Mattis: Trump's troop pullout will lead to 'disarray' in Syria and Isis resurgence

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

And I am calling that BS. If he wished to communicate to Turkey that there would be consequences to doing so, he didn’t need troops placed in harms way to do it. A simple phone call would suffice, followed up with carrying out the consequences he laid out.

We all agree he’s a weak cowardly president. He rolled aside to the wishes of Turkey, causing the abandonment and death of an ally, the release of ISIS prisoners, hundreds of thousands of displaced people, and the further destabilizing of a region. No consequences thus far. His lack of principle and strength is not being questioned.

[Oryx]

@zantax

If he wished to communicate to Turkey that there would be consequences to doing so, he didn’t need troops placed in harms way to do it.

Then why do we have soldiers anywhere in the world? Just tell North Korea, Iran, et al, that there will be consequences for bad behavior and bring our troops home. We’ll save a bunch of money and our deployed soldiers will no longer be “human shields,” as you put it.

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

Like I said, if you want to criticize him for not stopping or retaliating against Turkey, knock yourself out. But there is no world in which using them as human shields is ethical policy. Whether there or anywhere else. There is no requirement we allow our troops to be slaughtered before we militarily act in defense of our national interests.

You do know we are doing exactly that in the Middle East and Eastern Europe right now? I gave examples and links. We’ve been doing it for decades, if not the entirety of our existence as a nation.

And? I am pretty sure I pointed out it is always unethical. I don’t care how long it’s been going on or where else we are doing it. Troops are not speed bumps for the enemy to roll over so we can justify retaliatory measures we are perfectly capable of carrying out without using them as such.

Just to be clear, you believe there should be no foreign deployment of US troops if in numbers less than that needed for a full scale military conflict?

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

@zantax

And I am calling that BS. If he wished to communicate to Turkey that there would be consequences to doing so, he didn’t need troops placed in harms way to do it. A simple phone call would suffice, followed up with carrying out the consequences he laid out.

We all agree he’s a weak cowardly president. He rolled aside to the wishes of Turkey, causing the abandonment and death of an ally, the release of ISIS prisoners, hundreds of thousands of displaced people, and the further destabilizing of a region. No consequences thus far. His lack of principle and strength is not being questioned.

There you go, I knew you could do it. Like I said, feel free to criticize his allowing to happen, just don’t pretend moving the troops were the cause of it happening. If he wanted to he was perfectly capable of communicating to Turkey that attacking the Kurds would have dire consequences and carrying them out without leaving the troops there. Criticize him for that all you like.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

So, the troops were human shields? Tell me, what is stopping us from retaliating without having to place our troops in harms way to be used as sacrifices?

This really the best you got? They were holding like ten thousand ISIL prisoners who are getting free and joining the Turkish proxy forces to fight the Kurds.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

There you go, I knew you could do it. Like I said, feel free to criticize his allowing to happen, just don’t pretend moving the troops were the cause of it happening. If he wanted to he was perfectly capable of communicating to Turkey that attacking the Kurds would have dire consequences and carrying them out without leaving the troops there. Criticize him for that all you like.

Yeah who could have predicted that moving those troops would lead to a Turkish offensive except ■■■■■■■ everyone but Trump supporters like you.

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

And I am calling that BS. If he wished to communicate to Turkey that there would be consequences to doing so, he didn’t need troops placed in harms way to do it. A simple phone call would suffice, followed up with carrying out the consequences he laid out.

We all agree he’s a weak cowardly president. He rolled aside to the wishes of Turkey, causing the abandonment and death of an ally, the release of ISIS prisoners, hundreds of thousands of displaced people, and the further destabilizing of a region. No consequences thus far. His lack of principle and strength is not being questioned.

There you go, I knew you could do it. Like I said, feel free to criticize his allowing to happen, just don’t pretend moving the troops were the cause of it happening. If he wanted to he was perfectly capable of communicating to Turkey that attacking the Kurds would have dire consequences and carrying them out without leaving the troops there. Criticize him for that all you like.

I can prove that Turkey did not attack while US soldiers were in place. I can prove that Turkey attacked once US soldiers were removed.

Now it’s your turn. Prove that Turkey would have attacked with US soldiers in place. Let’s at least see proof there are “dire consequences” since attacks have been ongoing for the last 5 days.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

And I am calling that BS. If he wished to communicate to Turkey that there would be consequences to doing so, he didn’t need troops placed in harms way to do it. A simple phone call would suffice, followed up with carrying out the consequences he laid out.

Oh you mean the call he had with Erdogan, where he agreed to this? Or the tweet with his big threat that he never followed up on?

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

Like I said, if you want to criticize him for not stopping or retaliating against Turkey, knock yourself out. But there is no world in which using them as human shields is ethical policy. Whether there or anywhere else. There is no requirement we allow our troops to be slaughtered before we militarily act in defense of our national interests.

You do know we are doing exactly that in the Middle East and Eastern Europe right now? I gave examples and links. We’ve been doing it for decades, if not the entirety of our existence as a nation.

And? I am pretty sure I pointed out it is always unethical. I don’t care how long it’s been going on or where else we are doing it. Troops are not speed bumps for the enemy to roll over so we can justify retaliatory measures we are perfectly capable of carrying out without using them as such.

Just to be clear, you believe there should be no foreign deployment of US troops if in numbers less than that needed for a full scale military conflict?

There should be no deployment of troops for the purpose of acting as human shields, period. It is both a callous disregard of their lives and unnecessary. If we don’t want North Korea to invade South Korea we can tell them so along with what the consequences will be if they do without putting a single US soldier in the way to act as a human shield.

