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.

 

Trump is beginning to face the political heat for his Syria campaign

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
As Russia expands more and more in Syria, Trump's only option is to go all in and take as much as possible. If Trump can take Raqqa, he would score big and give the US a huge foot hold in Syria. 4 days ago, for the first time, US helicopters ferried SDF, striking IS where they did not anticipate, and surrounded Raqqa. Democrats don't want Trump to succeed in Syria, because that would be good for Republicans. So, they begin to accuse Trump of being a warmonger and try to stop Trump in Syria. They are putting party before country.

www.rt.com...

www.courant.com...
edit on 26-3-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Just today, SDF has captured Tabqa airbase from IS. This alarmed Democrats, prompting Senator Murphy to make that statement today.

twitter.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Your source says that no one has been noticing our troop presence in Syria.


Qietly, while Americans have been focused on the ongoing drama over repealing the Affordable Care Act and the new revelations about the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, President Trump has been busy dramatically expanding the American troop presence inside Syria. And virtually no one in Washington has noticed.


I haven't heard anything about it, either, even on CNN. So I don't think Democrats, in general, are trying to paint Trump as a warmonger. I think the writer of the article brings up several good points, however.

I have a few questions - Russia has troops on the ground in Syria as well, and they are fighting for Assad. Whose side is Trump on, the rebels or Assad's regime? ISIS works for the rebels, and the U.S. wants to get rid of them, so maybe that is who they are focusing on.


Unless a secret plan exists that Trump is keeping from U.S. senators and his own secretary of state, there is absolutely no plan for who controls post-ISIS Raqqa, or post-Assad Syria.


I guess right now the plan is to take out ISIS at Raqqa and then decide what's next. Unless Trump plans on helping Russia / Assad restore his regime.
edit on 26pmSun, 26 Mar 2017 22:28:39 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
And why should we care anything about Syria?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Trump's interests is America. He is not a Russia stooge. He does not attack Russian and Syrian forces in Syria. He backs SDF which is American puppet force. His goal is to take Raqqa to give the US a sizable foothold in Syria. 4 days ago SDF cut the Aleppo Raqqa highway by doing an airlift operation for the first time. This will block SAA from getting to Raqqa by traveling east of Aleppo.
edit on 26-3-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
And why should we care anything about Syria?



It's always the same thing isn't it? Oil....

www.news.com.au... 9afb74



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Syria along with Iraq are two of the most important Arab countries. They are rich in history. Damascus and Baghdad are the most important cities in the Arab world. Control of parts of Syria and Iraq is vial to national interests in the Middle East. That's why both Russia and the US fight for control in Syria and Iraq.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Syria has very little oil and the coast is completely controlled by Russia. No way for the US to get oil out of Syria.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

In my opinion we should of taken Syria with the full force of the United States and our Allies+Russia after the first isis attack on the West... now the occupation part In the article I do not agree with, go in and clear out as much of Isis as we can find and then turn Syria back over to Assad and Russia with the agreement in place that Russia is going to be occupying and building bases throughout the country in exchange for helping deal with the left over terrorists... I personally feel that would work out well, Russia and Syria are buddies so I doubt Syria would oppose this to much especially with Israel starting to poke its head in the mix, most likely just trying to claim some more illegal settlements in Syria then actual airstrikes on Hamas but that's a different story. Back to your post sorry for getting a bit off topic its rather sad that anyone would claim 500 more troops on the ground would cause us to enter an all out war and if it did so be it our soldiers are just that, soldiers ready to fight in this exact kind of situation. Arming and training rebels just backfires on us when ISIS ends up with our advanced weaponry.
-good post id toss you a flag but it wont let me so have a star
edit on 26-3-2017 by WaldekBoleslaw because: I am terrible at spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
US interest in Syria should be only IS.... once IS is defeated, allow Syria to decide who is running Syria...


Like it used to be before the Arab Spring...


Leave Syria to Syria....



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: WaldekBoleslaw

SDF is safe. They are secular and led by Kurds. Russia has been trying to pry SDF from US control but they have not been successful. Russia is an adversary of the US. The US definitely should not hand anything in Syria to Assad who is a Russia stooge.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

As Trump said, Syria is not Syria anymore. Syria is Russia and Iran.




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Backing Assad is the fastest way to return stability to Syria. Under Obama it was the arms dealers and those promoting an agenda of perpetual war that was winning in the Middle East.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, to make America great again then all of the links it has to the nations around the world need to be strong, fair and backed by law rather than agendas.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Why do you think the U.S has any right to anything in Syria we wouldn't actually be giving anything back because the USA has NO right to anything in Syria without their governments approval in the first place. I refereed to "give back" in the sense that if the U.S and our Allies went in we would would leave after dealing with Isis to let them deal with the aftermath. I am rather curious as to what you think the U.S should get to keep in Syria after this giant mess is over with?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

I wonder how that happened.... The folks in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya are still trying to grasp why....


Arab Spring is a failed Globalist agenda move...

The folks in the region didn't deserve what the elite reaped upon them... Syria included...

Enough of the Elite in the west destroying nations to create more battlegrounds...

It's not a dem/gop argument... it's about leaving folks in other nations the freedom to run their own country without WESTERN influence due to bottom line, profit margins, or exploitation of their natural resources...



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

You seriously think the whole scene is a land grab? You've got to be kidding us.

It's Assad's government.

Russia has been their ally since the 70's.

Iran something like that long too.

You're talking like its being carved up like post-WW2 Germany LOL!



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye

Syria along with Iraq are two of the most important Arab countries. They are rich in history. Damascus and Baghdad are the most important cities in the Arab world. Control of parts of Syria and Iraq is vial to national interests in the Middle East. That's why both Russia and the US fight for control in Syria and Iraq.




That is just old talking points... We do not need to control the Middle East, and we can not control it unless you suggest we put a few more puppet dictators in those countries. Middle East national interests is as vital as Vietnam was in the 60s to us... in other words not at all. ISIS is our fault...we left a hole and that is what fills it. They make people wish for Saddam's rule over that evil crap. 2 or 3 trillion spent, 15+ years, 1000s of American lives and what has it gotten us?



Vital national interests in the Middle East is a joke...



edit on 27-3-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Typical, while there be villages, towns even cities in chaos for years now and these leaders still today act as arrogant by not giving flying frag about them but only how they them self gonna look alike, man its already a disaster and nobody looks good, actually evil is the word i would use. They could have at least saved some face and actually done something real by starting open dialogue with Syria and Russia about how to work together towards ending Syrias warfare.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Everything is directed at ousting Assad and replacing him with someones (puppet) that will comply wth the NWO agenda. IOW, get in debt to the IMF and World bank and allow Syrian resources (namely oil) to be tapped by International corporations.

Whomever is telling you it isn't about oil and control thru subjugation is being deceptive.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
And why should we care anything about Syria?


In all fairness, we funded ISIS and seem to have been working to topple Syria in a homegrown fashion (CIA calling card).

Im pretty isolationist myself, though. So don't disagree with your sentiment.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join