themselves.
They should never have been put in that position to start with.
You act as if the Kurds moved in to fight our battle. They were invaded by ISIS. We helped them repel the invader.
They've had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan, just like the Iraqi Kurds did.
They need to let the displaced Syrian Arabs back in. This was inevitable.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even seem to understand the basic fundamentals here.

Earlier, you claimed Turkey wouldn’t start the slaughter of the Kurds while Turkey was trying to get back into the F-35 program. Turkey has already begun ... because Turkey has Trump’s endorsement to wipe them out.

You claim the U.S. has no leverage here. Ridiculous ... the United States has substantial economic, diplomatic, and military leverage over Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO. The U.S. is the primary supporter of the Kurds. Trump made an impulsive decision to garner favor with Erdogan (Trump Towers Istanbul?) and abandon the Kurds. The WH, Pentagon, State Department, and Congress are scrambling to deal with this impulsive decision (needless to mention the Kurds).

You say the Kurds have “had ample time to reconcile with Erdogan?” Are you kidding me? The Kurds have fought against the Turks since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The PKK alone has been fighting against Turkey for four decades. The Kurds in the SDF won’t give up a fight that Kurds have been waging for over two dozen generations. If by “ample” you mean anything less than two centuries, then NO, there hasn’t been ample time for reconciliation.

Unbelievable ....

DocBarrister
His tongue must be raw by now.

...& you prefer to lick the PKK terrorists cojones.
Turkey is our NATO ally. We've declared the PKK terrorists.
The Turks are returning displaced Syrian refugees to their homeland.
The Kurds can welcome them home or die resisting.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:42 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).

This is exactly why I'm overjoyed we're getting out of there.

If you ask a military guy what to do, this is what they'll tell you. Move in a larger force with air support------and now Americans are in yet another country that we can never leave.

Hard pass. I don't understand why everyone here isn't happy our men and women are leaving.

The part I vehemently disagree with old salt on is that we have no leverage over Turkey.

Plenty of tools in the toolbox.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:52 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:42 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).
This is exactly why I'm overjoyed we're getting out of there.

If you ask a military guy what to do, this is what they'll tell you. Move in a larger force with air support------and now Americans are in yet another country that we can never leave.

Hard pass. I don't understand why everyone here isn't happy our men and women are leaving.

The part I vehemently disagree with old salt on is that we have no leverage over Turkey.

Plenty of tools in the toolbox.

We made this choice when we elected not to go into Syria before the Russians did.
We had a chance to help Kurdish NE Syria develop like the Iraqi Kurdistan did (which we successfully departed).
I told you then that we wouldn't have a seat at the table when the Russians, Turks & Iranians began redrawing the post war map.
We don't have any skin in the game, ...except 50 hostage soldiers.
Re leverage -- Turkey's assembling their Russian S-400 air defense system.
We've used up our leverage with Turkey, unless you want to blow up NATO.
Look at our other NATO allies wielding their leverage on Turkey. ...strong letter to follow.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:04 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:52 pm Re leverage -- Turkey's assembling their Russian S-400 air defense system.
We've used up our leverage with Turkey, unless you want to blow up NATO.

Of course I personally want them out of NATO.

I can't imagine a more ridiculous situation than letting a NATO ally buy military hardware from Russia.

I mean that's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like Canada buying weapons from the Nazi's during WII. In what world would that not immediately boot the Canadians out of the Allies forces?

Then you have the option placee financial sanctions on Turkey.

But clearly no one in the EU cares. Which is yet one more checkmark as to why our troops shouldn't be anywhere near this region.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:13 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:04 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:52 pm Re leverage -- Turkey's assembling their Russian S-400 air defense system.
We've used up our leverage with Turkey, unless you want to blow up NATO.
Of course I personally want them out of NATO.

I can't imagine a more ridiculous situation than letting a NATO ally buy military hardware from Russia.

I mean that's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like Canada buying weapons from the Nazi's during WII. In what world would that not immediately boot the Canadians out of the Allies forces?

Then you have the option to financial sanctions on Turkey.

But clearly no one in the EU cares. Which is yet one more checkmark as to why our troops shouldn't be anywhere near this region.

Sure the EU cares. Look at their stern rhetoric :

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/ ... 44162.html

The secretary-general of NATO is urging Turkey not to "further destabilize the region" through its military action in northern Syria.

Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference in Rome that Turkey, a NATO ally, "has legitimate security concerns," having suffered "horrendous terrorist attacks" and hosting thousands of refugees.

He said NATO has been informed about Turkey's ongoing operation in northern Syria. And he added "it is important to avoid actions that may further destabilize the region, escalate tensions and cause more human suffering."

He said Turkey should act with "restraint" and any action should be "proportionate."

Stoltenberg will discuss the military action with Turkey's leader on Friday in Istanbul.

A top European Union official is calling on Turkey to halt its military operation in northern Syria and is warning that the EU will not be paying to help Ankara set up any safe zone there.

Speaking to EU lawmakers Wednesday, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said: "I call on Turkey as well as on the other actors to act with restraint and to stop operations already, as we are speaking, underway."

While acknowledging that Turkey has security concerns on its border with Syria, Juncker says that "if the Turkish plan involves the creation of a so-called safe zone, don't expect the European Union to pay for any of it."

The EU is paying Turkey 6 billion euros ($6.6 billion) to help the country cope with almost 4 million Syrian refugees on its territory in exchange for stopping migrants leaving for Europe. But Ankara is seeking more money amid concerns that thousands of Syrians could soon cross its border

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:15 pm**

Right. Another vote for pulling our troops out of the region entirely.

Speaking of that, why is this the only place Trump is pulling our troops out? What about all the other places?

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:35 pm**

If Trump draws down in Europe, he's Putin's puppet, undermining NATO.

Every time he hints drawing down in Afghanistan, he get's a full court press about it becoming a haven for AQ & IS.

He'd like to draw down in S Korea & Japan, but it's our biggest chip with N Korea & China.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:48 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:42 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:42 am Stop telling me what I want. You are clueless, as to what I want.
If I had my way, we'd had made NE Syria a safe zone/no fly area BEFORE Russia moved in (& likely would have deterred Russia from doing so).
This is exactly why I'm overjoyed we're getting out of there.

If you ask a military guy what to do, this is what they'll tell you. Move in a larger force with air support------and now Americans are in yet another country that we can never leave.

Hard pass. I don't understand why everyone here isn't happy our men and women are leaving.

The part I vehemently disagree with old salt on is that we have no leverage over Turkey.

Plenty of tools in the toolbox.

You can’t just suddenly betray and abandon a military ally and leave them to annihilation. U.S. allies all over the world, whether members of NATO or tribal allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, tend to notice such things.

Last week, the Kurds in the SDF were our steadfast allies in Syria.

Today, they are being bombarded by Turkey with the endorsement of the President of the United States.

There’s also the small issue of over 10,000 ISIS fighters being guarded by the Kurds who may now go free.

You don’t see a problem with any of that?!? Seriously?!?

DocBarrister

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:48 pm**

Seems that he hasn't drawn down because he can't, since nothing has changed.

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security

Re: The Politics of National Security