Poll: Democrat voters now more in favor of wars than Republicans because Trump wants to pull out

a reply to: knoxie

you all would leave your allies hanging?
and, essentially give Syria to Russia?

What you mean the allies that were sucked in along with the world on fake WMD data in Iraq?

Or Powell reluctantly spinning tales of Nigerian Yellowcake in the UN?

Russia was always supportive of Syria - you know like the US kept South Americans dictators in power so US corporations could get cheap sugar etc. Pinochet and the CIA etc. Secondary excuse was the Communism threat - but fascist dictators were better for American economic reasons.

Maybe leave sovereign Nations alone and stick your nose in your own backyard - Stop being a puppet for the MIC or US corporations like Halliburton or Bechtel


247wallst.com...

20 Companies Profiting the Most From War

a reply to: tinner07

They did used to be better, not because Grambler himself, but due to the fact he used to have actual rebuttals and retorts, sadly now all that's left are personal attacks.

a reply to: Grambler

Thing is though that you can have a strong military without being in endless conflict, and I don't see much point in destabilizing a region that is still pretty much critical to the majority of the world. You cripple it and you cripple the world.

We could sweep in there and win the region if we really wanted to although it would likely ignite WWIII. The rest of the world cannot afford to allow us to control those resources, but we have enough of them on our own that we don't actually need that region, not for oil.

We can bolster Israel just fine without destabilizing everyone else.

So there really is no point to it.

a reply to: iplay1up2

Isnt the Prez supposed to be the Commander In Chief. Thats right theres a reason an elected person gets to call the big shots and not the Military. Does the hint representative democracy help you?

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: tinner07

They did used to be better, not because Grambler himself, but due to the fact he used to have actual rebuttals and retorts, sadly how all that's left are personal attacks.

I dont mind, I will keep plugging along.

I take the personal attacks against me as a personal badge of honor at this point.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree with you mostly. Congress has ceded their constitutional responsibilities to the executive, thus making checks and balances meaningless in areas of greatest concern and criticality to our nation. At the same time, less and less of the American people have direct links to US military personnel.

Go tell the soldiers who served they've never seen war.

I was in the first gulf "war," and still cal it that.
Sorry if I came across as overly-pedantic or precise.

No worries.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

What was the great reason we entered Syria in the first place and who created the conditions for that?

Let's hear all the valid reasons we should have overthrown Assad and put troops on the ground in a country (Syria) that had never attacked us or our Troops?

To simply state we can't leave because we are there now is not enough.

Whose brilliant Idea was it to destabilize Syrian and Libya in the first place?

I and many other Americans, are tired of being the Policeman of the world.

I’m speaking about the valid reasons for staying, for instance abandoning our Kurdish allies.

If we misrepresent their arguments we risk discrediting our own. We have to face their arguments head on.

a reply to: Grambler

I take the personal attacks against me as a personal badge of honor at this point.

I call them out when I see it.

It's lazy and does nothing but hurt their position, they could use facts to disagree with you.

I know I've personally disagreed with you several times, and I use debate of subject to counter.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

What was the great reason we entered Syria in the first place and who created the conditions for that?

Let's hear all the valid reasons we should have overthrown Assad and put troops on the ground in a country (Syria) that had never attacked us or our Troops?

To simply state we can't leave because we are there now is not enough.

Whose brilliant Idea was it to destabilize Syrian and Libya in the first place?

I and many other Americans, are tired of being the Policeman of the world.

I’m speaking about the valid reasons for staying, for instance abandoning our Kurdish allies.

That's the part that burns me, the only part. The problem is that we've never openly declared any kind of support for them either, so you and I both know that they were going to get burned no matter what.

And they're likely the only ones in this whole mess who do deserve something out of it.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

I take the personal attacks against me as a personal badge of honor at this point.

I call them out when I see it.

It's lazy and does nothing but hurt their position, they could use facts to disagree with you.

I know I've personally disagreed with you several times, and I use debate of subject to counter.

Oh I know you and many others on here disagree with me all of the time in productive ways.

I dont feel the need to call out many of the insults because its self evident to everyone who is interested in a serious conversation that these insults add nothing productive.

However, I do hold a special place in my heart for insults against me that are actually funny or original. But sadly I see very few of those.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: pavil

Precisely.

I notice that there is always some extra "nuance" for war when it isn't for genuine defense.

Thats exactly it.

And now we are seeing the justifications for staying which are being pushed by the left could be used to stay indefinitely in these conflicts.

And ironically, its the exact same justifications the left rightfully decried when Bush was offering them as reasons to attack and stay in iraq.

Good discussion. It is amazing how an issue flips left/right in less than a span of a decade.

I remember when the left was calling for President Bush to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan (2004-2008) and the right derided any efforts as "cut and run." Anyone remember that daily chant? Maybe we will hear it from the left soon?
It seems that everything is both old and new under the sun.
As Spock would say, with a single upturned eyebrow: Fascinating!

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I was in the first gulf "war," and still cal it that.
Sorry if I came across as overly-pedantic or precise.

