What is going on...we remove troops from Syria and Mattis resigns?
- Thread starter SilentStalkr
- Start date
Hi,
Well I am sure it has something to do with being Defense Sec and finding out via twitter that troops are being pulled from Syria.
Sincerely,
Theis
Well I am sure it has something to do with being Defense Sec and finding out via twitter that troops are being pulled from Syria.
Sincerely,
Theis
It's not good. the flash to bang on that happened very quickly about half a day from when they found out to when the public found out.
Edit: in regards to the pullout
Edit: in regards to the pullout
Last edited:
I've long said Arabs need to solve Arab problems. It's high time we got out of the ME and let them succeed on their own or implode, as it's far easier to invade than occupy because then all you have to do is kill everything in sight. If they succeed, good for them, but it doesn't have to be at US taxpayer and service member costs anymore. Same goes for Afghanistan, they can sink or swim as well. Mattis doesn't agree, well, that's kind of his job to keep the peace and I don't blame him for leaving.
Kids never learn to clean their room if mom is always doing it for them.
As for Chaos, I wish him a joyful retirement. Or 2020 campaign. He has my support either way.
Kids never learn to clean their room if mom is always doing it for them.
As for Chaos, I wish him a joyful retirement. Or 2020 campaign. He has my support either way.
No worries, Stephen Miller and Javanka are all the help Trump needs. Vast experience between the three.
I hope it's because we are deciding to focus here.
Co worker is over there look forward to talking to him of the experience. Looks like we will cancel his holiday box we were going to send over.
Who ever comes back from Syria is temperate desert trained, kind of similar to our southern border. Would like to see some field excercise patrolling done there as well as on our northern border to keep our troops prepped for "any clime, any place". Should they happen to come across non combatants in places they shouldn't be than they can turn them over to BP for community policing services.
Syria is Assads country (to an extent). Sure he is an asshole but our record on replacing assholes is one of proving the saying "The devil you know"
Grahmnasty and the rest of the chicken hawks can don their own plate carriers and go do what they expect to have others do.
Our military should be used to assault and kill not posture.
Co worker is over there look forward to talking to him of the experience. Looks like we will cancel his holiday box we were going to send over.
Who ever comes back from Syria is temperate desert trained, kind of similar to our southern border. Would like to see some field excercise patrolling done there as well as on our northern border to keep our troops prepped for "any clime, any place". Should they happen to come across non combatants in places they shouldn't be than they can turn them over to BP for community policing services.
Syria is Assads country (to an extent). Sure he is an asshole but our record on replacing assholes is one of proving the saying "The devil you know"
Grahmnasty and the rest of the chicken hawks can don their own plate carriers and go do what they expect to have others do.
Our military should be used to assault and kill not posture.
Add edit - if the next order is removal of troops from Germany and deploying them in friendly areas that actually want to defend themselves - countries like Poland, Czech, Slovakia or the Baltics - that might also be a good idea.
Last edited:
The one things that bothers me about this is we appear to be dumping the Kurds, again. It's all but certain they will be crushed by Turkey and Iraq. Normally I would say this isn't our problem but we asked and recieved their support, twice and it appears we are fucking them again.
Hi,
Absolutely....
IIRC Poland has submitted a plan in which they would spend billions at building the facility and handing it over to us. Instead of us building it and paying them for us to use it.
Sincerely,
Theis
That would be unfortunate.
We seem to fuck them through out the region.
The Iraq issue should have been determined back in the early 90s when Saddam slaughtered the Marsh Kurds for supporting us.
Reposting what I said in other thread:
Maybe Im weighing in on a subject wayy over my head(not to mention being on my 4th Corona and counting..).. but I`d think it better to keep a nice size footprint there in Syria.? Once we`re completely out, Russia/Iran will no sooner have a complete puppet state(moreso than they already do).
Then again, maybe its a ploy to appear as if we`re totally washing our hands of the place, only to leave behind a sizable group of plain-clothes/plausibly deniable CIA/JSOC operators to keep close watch on the situation & act as needed..???
Maybe Im weighing in on a subject wayy over my head(not to mention being on my 4th Corona and counting..).. but I`d think it better to keep a nice size footprint there in Syria.? Once we`re completely out, Russia/Iran will no sooner have a complete puppet state(moreso than they already do).
