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

[MDlaxfan76]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Did you watch Amb Jeffrey ? He testified that until Erdogan's ph call, all mil to mil & dip to dip relations with Turkey were that the Joint Security Mechanism was working.

Leaving them to die and badmouthing them on the way out.
Cut and run.

Arm chair Generals, happy to let other people's sons serve as tethered goats to find out if Erdogan was bluffing.

You're back to that nonsense after being so reasonable these past few pages. You know that's not what I said.
Come on back to reasonable and informative.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Since when has a tinpot dictator like Erdogan been able to push around our POTUS?

[old salt]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Did you watch Amb Jeffrey ? He testified that until Erdogan's ph call, all mil to mil & dip to dip relations with Turkey were that the Joint Security Mechanism was working.

Leaving them to die and badmouthing them on the way out.
Cut and run.

Arm chair Generals, happy to let other people's sons serve as tethered goats to find out if Erdogan was bluffing.

You're back to that nonsense after being so reasonable these past few pages. You know that's not what I said.
Come on back to reasonable and informative.

You're back to trash talking with your " leaving them to die & cut & run " bs.

No, they were within the parameters of "stated US policy" as stated over quite a few years, not to mention approved policy throughout the chain of command.

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

[youthathletics]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Since when has a tinpot dictator like Erdogan been able to push around our POTUS?

When we wanted to take out the ISIS leader and make it appear like they were gaining strength. That helps the Kurds when ISIS is not around, no? Not to mention the Kurds supposedly guided us to Baghdadi.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Since when has a tinpot dictator like Erdogan been able to push around our POTUS?

When we wanted to take out the ISIS leader and make it appear like they were gaining strength. That helps the Kurds when ISIS is not around, no? Not to mention the Kurds supposedly guided us to Baghdadi.

Wat?

[youthathletics]

It was all part of the plan. It is seldom as it seems.

[wahoomurf]

An MLB umpire threatened to start a CIVAL war if HIS President is impeached? The personal lawyer for the Current U.S. Head of State, who doubles as the AG of the United States of America, was asked if that chap would face justice. The attorney dismissed the ump's tweet as merely a silly CAVIL.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ts-wrapper

The stupidity of these folks is only matched by the danger they actually do represent.

Man, we need some healing.

Some day soon...I pray.

[holmes435]

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

ISIS is destroyed? That's news to me (and the rest of the world).

Welp, time to break out the champagne!!! You heard it from OS / RR first, ISIS is destroyed!

[old salt]

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

ISIS is destroyed? That's news to me (and the rest of the world).

Welp, time to break out the champagne!!! You heard it from OS first, ISIS is destroyed!

As usual, lying about what I said.
Did not say IS was destroyed.
That is our stated mission for being there.
...& you criticize Trump for gas lighting.

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS.
I sympathize with his sense of betrayal. Every time he appears on MSNBC, he becomes more like Lawrence of Arabia,

I'm all for staying to protect the Kurds & to keep Iran out, & always was.
Obama & Trump were not willing to state that as our policy.
Anybody else willing to join me in asserting that we should stay in Syria beyond destroying the caliphate,
...or do you just want to be able to criticize Trump ?

[old salt]

Hah ! France24 reporting that the Baghdadi raid launched out of Al Assad air base in W Iraq, not Erbil in Kurdish NW Iraq, as reported in multiple US media.
https://www.france24.com/en/20191029-us ... lly-turkey

That's where I suspected it was from. given the force composition.
I also didn't see how Chinooks could fly from Erbil to Idlib in just 1 hr 10 min,
avoiding Russian, Syrian & Turkish air defenses along the border buffer zone, as reported.
US officials have refrained from saying from where the raid originated.
Not sure how current Googlemaps sat imagery is, but it shows multiple helos & C-130's based at Al Assad.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ain+A ... d42.442989

If the raid did originate out of Al Assad rather than Erbil, it blows up the whole NYT/WP/MSNBC canard that Trump's decision to withdraw complicated mission planning & made it more risky.

[MDlaxfan76]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Did you watch Amb Jeffrey ? He testified that until Erdogan's ph call, all mil to mil & dip to dip relations with Turkey were that the Joint Security Mechanism was working.

Leaving them to die and badmouthing them on the way out.
Cut and run.

Arm chair Generals, happy to let other people's sons serve as tethered goats to find out if Erdogan was bluffing.

