It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: carewemust
It's a shame that so many Democrats love CHINA and KURDS more than the USA.
The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik, though never publicly confirmed or denied by the U.S. government, has long been essentially an open secret. It became even less of a secret earlier this year when a Canadian senator published, apparently by accident, a document containing the bases where the United States is keeping nuclear weapons.
A senior official reportedly told the Times that the weapons “were now essentially [Turkish President Recep] Erdogan’s hostages” since removing the weapons would effectively spell the end of America’s alliance with Turkey, but keeping them there would leave them vulnerable.
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Oraculi
originally posted by: underwerks
*patiently waits for any of those soldiers to actually come home instead of just being moved somewhere else in the middle east..
Yes, that would be something. Since they are not coming home and we are selling 3,000 US troops to the King of Saudi Arabia, chances are those US troops from Syria got relocated and now work for the King. King of SA writes the check to the White House, White House writes the checks to the troops.
Mercenary army for hire.
Jesus Christ, make up your mind. War on Syrian soil good, Troops on Saudi Soil bad. I wonder what besides hate drives your opinions.
Maybe recognizing the fact that no troops are coming home because of this? That no war is being prevented by this? That actually this is going to lead to a resurgence of ISIS and the deaths of a lot of innocent people?
Just throwing that out there..
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy
Why can't they want to both NOT go to war but also want to help our allies?
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy
Why can't they want to both NOT go to war but also want to help our allies?
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: LookingAtMars
Is it possible to want to help our allies and also not want to go to war?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Oraculi
I saw all these arguments made when Obama pulled out of Iraq too, but the left didn't generally care.
originally posted by: underwerks
What I'm wondering is why no one is talking about the 50 nuclear bombs we're effectively just handing over to Turkey/Russia because of all this..
The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik, though never publicly confirmed or denied by the U.S. government, has long been essentially an open secret. It became even less of a secret earlier this year when a Canadian senator published, apparently by accident, a document containing the bases where the United States is keeping nuclear weapons.
A senior official reportedly told the Times that the weapons “were now essentially [Turkish President Recep] Erdogan’s hostages” since removing the weapons would effectively spell the end of America’s alliance with Turkey, but keeping them there would leave them vulnerable.
Link
I think the real story here is how after this meeting Trump canceled a classified briefing with Congress tomorrow. Therefore putting them in the dark about the dangers that are now rising because of this impulsive move.
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: proximo
Well, since no one wants ISIS I guess that means they're done for..
originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Oraculi
I love Trump but I’m against the Syrian withdraw .
Nobody is perfect .