Trump starts withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, claims victory

[Becker]

10 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Sources which do not support the agenda seem to be non-permitted to post, so my ability to respond is limited.  I have run into this problem before, where I list case-studies, etc, on a point - only to have it scrubbed, to preserve ignorance.

Not to preserve ignorance but sanity.

[Ron19]

A post against forum rules and commenting on moderation has been removed.

 

[JHolmesJr]

So according to the keyboard pundits here, Trump should keep troops in Syria forever....or as long as russia is still there?

 

Ridiculous. 

 

Being the business man he is, I would imagine he figures it's better to sell them high value defence equipment, than to keep american soldiers in harms way.

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

So according to the keyboard pundits here, Trump should keep troops in Syria forever....or as long as russia is still there?

 

Ridiculous. 

 

Being the business man he is, I would imagine he figures it's better to sell them high value defence equipment, than to keep american soldiers in harms way.

So the US is after Huawei for selling phones with US made parts to Iran, but it's a good idea to sell high value defense equipment to Russia? I wouldn't put it past Trump to agree with you.

And given his propensity sharing intelligence with Russia, maybe he will just give them the designs and let them make it themselves.

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

I'll ignore all the conspiracy and other nonsense in your post. However, you may like to provide credible links of allies & IS pre the start of the Syrian Civil War (2011) who were slaughtering people in Syria.

 

Assad was torturing and oppressing his opposition well before the Civil War - a relative moderate - LOL

 

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2010/country-chapters/syria

If you find anything I have written to be Non-Factual, please don't simply deflect with "conspiracy" accusations.  Please be specific.  If I am incorrect about a historical event, I will be happy to learn something new.  Also, look into the origin and history of the term "conspiracy theory," to better understand why / how this has been used as a way to dismiss without countering with facts, logic, etc.

 

I would also recommend research into who is funding HRW, and what countries their primary financial-backers wish to "regime change."  Then, you can decide if their reporting can be trusted.  My opinion is that they can not.  This is not a "left" vs "right" question, and can be applied to all sources from all political/economic angles, in combination with their accuracy-record over time. 

 

As I do not know what sources we are permitted to reference (links) in this forum.  Below is a set of search terms to help you find one 2015 story (of many) which exposed USA funding of jihadi groups:

"After scrapping its vetting program"  "aid Syrian rebels" "Islamic State"

[bristolboy]

This is from Matthew Yglesias at Vox. He despises Trump and yet...

There never were any “adults in the room”

Secretary of Defense James Mattis’s decision to resign, complete with a strongly worded letter slamming President Donald Trump, is not so much the end of “adults in the room” safeguarding the country from the president’s worst instincts as it is the end of the myth that there ever were any such adults.

Mattis was, after all, recommended to Trump in the first place because Barack Obama had fired him for his reckless advocacy of military confrontation with Iran. And while the last grown-up was unable to restrain Trump from imprisoning asylum-seeking children, abusing his pardon power for Joe Arpaio, abusing declassification power, undertaking a partisan purge of the FBI, cheering the French far right, or issuing apologias for neo-Nazis, he finally decided to take his stand over Trump making the perfectly defensible decision to withdraw US forces from a hazily defined open-ended mission in Syria that lacked any legal authorization.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18151079/mattis-adults-in-the-room

[simple1]

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

If you find anything I have written to be Non-Factual, please don't simply deflect with "conspiracy" accusations.  Please be specific.  If I am incorrect about a historical event, I will be happy to learn something new.  Also, look into the origin and history of the term "conspiracy theory," to better understand why / how this has been used as a way to dismiss without countering with facts, logic, etc.

 

I would also recommend research into who is funding HRW, and what countries their primary financial-backers wish to "regime change."  Then, you can decide if their reporting can be trusted.  My opinion is that they can not.  This is not a "left" vs "right" question, and can be applied to all sources from all political/economic angles, in combination with their accuracy-record over time. 

 

As I do not know what sources we are permitted to reference (links) in this forum.  Below is a set of search terms to help you find one 2015 story (of many) which exposed USA funding of jihadi groups:

"After scrapping its vetting program"  "aid Syrian rebels" "Islamic State"

Not interested in right wing blah, blah about Soros.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/e2a1ecb0-dc0d-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c

 

It's your responsibility to back up your claims with credible sources, not mine. As a hint Infowars, Breitbart etc have a proven history of misinformation, outright lies and so on and are not viewed as credible sources by TVF.

Edited December 22, 2018 by simple1

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

Not interested in right wing blah, blah about Soros.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/e2a1ecb0-dc0d-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c

 

It's your responsibility to back up your claims with credible sources, not mine. As a hint Infowars, Breitbart etc have a proven history of misinformation, outright lies and so on and are not viewed as credible sources by TVF.

Soros or Koch-Bros - same problem, from my perspective.  Both want to rig nations to suit their agendas.  The dangerous part, is that most of the big-money guys funding foundations (providing "experts"), are not as well-known as those two, so their efforts are not as well understood.