You're back to that nonsense after being so reasonable these past few pages. You know that's not what I said.
Come on back to reasonable and informative.

You're back to trash talking with your " leaving them to die & cut & run " bs.

No, they were within the parameters of "stated US policy" as stated over quite a few years, not to mention approved policy throughout the chain of command.

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

My 'trash talking' was not directed at you personally, Salty.

Trump "cut and run", not you.
Same for "Leaving them to die and badmouthing them on the way out".
Again, that was Trump, not you.
Nor the men ordered to withdraw with all haste.

I've detailed what we understood the policy to be, oft stated, regarding regime change. Assad must go. No, neither Obama nor Trump went on TV and stated the policy as you word it (far as I recall), but that statement is certainly within the bounds of the known policy. And, far, far more importantly are the assurances given by military to military, diplomat to diplomat.

Again, I'm sure our folks on the ground are horrified by the betrayal.
And I suspect you are as well. It's ok to say so.

[MDlaxfan76]

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

ISIS is destroyed? That's news to me (and the rest of the world).

Welp, time to break out the champagne!!! You heard it from OS first, ISIS is destroyed!

As usual, lying about what I said.
Did not say IS was destroyed.
That is our stated mission for being there.
...& you criticize Trump for gas lighting.

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS.
I sympathize with his sense of betrayal. Every time he appears on MSNBC, he becomes more like Lawrence of Arabia,

I'm all for staying to protect the Kurds & to keep Iran out, & always was.
Obama & Trump were not willing to state that as our policy.
Anybody else willing to join me in asserting that we should stay in Syria beyond destroying the caliphate,
...or do you just want to be able to criticize Trump ?

I'm having the same issue following your logic, Salty.

Let me unwind a piece for a moment.

If IS is not destroyed, then Trump just broke faith with the Kurds leaving before that occurred. Even assuming that was the limit of our assurances to the Kurds (which it was most definitely not).

Or are you are defining IS just as the territorial caliphate (which would be the only reasonable basis to say, IS destroyed, we're done), and thus we never said we were going to stay...so, no breaking faith with the Kurds?

On your last question, you betcha I'd agree that we should have been willing to stay beyond the territorial caliphate being re-taken. So would the guys in the field.

[old salt]

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

ISIS is destroyed? That's news to me (and the rest of the world).

Welp, time to break out the champagne!!! You heard it from OS first, ISIS is destroyed!

As usual, lying about what I said.
Did not say IS was destroyed.
That is our stated mission for being there.
...& you criticize Trump for gas lighting.

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS.
I sympathize with his sense of betrayal. Every time he appears on MSNBC, he becomes more like Lawrence of Arabia,

I'm all for staying to protect the Kurds & to keep Iran out, & always was.
Obama & Trump were not willing to state that as our policy.
Anybody else willing to join me in asserting that we should stay in Syria beyond destroying the caliphate,
...or do you just want to be able to criticize Trump ?

I'm having the same issue following your logic, Salty.

Let me unwind a piece for a moment.

I've detailed what we understood the policy to be, oft stated, regarding regime change. Assad must go. No, neither Obama nor Trump went on TV and stated the policy as you word it (far as I recall), but that statement is certainly within the bounds of the known policy. And, far, far more importantly are the assurances given by military to military, diplomat to diplomat.

Again, I'm sure our folks on the ground are horrified by the betrayal.
And I suspect you are as well. It's ok to say so.

If IS is not destroyed, then Trump just broke faith with the Kurds leaving before that occurred. Even assuming that was the limit of our assurances to the Kurds (which it was most definitely not).

Or are you are defining IS just as the territorial caliphate (which would be the only reasonable basis to say, IS destroyed, we're done), and thus we never said we were going to stay...so, no breaking faith with the Kurds?

On your last question, you betcha I'd agree that we should have been willing to stay beyond the territorial caliphate being re-taken. So would the guys in the field.

Within the bounds of known policy ? Either it was a stated policy objective or it was not.
Obama never even hinted he'd go into Syria for regime change, let alone to protect the Kurds. It was hard enough to get him to provide air support for the siege of Kobane. He only authorized limited involvement of special operators, with restrictive rules of engagement. We were still fighting primarily in Iraq until just before he left office. He made absolutely no commitment re, Syria other than fighting ISIS, knowing full well it would fall to his successor, not him. Raqqa didn't fall until Oct '17.

In his campaign, Trump said he'd loosen the ROE, wipe out ISIS, then get out, asap.