No worries.

It's fine, it just doesn't do anything for debate other than the intended purpose of the US softening its military language to make it palatable for the people.

Military conflict sometimes is just that, a quick resolved skirmish. But when it's used in context of battle lasting years, it's disingenuous at best and propaganda at worst.

BTW, post 9/11 Middle East endeavors have already cost us 50% more than WWII. Kind of hard to sugarcoat that as conflict for feels and what not.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We have no endgame other than the official objective of defeating ISIS.

Er there is of course pipelines and cheap oil as a game?

www.globalresearch.ca...
March 02, 2018

The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony. The strategy is similar to what the US did with Saudi Arabia in 1986 when they flooded the world with Saudi oil, collapsing the price to below $10 a barrel and destroying the economy of then-Soviet ally, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and, ultimately, of the Soviet economy, paving the way for the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, the hope is that a collapse of Russian oil revenues, combined with select pin-prick sanctions designed by the US Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence will dramatically weaken Putin’s enormous domestic support and create conditions for his ultimate overthrow.

On September 11, US Secretary of State Kerry met Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. The King invited former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar to attend. There a deal was hammered out which saw Saudi support for the Syrian airstrikes against ISIS on condition Washington backed the Saudis in toppling Assad, a firm ally of Russia and de facto of Iran and an obstacle to Saudi and UAE plans to control the emerging EU natural gas market and destroy Russia’s lucrative EU trade. A report in the Wall Street Journal noted there had been “months of behind-the-scenes work by the US and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh US commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

What was the great reason we entered Syria in the first place and who created the conditions for that?

Let's hear all the valid reasons we should have overthrown Assad and put troops on the ground in a country (Syria) that had never attacked us or our Troops?

To simply state we can't leave because we are there now is not enough.

Whose brilliant Idea was it to destabilize Syrian and Libya in the first place?

I and many other Americans, are tired of being the Policeman of the world.

I’m speaking about the valid reasons for staying, for instance abandoning our Kurdish allies.

That's the part that burns me, the only part. The problem is that we've never openly declared any kind of support for them either, so you and I both know that they were going to get burned no matter what.

And they're likely the only ones in this whole mess who do deserve something out of it.

Me too. The Kurds and the Pashmerga have been instrumental in our fight against ISIS and the caliphate, and in Iraq. They are one of the few pro-American, secular forces in the area.

a reply to: Grambler

The point I am making in the thread is that it is frightening that people are so willing to change their mind on a hugely important issue based on if it benefits there team or not.

The only ones to have changed their minds seems to be republicans, seriously. Dems have been happy with war since Clinton.

a reply to: Grambler

We have been in Afghanistan for about 18 years, but that still isnt enough

As long as Washington and London need to control the illicit drug economy?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

What was the great reason we entered Syria in the first place and who created the conditions for that?

Let's hear all the valid reasons we should have overthrown Assad and put troops on the ground in a country (Syria) that had never attacked us or our Troops?

To simply state we can't leave because we are there now is not enough.

Whose brilliant Idea was it to destabilize Syrian and Libya in the first place?

I and many other Americans, are tired of being the Policeman of the world.

I’m speaking about the valid reasons for staying, for instance abandoning our Kurdish allies.

If we misrepresent their arguments we risk discrediting our own. We have to face their arguments head on.

And sometimes we play every side to make it easy for some to justify.

Turkey is the greatest threat to the Kurds, an ally of the US and member of NATO.

Personally I like the Kurds more and don't want to be associated with Turkey, I just use that as an example.

But all we're doing is extending conflict, we have no endgame for the Kurds and never have. Sadly they've been our proxy on several occasions just to have our back turned on them... They're and ally we don't deserve.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Grambler

We have been in Afghanistan for about 18 years, but that still isnt enough

As long as Washington and London need to control the illicit drug economy?

Don't forget the minerals and metals, lots of them to exploit.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

What was the great reason we entered Syria in the first place and who created the conditions for that?

Let's hear all the valid reasons we should have overthrown Assad and put troops on the ground in a country (Syria) that had never attacked us or our Troops?

To simply state we can't leave because we are there now is not enough.

Whose brilliant Idea was it to destabilize Syrian and Libya in the first place?

I and many other Americans, are tired of being the Policeman of the world.

I’m speaking about the valid reasons for staying, for instance abandoning our Kurdish allies.

That's the part that burns me, the only part. The problem is that we've never openly declared any kind of support for them either, so you and I both know that they were going to get burned no matter what.

And they're likely the only ones in this whole mess who do deserve something out of it.

Me too. The Kurds and the Pashmerga have been instrumental in our fight against ISIS and the caliphate, and in Iraq. They are one of the few pro-American, secular forces in the area.

If they actually are pro-America and secular, that's the problem. We can't have that in this post-America, globalist world now can we?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I agree with you all the real objectives are sinister and profit motivated.

I was speaking in the context of feel goods and the "official story" haha.

We haven't had the intent to win a war for some time, better to drag it out and then plunder, it's like double dipping.