Then again, maybe its a ploy to appear as if we`re totally washing our hands of the place, only to leave behind a sizable group of plain-clothes/plausibly deniable CIA/JSOC operators to keep close watch on the situation & act as needed..???
In about three weeks the Syrians being arab and the Iranians being Persian will sart to kill each other.
Win/win in my book.
Than the Russians will end up getting mauled in the ensuing cat fight.
A Trifecta.
Israel will than fly over and clean out the shithole.
Now your home.
I used to be torn on getting out because of all the 'investment' we made in Afghanistan, myself included. But once you actually look at it for what it is, you will come to the same conclusion that I did after years of just not knowing WTF to think about it; I have more respect for those dirty faggots I fought over there than I do for the bureaucratic cunts on our side.
We should never have been there let alone anywhere without a total war mentality; which we clearly do not have. This shit in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria has done us absolutely zero favors. I can only sum it up with our goal over there was to 'not lose', that's it. There was never a clear mission on the ground. There was conflicting philosophies on how to even fight on the ground, with some philosophies actually being that we wouldn't fight at all. Turnover galore. Half measures were full scale plans. It hasn't changed and it never will because it has nothing at all to do with the enemy.
And I wont get into exactly why, but the people who mentioned the CIA, well, I'm going to LOL at that. The CIA got shit done and did work when they were either allowed to actually do what most politicians and beta male liberals would cry themselves to sleep with at night or did it because no one was paying attention. But even they were basically having to maneuver around the real enemy.
We should never have been there let alone anywhere without a total war mentality; which we clearly do not have. This shit in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria has done us absolutely zero favors. I can only sum it up with our goal over there was to 'not lose', that's it. There was never a clear mission on the ground. There was conflicting philosophies on how to even fight on the ground, with some philosophies actually being that we wouldn't fight at all. Turnover galore. Half measures were full scale plans. It hasn't changed and it never will because it has nothing at all to do with the enemy.
And I wont get into exactly why, but the people who mentioned the CIA, well, I'm going to LOL at that. The CIA got shit done and did work when they were either allowed to actually do what most politicians and beta male liberals would cry themselves to sleep with at night or did it because no one was paying attention. But even they were basically having to maneuver around the real enemy.
The Mexicans piss in those.
The loser is the Kurds and they're bound to be used to it by now.
If some would have had their way we'd be in Syria from here on out rebuilding what we helped destroy. Obama let down the globalist schemers when he blinked and opened the door for the skys. His indecisiveness paid off on that one.
Im sorry for your sacrifice and discomfort served over there as the sentiments you express I feel to be true.
Never was a more just war there for the prosecution. Shit even Japan had real grievances with our oil embargo against them, but in the case of Afghanistan we had some criminal scums under protection of the stone age Taliban regime and failing to meet an ultimatum than they brought war upon themselves.
Unfortunately, and not by ignorance but by design our civilian govt nor our military leaders are willing to define strategic goals. Defining clear goals means there is a finish line metric of achievement and the population is going to be judging you and grading with the knowledge of what constitutes the end of the war.
So you give your war the nebulous goal of "War on Terrror" and 18 years later you find the contracts are still circulating and you can expand your power at will.
Afghanistan should have been simple as far as strategy goes - "We are coming in with overwhelming force to kill or capture Osama Bin Ladin. In order to meet that goal, ensure the safety of allied Troops, and quickly end the exposure to suffering of the non combatant population force will be used at its maximum to quickly eliminate or cause the surrender of enemy combatants. The use of force will immediately cease upon the verified death or capture of Osama Bin Ladin and his lieutenants. While in the conduct of this mission non combatant populations behind lines will be afforded all good will. Upon completion of this mission rapid redeployment of Troops outside Afghanistan will begin and the Afghan population will determine their own future form of government secure in the knowledge that if they ever start shit again we will not send Troops but missiles of death will rain upon every inch of the territory marking a point from whence what all came after was new and unknown"
Than just use the forces necessary to employ the total war tactics to make it happen.
Anything other than total war is criminal.
If you need to go to war than you need to go to win "Firstest and Mostest". LeMay had it right extreme force against the enemy is the surest way to limit the suffering of the non combatants.
1/2 stepping to war should be a war crime.