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't.

[MDlaxfan76]

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

ISIS is destroyed? That's news to me (and the rest of the world).

Welp, time to break out the champagne!!! You heard it from OS first, ISIS is destroyed!

As usual, lying about what I said.
Did not say IS was destroyed.
That is our stated mission for being there.
...& you criticize Trump for gas lighting.

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS.
I sympathize with his sense of betrayal. Every time he appears on MSNBC, he becomes more like Lawrence of Arabia,

I'm all for staying to protect the Kurds & to keep Iran out, & always was.
Obama & Trump were not willing to state that as our policy.
Anybody else willing to join me in asserting that we should stay in Syria beyond destroying the caliphate,
...or do you just want to be able to criticize Trump ?

I'm having the same issue following your logic, Salty.

Let me unwind a piece for a moment.

I've detailed what we understood the policy to be, oft stated, regarding regime change. Assad must go. No, neither Obama nor Trump went on TV and stated the policy as you word it (far as I recall), but that statement is certainly within the bounds of the known policy. And, far, far more importantly are the assurances given by military to military, diplomat to diplomat.

Again, I'm sure our folks on the ground are horrified by the betrayal.
And I suspect you are as well. It's ok to say so.

If IS is not destroyed, then Trump just broke faith with the Kurds leaving before that occurred. Even assuming that was the limit of our assurances to the Kurds (which it was most definitely not).

Or are you are defining IS just as the territorial caliphate (which would be the only reasonable basis to say, IS destroyed, we're done), and thus we never said we were going to stay...so, no breaking faith with the Kurds?

On your last question, you betcha I'd agree that we should have been willing to stay beyond the territorial caliphate being re-taken. So would the guys in the field.

Within the bounds of known policy ? Either it was a stated policy objective or it was not.
Obama never even hinted he'd go into Syria for regime change, let alone to protect the Kurds. It was hard enough to get him to provide air support for the siege of Kobane. He only authorized limited involvement of special operators, with restrictive rules of engagement. We were still fighting primarily in Iraq until just before he left office. He made absolutely no commitment re, Syria other than fighting ISIS, knowing full well it would fall to his successor, not him. Raqqa didn't fall until Oct '17.

In his campaign, Trump said he'd loosen the ROE, wipe out ISIS, then get out, asap.
Neither made any commitment to staying in Syria any longer than defeating ISIS.

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't.

ok, I understand your parson, albeit ignoring the assurance made on the ground.
So, did we actually finish off ISIS?

[foreverlax]

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS. Interesting point - what is our "legal basis" for being in Syria...and claiming their oil is now ours?

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't. Suspect that was accurate...until the public found out that Trump left the Kurds, who beat IS for us, unsupported and homeless....all because Trump is incompetent.

[old salt]

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.

ISIS is destroyed? That's news to me (and the rest of the world).

Welp, time to break out the champagne!!! You heard it from OS first, ISIS is destroyed!

As usual, lying about what I said.
Did not say IS was destroyed.
That is our stated mission for being there.
...& you criticize Trump for gas lighting.

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS.
I sympathize with his sense of betrayal. Every time he appears on MSNBC, he becomes more like Lawrence of Arabia,

I'm all for staying to protect the Kurds & to keep Iran out, & always was.
Obama & Trump were not willing to state that as our policy.
Anybody else willing to join me in asserting that we should stay in Syria beyond destroying the caliphate,
...or do you just want to be able to criticize Trump ?

I'm having the same issue following your logic, Salty.

Let me unwind a piece for a moment.

I've detailed what we understood the policy to be, oft stated, regarding regime change. Assad must go. No, neither Obama nor Trump went on TV and stated the policy as you word it (far as I recall), but that statement is certainly within the bounds of the known policy. And, far, far more importantly are the assurances given by military to military, diplomat to diplomat.

Again, I'm sure our folks on the ground are horrified by the betrayal.
And I suspect you are as well. It's ok to say so.

If IS is not destroyed, then Trump just broke faith with the Kurds leaving before that occurred. Even assuming that was the limit of our assurances to the Kurds (which it was most definitely not).

Or are you are defining IS just as the territorial caliphate (which would be the only reasonable basis to say, IS destroyed, we're done), and thus we never said we were going to stay...so, no breaking faith with the Kurds?

On your last question, you betcha I'd agree that we should have been willing to stay beyond the territorial caliphate being re-taken. So would the guys in the field.

