I clearly see you trying to frame the conversation to fit your view of reality and failing.
But you keep being you.
I see clearly you are trying to avoid why liberals have suddenly become war hawks and are failing. Bigly.
But you keep being you.
[quote=“JayJay, post:17, topic:235546, full:true”]
Okay, how is this. Currently our military can beat the ■■■■ out of anyone 20 times over. So what if we reduce the military budget a little. We would still be able to beat the ■■■■ out of anyone 18 times over.
It is not about beating anybody any amount of times over.
It is about feeding the defense contractors.
It always has been.
It’s general engineering practice. You always over-engineer a solution to a problem. Better than the beams collapsing because someone added one more kilogram than expected to the floor load.
They learned a hard lesson in the 70’s. Peace and prosperity don’t sell in US politics. They’ve tried to out warmonger the GOPers ever since.
suddenly?
they’ve been trying to convince us we’re at war with russia for 4 years.
really?
our number 1 adversary globally is China. The only way we could beat them is if our nukes landed before they launched any.
you’re confused.
the Taliban was the legitimate government of A-stan. We overthrew them for their support of AQ and installed a different regime. That regime is now in talks with us involved to reconcile. In the agreements we have made a US presence will remain in A-stan to counter and resurgence of AQ and the Taliban has agreed to it. If they had given up AQ 18 years ago we would never have overthrown them to begin with.
Nixon ended the war in vietnem
Reagan ended the cold war
Eisenhower ended the fighting in Korea
Trump is bringing peace in the ME
I can speak only for myself, but the objection to the withdrawal from Syria was 1)
It seemed Ill conceived and hastily arrived at; 2) did not appear to enhance any strategic interest of the US; 3) left the Kurds (up to then our main fighting ally in Syria) high and dry; but most importantly 4) was a huge kow-tow to Erdogan, who is definitely not our ally, so he could a) invade the part of Syria that would be Kurdistan, once again betraying the Kurds. In other words, I objected because it seemed a pointless action that benefited only Turkey. And since the military establishment did not support it, the only real effect was that our troops moved to another area nearby.
I have no problem withdrawing from Afghanistan, where we have no business being anyway, before it destroys us like it did the UK and the Soviet Union.
what a completely silly post.
we have no business in A-stan but do in Syria? How does that work?
the prognostications about withdrawing our 24 troops from northern Syria in the face of a Turkish onslaught all appear to have been ■■■■■■■■ and Trump’s move rather brilliant.
Turkey is our ally… did you forget?
I think you are ignoring the reality of the relationship between the US and Turkey.
We need Turkey (arguably) to have an airbase in the region. Turkey is perhaps the worst “ally” we have, and Erdogan is not on our side. WE neither belong in Afghanistan nor Syria, but we also injected ourselves into a civil war which got complicated by the rise of the IS, enlisted a minority ethnic group to our side, and now are abandoning them yet again. We may not belong in Syria, but we owe something to the Kurds who have historically been repressed by both Turkey and Syria.
As to the “prognostications” we did not in fact withdraw, but simply moved to a different area, so it was not Trump’s move that was brilliant, but the refusal of the military to actually withdraw from Syria.
No we can’t.
more silly crap.
The Military does not refuse the orders of the President, and thank the gods for that. It was Trump himself who devised the pull back which from the first he announced it was 20 miles. Never a complete withdrawal. We did not abandon the Kurds, we informed them they should move back with us, and put immense pressure on Erdogan to guarantee there would be no genocide. We did not interject ourselves into a civil war which got complicated by ISIS, ISIS was already there and the reason we went in to begin with. We are still with the Kurds, still provide them what they need, and still the best friend they have on earth.
Our presence on the border emboldened a faction of Kurdish terrorists who we do not support to conduct attacks against Turkey, our ally. We owed the terrorists nothing. Beyond that, our presence keeps the Kurds who are our friends from compromising with Turkey which if they are to flourish they must do. It was as Trump called it “tough love”. We were not going to stay there forever, and at some point they were going to have to deal with Turkey.
Additionally, Turkey and Syria are not on friendly terms, so let Assad deal with that. Weakening Assad strengthens the Kurds position in Syria. It strengthens the hand of more western aligned Syrians, weakens Iran and it’s good for Israel.
win, win, win
That’s simply false. The Kurds are an historic ally in territory that they claim in Syria, which claim the US has historically supported. As reflected in your comments, Trump changed all of that, which was the objection to the “pullback.” We invited the Kurds to pull back with us, thereby ceding their territory in Syria to Erdogan. This gained nothing for the US, but put the Kurds right in between Erdogan and Assad.
Finally, you asked why the Dems were opposed to the withdrawal/pullback. All you have said is that you disagree with the factual premise. Nonetheless, that is the reason.
your claim is 100% false. The US neither supports Kurdish claims to territory nor the establishment of any “kurdistan”. The kurds have been between erdogan and assad longer than there has been an erdogan and assad. your facts ain’t facts, they are complete ■■■■■■■■■
Oversimplification because nuance is too hard.
The philosophy of most Trump supporters since…well, forever,