Submitted with all due respect to those that where there - apologies if Im out of my mind with these ideas.
You guys did wonderful things. I remember telling my Brazilian girlfriend of the time that September 2001, Afghanistan was going to be a mess. The Soviets couldnt take it and they were more heavy handed than us. The terrain was such that we would be fighting for decades and than basically you guys wrapped the place up in 6 weeks.
Sorry but not enough time for contracts in that time frame so lets let Bin Laden escape to parts "unknown" and keep this mother going.
Fuckers.
yep but who says we are abandoning them, the Kurds cover a wide area. Easy enough to embed some beanies with them.
My view is, with the Middle East, the deal is you F with us we show up and take out the leadership cadre and leave. New leadership gets the same deal F with the west and Marines and Airborne show up kill the leadership and whoever takes over gets the same deal. Eventually we get leaders in the ME that quit EFFin with the West.
I cant believe we did not know OBL was in Paki Hands, I think our gov looked the other way until it was convenient to go get him. The Deep State including the whole of the Fed Gov the Repunbs and the Dems are that evil. No more deployment unless we are on a murderous full war footing and kill everyone involved. Bring them home and put them on the borders and ring fence DC.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Another day, another blowjob. If I'm interpreting his letter correctly he is referring to Eastern Europe, Taiwan, and the 38th parallel DMZ. Personally, I think diplomacy is out by the tone of his letter. Those 55 caskets NK handed over were from the east side of Chosin where the 31st RCT was destroyed and had to leave on the field and there are hundreds still there, including 30,000 laundrymen that can rot in place. This shit has never been over and I think over 60 years of dealing with communism has run its course.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
He is saying we are right back to the day Stalin got the bomb. We have accomplished little while our adversaries still have their eyes on what they lost. And they are making a move. Sharing a battlefield with our enemy and walking away was the last straw. It is like a big fuck you in that region.
while our eyes were on foreign entanglements the communists infested the body politic and now control levers of power in our government, we need to destroy the enemy at home front then we can talk about defending others over seas.
Our number 1 threat is emanates from DC.
Our number 1 threat is emanates from DC.
If the Kurds didn't see this coming a mile away, I don't have much sympathy for them.
The Default USA policy for over 40 years has been to get the Kurds help anytime we want to remind some brutal dictator we can make trouble for them, then promptly abandon them to get slaughtered as soon as we get what we want.
Hopefully they saved some of the weapons we gave them to fight ISIS to take care of some turks.
I’m going to keep my comments to myself on this one. Lmao. Just going to leave it alone. Not worth the frustration.
No one questions Mattis as an intelligent professional. He has a hard earned, well earned reputation as an outstanding military leader. His role as Secretary of Defense is a significant departure from that distinguished career. The two should not be conflated. Likewise, the difference between the two should not be understated. Success in the former is not by itself preparation for the latter.
... As for his resignation from his current position, there's also the possibility that Mattis didn't appreciate the screen writers altering the globalist plot. This story has played well to theatres full of dapper NY spectators and the endless international horde of open-mouthed and open-handed (whether they are piloting a Benz on the autobahn or humping sheep on the Syrian steppe). Following in the footsteps of GW Bush (who was hell bent on building a democratic theme park on the banks of the Tigiris and Euphrates) he imagines American foreign policy as a sort of ark whose course is dictated by whichever direction the more fashionable political waves happen to be flowing. At the helm of his free-wheeling ark, Noah Mattis dispenses half-measured military might and full-measured bundles of cash brought forth like alms delivered from eternally
The legend of abundant American wealth and benevolence seems a bit less spectacular when close examination reveals accounts closer to being full of debt and fear than actual cash.
As a simple minded coonass I am left confused by his letter and wondering if I should be left in a state of terror more from barbarian hordes or a maniac loose in the White House? Not being able to make the distinction I can only wish Mattis the very best on his future endeavors, and not loosen my hold to the idea that we should not pay ransom to despots and we should kill our enemies.
Last edited:
Mattis' resignation aside, there's a lot of chess pieces on the board being moved. Methinks there is a very good reason for pulling out of Syria, because Trump had to know the political blow back that would come form this. I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them to myself, since it may be construed as "talking around" some stuff that I work and deal with for my day job.