Within the bounds of known policy ? Either it was a stated policy objective or it was not.
Obama never even hinted he'd go into Syria for regime change, let alone to protect the Kurds. It was hard enough to get him to provide air support for the siege of Kobane. He only authorized limited involvement of special operators, with restrictive rules of engagement. We were still fighting primarily in Iraq until just before he left office. He made absolutely no commitment re, Syria other than fighting ISIS, knowing full well it would fall to his successor, not him. Raqqa didn't fall until Oct '17.

In his campaign, Trump said he'd loosen the ROE, wipe out ISIS, then get out, asap.
Neither made any commitment to staying in Syria any longer than defeating ISIS.

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't.

ok, I understand your parson, albeit ignoring the assurance made on the ground.
So, did we actually finish off ISIS?

We destroyed their physical caliphate & killed their leadership.
Trump took Erdogan's pledge that the Turk's will takeover the fight against IS. I'm dubious.
It is in the interests of the YPG, Assad's Syrian army, & the Russians to keep IS from reconstituting.
Our forces will remain in E Syria, overhead, & right next door in W Iraq.
Hopefully we can salvage our anti-IS working alliance with the SDF, their intel network & their IS prisons.
It's in the near term interests of Assad, the Russians &the Turks to allow that anti-IS partnership to continue, for the foreseeable future.
The Baghdadi raids were a positive indication that the mil to mil coordination for anti-IS ops continues.

[old salt]

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS. Interesting point - what is our "legal basis" for being in Syria...and claiming their oil is now ours?
That remains to be seen. Despite Trump's rhetoric, our legal position is that we're assisting the SDF in defending the oil fields & denying their exploitation by IS. It's old infrastructure, in need of repair. It won't be a revenue source for the US
That location also serves as a base to continue ops against IS remnants.

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't. Suspect that was accurate...until the public found out that Trump left the Kurds, who beat IS for us, unsupported and homeless....all because Trump is incompetent.
There was no public interest & little knowledge until it could be used as an anti-Trump talking point. Trump sent in the forces & loosened the ROE that Obama would not. For that decision, he deserves credit for his claim to have routed IS.

[foreverlax]

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS. Interesting point - what is our "legal basis" for being in Syria...and claiming their oil is now ours?
That remains to be seen. Despite Trump's rhetoric, our legal position is that we're assisting the SDF in defending the oil fields & denying their exploitation by IS. It's old infrastructure, in need of repair. It won't be a revenue source for the US
That location also serves as a base to continue ops against IS remnants.

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't. Suspect that was accurate...until the public found out that Trump left the Kurds, who beat IS for us, unsupported and homeless....all because Trump is incompetent.
There was no public interest & little knowledge until it could be used as an anti-Trump talking point. Trump sent in the forces & loosened the ROE that Obama would not. For that decision, he deserves credit for his claim to have routed IS.

"our legal position is that we're assisting the SDF in defending the oil fields & denying their exploitation by IS."

How is that a "legal position"...sounds more like a military or diplomatic position.

[old salt]

Even Brett McGurk states that our only legal basis for being in Syria is to fight ISIS. Interesting point - what is our "legal basis" for being in Syria...and claiming their oil is now ours?
That remains to be seen. Despite Trump's rhetoric, our legal position is that we're assisting the SDF in defending the oil fields & denying their exploitation by IS. It's old infrastructure, in need of repair. It won't be a revenue source for the US
That location also serves as a base to continue ops against IS remnants.

Obama, Trump & most of the public did not share our commitment to be in Syria, & they still don't. Suspect that was accurate...until the public found out that Trump left the Kurds, who beat IS for us, unsupported and homeless....all because Trump is incompetent.
There was no public interest & little knowledge until it could be used as an anti-Trump talking point. Trump sent in the forces & loosened the ROE that Obama would not. For that decision, he deserves credit for his claim to have routed IS.

"our legal position is that we're assisting the SDF in defending the oil fields & denying their exploitation by IS."

How is that a "legal position"...sounds more like a military or diplomatic position.

There has to be a legal predicate for the use of US military force.

[old salt]

Head's up in the GIUK gap. Ivan's breaking out.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... d=22670555
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/secur ... arine-show

I hope the Truman's 4 escorts, deployed as a Surface Action Group (SAG), are still in the area.
Great opportunity to train & gather acoustic data.
https://news.usni.org/2019/09/12/escort ... e-persists