The president has a complete 'meltdown' today following a Congressional vote

a reply to: pavil

ISIS doesn't control Syria anymore.

The potential for them to escape in large numbers and reorganize is very real.

No where did it say actual fighters escaped.

No?

Hundreds of ISIS prisoners are escaping from camps in northern Syria amid Turkish offensive

DUBAI — Islamic State fighters are seizing a chance to escape and regroup as U.S.-allied Kurdish forces turn their attention from guarding thousands of captive extremists to defending themselves from Turkey’s assault.

More than 800 suspected IS detainees escaped the Ayn Issa camp in northern Syria on Sunday, Kurdish forces said in a statement, five days into Turkey’s military incursion into norther Syria.

Jelal Ayaf, co-chair of Ayn Issa camp, told local media that 859 people “successfully escaped” the section of the camp holding foreign nationals. He also said attacks were already being carried out by “sleeper cells” that had emerged from inside the camp, which holds IS prisoners, internally displaced persons and families or affiliates of IS fighters. While some escapees could be recaptured, he described the situation in the camp as “very volatile.”

Ex-spe cial ops chief says Syria drawdown offers "great opportunity" to ISIS

The former head of U.S. Special Operations Command warned that the drawdown of American troops from northern Syria could allow ISIS militants to regroup and exploit the fighting between different factions to regain territory.

Recently retired four-star General Raymond Thomas, who led the United States Special Operations Command for three years, said the conditions created by the recent American withdrawal could pave the way for a resurgence of ISIS.

Stupid, reckless decision by a stupid, reckless "president."

a reply to: drewlander

They represent the UNITED States, the other 60 represent jerkoffs.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The rhetoric of phrases like "military-industrial complex" are applied unevenly as again, some of the same posters in this thread who are misrepresenting the specific and narrow claims of others are on record in support of other military action.

That's a false dichotomy. One doesn't have to support leaving troops in syria to support moving troops to SA, nor do they have to support removing troops from syria and oppose moving troops to SA.

We are talking about two combat fronts. Trump is closing one and beefing up another. We are plus 1 in withdrawing from wars. If beefing up troops in SA results in us being able to bring them home sooner, that will make us plus 2.

Furthermore, who makes up the military industrial complex if not the current military generals advocating more war?

Specifically, I am opposed to President Trump's decision to increase our forces in Saudi Arabia which has never been a true friend of the United States. What say you on that point?

I addressed that above I'll expand a little more, too. But first I would flip that around and ask you what you think about syria who has never been our true friend either? Furthermore, turkey is a nato ally. Syria is not. The kurds are not. Even mitt romney blamed the kurds for destabilization of the back in 2007. So are they our friend? Why do they get priority over a NATO ally?

But let me be a little more frank. why the hell should my brothers and sisters die or be injured because the kurds and turks can't get along? What is the american interest being served?

As for saudi arabia. Our goals are clear there. Contain Iran and protect oil. SA is the main force in doing that and therefore we work together despite not really being great allies.

The way I see it, the US has two geopolitical foes: Russia and China. China uses NK as a puppet state, Russia uses Iran. Our vested interest in keeping these countries in check (russia and china) dictates our strategy on both iran and NK. If anything syria is a second puppet state to russia. So why are we trying to help them out over a NATO member? Logically, pulling out of syria makes sense considering our allies.

Meanwhile, iran has been lashing out repeatedly. Increasing our troop count serves one of two purposes:
1) back down Iran
2) if Iran strikes again we are better ready to respond.

I don't view trump as overly friendly to SA. Maybe you do and maybe you're right. Regardless we have a vested interest in oil (albeit, a dwindling one) and iran's attacks on SA and oil tankers are aimed at that vested interest. This is the reason for our involvement in many middle eastern affairs. Oil. Syria doesn't have much, so why should we care about syria. SA/Iran have a lot. That's why we care.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Oraculi

If so many representatives want the US military involved in Syria, then they should vote to declare war.

Simple.

I agree why does this vote even matter. Declare war on turkey and send our troops in to invade northern Syria. Why does both sides want war so badly?

Democrats and Republicans are two side of the same coin since the conspiracy of Bushes. Don't know why Trump would be surprised. This is quite obvious that Trump is the neutral one here. Time to watch those 354 republicans.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Why would they have too?
Oh wait. I forgot, Trump put our troops in an immediate position of retreat, evacuate.

What?... POTUS Trump calling for our troops to leave doesn't equal to "leave all our military secrets for our enemies to take..."

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Then why would they attack, or threaten US troops in Syria? Why did Trump buckle under and acquiesce to his good friend, Erdogan's, long time grudge, if we're all NATO friends?

Obviously you seem to be completely oblivious of what I am referring to... The Kurds have been our allies, and Turkey is a NATO member (it doesn't mean we are friends but as a NATO member the U.S. would have to be obliged to help them.) The point is either way POTUS Trump is against the wall, if he were to back the Kurds it would mean we were against Turkey, a NATO member... If we sided with Turkey it would mean we sided against an ally, the Kurds...
POTUS Trump saw that the best course of action is not backing either one so we would make the other an enemy.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
HAHA...LOL

This aint no leftist peacenik agenda. This is all about the Military Industrial Complex and your dad's job.

Nope, first of all this is a "let's bash at POTUS Trump whatever he decides to do type of agenda, and you love it."
Second of all, leave your stupid and dumba$$ attempts at insulting my real father to insult your own family which you seem to like to do...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What?... POTUS Trump calling for our troops to leave doesn't equal to "leave all our military secrets for our enemies to take..."

Because there was no exist plan, no time to plan, the troops had to bomb our military bases on their way out!

(it doesn't mean we are friends but as a NATO member the U.S. would have to be obliged to help them.)

Nope. If Turkey is being attacked, NATO is obligated to defend them. The US is a member of NATO. The US is not NATO.

The point is either way POTUS Trump is against the wall, if he were to back the Kurds it would mean we were against Turkey, a NATO member...

No it doesn't. The Kurds were holding a "safe zone" within the Syrian borders, not the Turkish borders. The US doesn't get "backed against the wall", when it comes to our military, by our allies. We don't cede occupied areas in question, specifically a NATO border, to be patrolled by our enemy, Russia.

POTUS Trump saw that the best course of action is not backing either one so we would make the other an enemy.

Trump made a choice, and it was Turkey.

If Trump would have stood up for US interests, instead of worrying about how Erdogan might strip his Trump Towers of the Trump name, Turkey would not attack US troops in Syria. Now, Turkey is committing war crimes. Not very NATOy.

The evidence is clear, with this president, "all roads lead to Putin".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Because there was no exist plan, no time to plan, the troops had to bomb our military bases on their way out!

How about this, instead of inventing claims that only exist in your mind show evidence that our troops had to leave U.S. intelligence behind...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Nope. If Turkey is being attacked, NATO is obligated to defend them. The US is a member of NATO. The US is not NATO.

Nope, if the U.S. had sided with the Kurds we would have to attack Turkey...a NATO member...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The evidence is clear, with this president, "all roads lead to Putin".

ROFLMAO... All the "evidence" you had been eating like it was cake in your belief that would oust POTUS Trump came from the Russians....

You are a Ruskie and you don't even know it...