I read many points of view - left, right, center, extremes, etc - from Marx to Ayn Rand.  Most outlets are propaganda, but they sometimes reveal a fact which fits their agenda, which is relevant to a better understanding of an issue.  The problem with omitting sources, is it demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to challenge information which counters a narrative.  If information is presented which is incorrect, it should be easy to counter it.  If the goal is to hide that information, by forbidding it's reference - that is something else.

 

Even Google decided they could not demote Breitbart in search-listings (per revealed internal-memos).  There is no justifiable comparison to infowars ("Our good friend David Icke" / lizard-people), in terms of accuracy.  It is not reasonable to conflate and smear one with the other, just because both are generally pro-Trump.  Any org can claim to be a "news source" or a "humanitarian organization" - labels are not what matters, and are often Orwellian double-speak. 

University studies have been done on the slant of reporting on the Trump administration, vs the previous Obama administration - so by any fair standard, all those who did not treat the two with equal support/criticism, should be dismissed?  Of course - but better to simply let each rise or fall on the merits of the article in question.

 

If folks on the Left actually understood why so many Obama-voters switched to Trump (or even knew this happened) - instead of dismissing them with insulting names - it would help make the USA a better country.  That cannot happen if one sticks their fingers in their ears, and says, "la-la-la-la" every time a genuine explanation of the concerns of those voters is articulated. 

 

In the case of War / Syria - in many cases, it is because Obama seemed like less of a war-monger than the pre-Trump Republican offerings, but Trump was seen as less of a war-monger than Hillary Clinton (which even the Green-candidate, admitted).  Similar is true on economics - which candidate was perceived as doing less-harm to their job-prospects - or to their welfare-support, if no job prospects (thank God the GOP's so-called "welfare reform" never got done - might have been even worse than the "bi-partisan" nightmare that Bill Clinton and Gingrich cooked-up).

 

No outlet is perfect - but shall we review all the times the "paper of record" NYT "got it wrong," starting with the WMD stories on Iraq?  Daily Caller has it's own "fact checker" - I wonder if that source is permitted. 

 

In the context of Syria, anyone who really wants to know the truth should read the Russian, Iranian, Syrian, and American propaganda, plus what all the warring factions are claiming - then check the facts presented to make their respective cases.  And always, always, research who is paying for a study, article, etc.  It does not mean their information is useless - but will reveal their motivation to lie, omit, or otherwise twist-facts.

[Scott]

A post with a questionable source has been removed, along with reply.  

 

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

In the context of Syria, anyone who really wants to know the truth should read the Russian, Iranian, Syrian, and American propaganda, plus what all the warring factions are claiming - then check the facts presented to make their respective cases.  

"Daily Caller has it's own "fact checker" - I wonder if that source is permitted. Daily Caller" - really? check out their 'fake news"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller#Controversies

 

Regards your quote above, provide some examples

Edited December 23, 2018 by simple1

[Cryingdick]

On 12/21/2018 at 2:51 PM, lannarebirth said:

In todays world of big money corporate politics it is not unusual for a politician to be both a neo lib AND a neo con. Both are all about the money.

Let Turkey buy Raytheon. The level of uninformed idiocy with in this thread is unsurpassed. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Cryingdick

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Let Turkey buy Raytheon. The level of uninformed idiocy with in this thread is unsurpassed. 

 

I'm not sure what that means. Anyhow, we all know about the neo-cons and their destabilizing ways in the hopes of maintaining US hegemony around the world. Meet the neo-libs:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Let Turkey buy Raytheon. The level of uninformed idiocy with in this thread is unsurpassed. 

Unsurpassed? Hardly. Now, if you were to visit the Oval Office.......

[Guest]

On 12/20/2018 at 9:15 AM, mtls2005 said:

In other Vladdy Daddy news...

 

Trump admin to lift sanctions on firms owned by Russian oligarch Deripaska

 

The Trump administration plans to lift sanctions on companies owned by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska after he significantly reduced his ownership stake in them. 

 

The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that it would lift financial sanctions on Deripaska’s aluminum company, United Co. Rusal, as well as En+ Group plc and JSC EuroSibEnergo in 30 days, after Deripaska agreed to reduce his ownership stake in each of the companies to below 50 percent.

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/national-security/422122-trump-admin-to-lift-sanctions-on-firms-owned-by-russian-oligarch

 

The latest moves from Trump to please Russia really have a feeling of a endgame. 

 

Does Trump know that his time is up quite soon and therefore he does things to please Russia?

 

Or does Russia feel that Trump's time is due and they raised the pressure on Trump. Effectively blackmailing Trump by threatening to release details of his past business dealings with Russia?

 

Whatever is the real reasons, this is why countries should never elect a leader whose past is compromised and can be blackmailed by other countries. 

[JackThompson]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The latest moves from Trump to please Russia really have a feeling of a endgame. 