The entire premise is morally bankrupt. Using troops to motivate members of a democracy to go to war in our national interest is despicable on many levels. If the US public won’t support going to war to retaliate against North Korea invasion of South Korea unless they kill fifty thousand of our troops when they do, so be it. I won’t sign on to use them as PR tools.

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

Like I said, if you want to criticize him for not stopping or retaliating against Turkey, knock yourself out. But there is no world in which using them as human shields is ethical policy. Whether there or anywhere else. There is no requirement we allow our troops to be slaughtered before we militarily act in defense of our national interests.

You do know we are doing exactly that in the Middle East and Eastern Europe right now? I gave examples and links. We’ve been doing it for decades, if not the entirety of our existence as a nation.

And? I am pretty sure I pointed out it is always unethical. I don’t care how long it’s been going on or where else we are doing it. Troops are not speed bumps for the enemy to roll over so we can justify retaliatory measures we are perfectly capable of carrying out without using them as such.

Just to be clear, you believe there should be no foreign deployment of US troops if in numbers less than that needed for a full scale military conflict?

There should be no deployment of troops for the purpose of acting as human shields, period. It is both a callous disregard of their lives and unnecessary. If we don’t want North Korea to invade South Korea we can tell them so along with what the consequences will be of they do without putting a single US soldier in the way to act as a human shield.

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

[Excast]

@zantax

So 50 US troops were keeping ISIS in check? I mean I know our troops are good but that sounds a little hard to believe.

Nobody is forcing you to be this willfully obtuse.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

There should be no deployment of troops for the purpose of acting as human shields, period. It is both a callous disregard of their lives and unnecessary. If we don’t want North Korea to invade South Korea we can tell them so along with what the consequences will be if they do without putting a single US soldier in the way to act as a human shield.

The entire premise is morally bankrupt. Using troops to motivate members of a democracy to go to war in our national interest is despicable on many levels. If the US public won’t support going to war to retaliate against North Korea invasion of South Korea unless they kill fifty thousand of our troops when they do, so be it. I won’t sign on to use them as PR tools.

Yes, the smart thing would be to wait until the North Koreans are occupying Seoul after one of the most devastating artillery barrages in history, which would take about two days. That’s what any intelligent person would do.

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

[mobiusptc]

@TommyLucchese

@zantax

There should be no deployment of troops for the purpose of acting as human shields, period. It is both a callous disregard of their lives and unnecessary. If we don’t want North Korea to invade South Korea we can tell them so along with what the consequences will be if they do without putting a single US soldier in the way to act as a human shield.

The entire premise is morally bankrupt. Using troops to motivate members of a democracy to go to war in our national interest is despicable on many levels. If the US public won’t support going to war to retaliate against North Korea invasion of South Korea unless they kill fifty thousand of our troops when they do, so be it. I won’t sign on to use them as PR tools.

Yes, the smart thing would be to wait until the North Koreans are occupying Seoul after one of the most devastating artillery barrages in history, which would take about two days. That’s what any intelligent person would do.

Fulda gap Wasn’t a thing …non sireee

[Excast]

@zantax

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary.

Our, now former I guess, allies who are being displaced in numbers already ranging over 100,000 and being killed/beheaded might question your assertion that the 50 troops in place were unnecessary.

But, who cares right? Your boy got 18 holes in yesterday and some liberals were annoyed, so it’s all a win.

[zantax]

@TommyLucchese

@zantax

There should be no deployment of troops for the purpose of acting as human shields, period. It is both a callous disregard of their lives and unnecessary. If we don’t want North Korea to invade South Korea we can tell them so along with what the consequences will be if they do without putting a single US soldier in the way to act as a human shield.

The entire premise is morally bankrupt. Using troops to motivate members of a democracy to go to war in our national interest is despicable on many levels. If the US public won’t support going to war to retaliate against North Korea invasion of South Korea unless they kill fifty thousand of our troops when they do, so be it. I won’t sign on to use them as PR tools.

Yes, the smart thing would be to wait until the North Koreans are occupying Seoul after one of the most devastating artillery barrages in history, which would take about two days. That’s what any intelligent person would do.

Well it’s a little different there given the number of troops and tanks etc. At least they would be a significant speed bump, unlike say, fifty troops.

[zantax]

@Excast

@zantax

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary.

Our, now former I guess, allies who are being displaced in numbers already ranging over 100,000 and being killed/beheaded might question your assertion that the 50 troops in place were unnecessary.

But, who cares right? Your boy got 18 holes in yesterday and some liberals were annoyed, so it’s all a win.

Again, those fifty troops were not at all necessary and there is nothing stopping us from protecting the Kurds without sacrificing their lives or using them as human shields.

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

Fine. You’d rather be reactionary than preventative. Ignoring troops as a deterrent, why are we not protecting the Kurds? Why has Turkey suffered no consequences? You said there is nothing stopping us from protecting the Kurds. Doesn’t seem very effective. Seems like we just left and let Turkey do whatever they want.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

Well it’s a little different there given the number of troops and tanks etc. At least they would be a significant speed bump, unlike say, fifty troops.

No, they wouldn’t. Ask anyone who served in the DMZ. They are there to absorb the artillery barrage that would signal the start of the war and kill the vast majority of them.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

Keep in mind this poster was an enthusiastic supporter of preemptive war and extended occupation one country to the east for like a decade plus.

Wonder what changed.