As to Mattis' resignation, my sentiments mirror @Redmanss. If anything, Mattis (aside from being aggressive, decisive and blunt) is a student of war, and therefore a pretty wise motherfucker. While he may be leaving under the impression of solely for disagreeing with the POTUS, I think there may be other, more complicated reasons. Personal bias clouds decisions. A good leader (which Mattis most certainly is) understands that, is brutally honest with themselves about their own bias, and weighs that in their decisions. At some point though, a leader may need to step out of the way because they realize that they can't get past it. Or, as RedmanSS said, maybe he just said "I've paid my price, performed more than my share of service, and it's time to go." Either way, I wish him well, and remain utterly respectful of the career and role model he was to many of us.
As to Mattis' resignation, my sentiments mirror @Redmanss. If anything, Mattis (aside from being aggressive, decisive and blunt) is a student of war, and therefore a pretty wise motherfucker. While he may be leaving under the impression of solely for disagreeing with the POTUS, I think there may be other, more complicated reasons. Personal bias clouds decisions. A good leader (which Mattis most certainly is) understands that, is brutally honest with themselves about their own bias, and weighs that in their decisions. At some point though, a leader may need to step out of the way because they realize that they can't get past it. Or, as RedmanSS said, maybe he just said "I've paid my price, performed more than my share of service, and it's time to go." Either way, I wish him well, and remain utterly respectful of the career and role model he was to many of us.
He knew damn well Trump wanted out of Syria. Trump did it the way he did it to prevent Mattis from having time to publicly lobby against the decision. Which is wrong when you serve a President.
Mattis is a great leader. The Military has many great leaders. There is a bigger story here than can be seen. In this day and age never believe the road they take you down is truly the road being traveled. They lie.
Last edited:
A "war economy" is what arises out of the military industrial complex and that's what these wars are all about. That shit has to be used in order to be replaced. Weapons should sit on the shelves until they're needed, not makeup a need so the shelves can be replenished, just so some defense corporations can make better profits. That profit like that can be made on war is part of the problem. "Defense" costs will cripple us, just like the Soviets. They already are. And I'd argue it's made us less safe and more of a target. We have an offensive military, not a defensive one, and it's sole goal is to keep wars going on as long as possible so as much ordnance as possible can be expended so companies can make money. That's a war economy and it's every bit as real as any other capitalist economy with the same goals. To make profit and always be growing. You can't do that with war. Or rather, you shouldn't.
Communism turned out to be a failure and it's looking like pure capitalism is too. Because there is no incentive to do the right thing, with respect to industrial waste and pollution and weapons manufacture as one example. Some things should be nationalized. They should belong to all the people in the country, not any one company or corporation. Our weapons mfg. should be like that as should nationalization of any industry that proves impossible to run "clean" without handouts and giveaways at the cost of the people. Things that would obviously benefit the nation as a whole and not just the wealth of a few.
Of course we'd have to fix our gov. first for that to work, and that's another huge problem, doing away with political parties, money in politics, etc. Basically making them both work for us again as well as to be held accountable and responsible to us.
Communism turned out to be a failure and it's looking like pure capitalism is too. Because there is no incentive to do the right thing, with respect to industrial waste and pollution and weapons manufacture as one example. Some things should be nationalized. They should belong to all the people in the country, not any one company or corporation. Our weapons mfg. should be like that as should nationalization of any industry that proves impossible to run "clean" without handouts and giveaways at the cost of the people. Things that would obviously benefit the nation as a whole and not just the wealth of a few.
Of course we'd have to fix our gov. first for that to work, and that's another huge problem, doing away with political parties, money in politics, etc. Basically making them both work for us again as well as to be held accountable and responsible to us.
We don't actually have "Pure Capitalism" and never have. It's pretty much always been from the start, crony corporate welfare Capitalism where the rich & politically well connected (usually = rich anyways), get all the best of everything and get endless hand outs from the public purse of both money, land, contracts as well as preferential treatment where things a normal person would go to jail for, just get swept under the rug.
Pretty much since the beginning of this country, the working class of the upper low class, middle class & low rich class do all the paying.
At first it was just the rich getting all the stuff from the government, then back in the 60's they decided why not let the "poor" or not working get free stuff too. And the tax burden on the actual working class started to skyrocket as did the debts piled up for future working classes.