 

Does Trump know that his time is up quite soon and therefore he does things to please Russia?

 

Or does Russia feel that Trump's time is due and they raised the pressure on Trump. Effectively blackmailing Trump by threatening to release details of his past business dealings with Russia?

 

Whatever is the real reasons, this is why countries should never elect a leader whose past is compromised and can be blackmailed by other countries. 

Let us hope Trump will finally be permitted to make peace-deals with Russia on many fronts.  It is China which poses an existential threat to the USA in the long-term.  Russia, not so much - unless we force them into a threatening posture, due to continually pushing our military / NATO up to their borders. 

 

This policy has forced Russia to respond - such as recent work with Venezuela - propping up a terrible govt there (Chavez was much smarter about things than his successor), and certainly not making Americans any safer.  A good, comprehensive deal with Russia could dial all this back.  The only losers would be the defense-contractors.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Let us hope Trump will finally be permitted to make peace-deals with Russia on many fronts.  It is China which poses an existential threat to the USA in the long-term.  Russia, not so much - unless we force them into a threatening posture, due to continually pushing our military / NATO up to their borders. 

 

This policy has forced Russia to respond - such as recent work with Venezuela - propping up a terrible govt there (Chavez was much smarter about things than his successor), and certainly not making Americans any safer.  A good, comprehensive deal with Russia could dial all this back.  The only losers would be the defense-contractors.

Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons, which means that Russia is never going to be invided.

Russian actions in Georgia and Ukraine are caused by Russia alone.

 

NATO has spread further than Russia would like, but the underlying reason for that is that the independent countries, neighbouring Russia, do not really trust Russia. All of these countries join the NATO because they want to secure their future. 

 

Had Russia not behaved in the rather frantic way, there would not be a reason for independent countries to join NATO. 

 

My country has not yet joined NATO. We get frequent airspace assaults by Russian military. Perhaps we should join NATO to make these assaults to stop. 

[JackThompson]

 

22 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons, which means that Russia is never going to be invided.

Much of Russia's reactions are based on a long history of the West invading - and having nukes is not a fool-proof detriment if your enemy also has them - such that you using them means they use them, etc. 

 

Granted, the greater danger is a coup, which the West has been trying to orchestrate.  Are you familiar with the incident of the "Putin opposition leaders" caught having a meeting at the US Embassy?  Film of them entering, leaving, and their funny coordinated-response to questions is still up on YouTube. 

 

The hypocrisy of the USA making a fuss over "Russia involved in USA elections" is truly amazing.  It would be funny, if not for the serious consequences - millions of Americans not knowing the history of the USA interfering in elections around the world - and fomenting coups when that and/or assassinations failed to do the job - then voting based on their ignorance.

 

14 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Russian actions in Georgia and Ukraine are caused by Russia alone.

North Ossettia was part of Russia pre-USSR. Stalin moving a boundary for administrative purposes within the USSR did not change this.

 

Crimea - same situation - Kruschev moving an administration-boundary line within the then-USSR did not change the nature of facts on the ground.

 

23 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Had Russia not behaved in the rather frantic way, there would not be a reason for independent countries to join NATO. 

 

My country has not yet joined NATO. We get frequent airspace assaults by Russian military. Perhaps we should join NATO to make these assaults to stop. 

I don't know what "frantic way" you mean - unless referring to reactions to Western encroachment (a historical pattern).  I would guess the NATO decisions were, at least in part, an understandable reaction to having been occupied by Russian forces for decades during the cold-war - watching as free-market mechanisms greatly improved the lives of those not trapped in communist/totalitarian systems.  Fortunately, communism is no longer a threat from Russia.

 

The perilous mistake, would be thinking the "other side" won't also use your country as a pawn in a game.  See the history of US involvement with the Kurds, or the Taliban, to get an idea of how fast they can throw you under the bus when it is useful to them to do so.  And keep in mind the "Points Agreement" by Churchill and Stalin, which created most of the cold-war East/West line.

 

I wish you and your countrymen the best in maintaining an Independent State, with a govt that makes decisions solely on the basis of what benefits the citizenry - not selling out your interests to any corporate or foreign-government power.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

 

[JackThompson]

On 12/22/2018 at 10:27 AM, bristolboy said:

My own hypotheses about the withdrawals is this. Trump, as commander-in-chief hasn't yet visited the troops abroad. I think it's pretty clear he's afraid to put himself in harm's way. This way, there soon won't be troops to visit in any hotspots. Problem solved!

And, like Pelosi's assertion that there were not the votes in the House for wall funding...

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

And, like Pelosi's assertion that there were not the votes in the House for wall funding...

 

Yes, I got that wrong. Still, Iraq is the safest of the three places to go visit. No ongoing hostilities there now. At the same point in his first term, Obama had visited Iraq once, and Afghanistan twice.

[Joe Mcseismic]

Getting out and declaring victory is also known as the Vietnam Gambit.