Bankers get to basically get "free money" anytime they want it to "stabilize" them, while the actual taxpayers who are on the hook for the "free money" are abused, ripped off and fleeced by those same banks, using the same public money. The whole 2008 - 2009 BS should have started blood of bankers & politicians flowing in the streets, but the working class just took the ass raping like the good little slaves they are.
Industrial waste & polluting the place would end overnight if you had actual justice. Go arrest the CEOs and all the corporate managers responsible, top to bottom & treat them the exact same as you would the local small business owner who gets caught poisoning the place. Make them pay out of their own pockets for their decisions.
I don't think nationalizing the defense industries would be a good idea however, that is where the Soviets failed, because of our mostly free market economy, we were able to innovate and come up with way better stuff that their state owned defense industries couldn't even copy correctly.
Lots of stuff needs to change in the entire economy and political system, but it's not going to, until there is some major dying and collapse & then it's a coin toss as to if the new setup will be better or worse depending on who comes out on top.
Here is an answer to the Kurd problem.
How about we take in one Kurd and kick out one DACA recipient. a one for one exchange?
At least the Kurds earned it.
My only concern aren't the Kurds sort of on the Communist spectrum.
The Kurds can play the refugee immigration game just like everyone else if they so choose. I give them zero special status. DACA is a falsehood anyhow, illegal is illegal, they're not special either.
The Kurds just need Kurdistan, they already live there, it's just that 4 or so other countries all want a piece of it because there is like oil there.
No point importing another disaffected minority group who while the first generation may appreciate being here, still in the end want their own land.
The folks in the sand box are rather concerned about their actual physical patch of ground.
Their children & grandchildren will be all grumbling at us and blame us for letting them settle here and all that stuff.
If we want Kurdistan, no need to worry about it, just drop tons of weapons to them & tell them get your own country or die trying.
It will keep Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey busy for awhile.
I would think that in the whole global power business, it would actually be a good idea to setup Kurdistan and arm them tons so they can keep doing what we always do messing around there, instead of us.
More Sykes-Picot fallout or what happens when an "elite" thinks for the masses and draws arbitrary lines across the globe not taking into account ethnic and linguistic differences.
He's from where I live and we see him here often. I suspect he'll move "home" to keep an eye on his mom (she's 90+ I think). Maybe I'll run into him at the Spudnut Shop in Richland and ask him "what's next?"
I think it was actually more on purpose judging from the usual operating methods of the culprits.
Deliberate making boundaries specifically to foster constant war & turmoil by keeping everyone at each other's throats and making sure the "rulers" of each area were the most hated by the locals. That way they are to busy either struggling to stay in power or trying to get into power to demand a fair price for their oil.
Just for reference, imagine how different things would be if when the British asked us for help overthrowing the new democratic government in Iran because the democratic government wanted a fair price for their oil & the British preferred a easily controlled dictator, who would sell out the country for baubles. We had instead publicly told the British to go pound sand and instead helped the democratic government a bit.
The USA seems to be the one the folks in the sandbox direct all their hate at (well us and Israel), but we kind of just stumbled into the mess the British created on purpose. Seems a bit unfair.
Maybe.
But after the way we have repeatedly screwed them, I'd like to be a bit more careful about who we give a free pass.
Greg
I don't care about the past anymore. A free Kurdistan isn't America's problem. Outside of SELLING them weaponry, I don't think we should be putting up one tax dollar for the endeavor.
Not
Our
Problem
Not
Our
Problem
I am okay taking all federal agencies arms and donating to the kurds.
We could let them pay us in Oil which is what we really want, tell the Saudi's we are taking a bit of a break from them and going to be dating other people for a bit till they get their crazy fixed.
Kurdistan would have plenty of oil, we just tell them in exchange for huge amounts of weapons, they pay us back in oil.
I'm pretty sure we could work out a deal we both liked.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
The century old broken promises lie in the Southeast.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Treaty_of_Sèvres_map_partitioning_Anatolia.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Treaty_of_Sèvres_map_partitioning_Anatolia.png
3 of the 4 Obama SecDefs blasted Obama's policies publicly. Obama fired one because of a policy disagreement. The only difference now is the bottom feeders in our society desperately need to politicize everything and turn every goddamn topic into an us vs them argument. Nothing to see here.
Similar threads
