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

originally posted by: knoxie
you all would leave your allies hanging?

and, essentially give Syria to Russia?

cool.



so, making sure those left behind won't get annihilated is the same as starting new wars in your eyes?

Maybe America shouldn't align itself with literal human garbage?

America's "allies" in Syria are as close to the incarnation of evil as anyone is ever going to get. They rape, torture and behead children as young as 3, they capture women to rape and sell them into slavery, they burn entire villages alive, and they would plunge their country back into the dark ages.

They don't deserve to live, let alone be supported.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

Agreed. Kurdistan should be a reality right now.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

Agreed. Kurdistan should be a reality right now.

Wow, we actually agree on that.

We better not leave them out to dry again.....I wouldn't want them as enemies.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

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.

As it should. It has gone of for 18years (as opposed to 4), we have flown more sorties, used up more munitions, fired more rounds and given away more equipment which cost more than any WWII tank or truck or rocket or bomb. This ignores all the $$$ in aid (bribes) and walking around money that commanders get to hand out to local warlords or two-bit politicians.

And what do we get for our blood and treasure? After WWII the US was THE superpower, the Nazis were gone, and the militarism of Japan was history.

18 years into this set of conflicts the world looks at the US with some disdain, and many folks outright want us dead. Not a good use of resources, in my estimation.

Maybe the US could go back to helping folks in 3rd world countries build wells, farm more efficiently, set up some infrastructure, cure diseases, provide education, monitor elections, provide food to the starving, and all that kind of soft power stuff that really seems to matter in people's lives.

Naw. That isn't sexy or macho.

Sad now.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

That was an honest post I couldn't agree with more.

We finally got to the meat of the topic. That's what our country should be discussing.

Notice me and you were able to do so without mudding the waters with politics.

a reply to: Propagandalf

The Kurds in Syria, as far as I know, got along well enough with the Assad Regime. Honestly, they arent the reason we went into Syria. They are not an obstacle to us leaving, as the Kurds seem quite capable of defending themselves as long as we supply them arms.

Have the UN step in and perform that buffer role. Our airpower will still be in the area to decimate any large force that attacks them.

There is no compelling reason for us to have boots on the ground in Syria unless we mean to overthrow the Assad Regime. Is that what you want?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

That was an honest post I couldn't agree with more.

We finally got to the meat of the topic. That's what our country should be discussing.

Notice me and you were able to do so without mudding the waters with politics.

Yes. this is nice. Overall this has been a great thread and discussion with some very good points being brought up. I have found myself starring posters who I am usually in disagreement with on most issues. Maybe we should print out a transcript and send it to Washington as an example of how to have a civil debate without descending to the lowest argument forms and pandering to the base?

Thanks.

Not so sad now!

a reply to: pavil

The UN? Did you just type that?

The UN is like the Mos Eisley of the world -- a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ...

Now if the UN were actually what it was supposed to be, I could agree with that.

Most leftists would sacrifice their own grandmother if it meant they could spite Mr.OrangeManBad.

#JustJoking
#NotReally

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I have found myself starring posters who I am usually in disagreement with on most issues.

Some of my favorite posters are ones who I regularly disagree with.

I typically star any honest and productive posts even if I disagree. I come here to see more points of view, not hide from them.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I come here to challenge my own biases and beliefs.

I argue my positions until I can have them invalidated and if not, then I tend to stick with it.

a reply to: iplay1up2

The military advisors told many presidents to nuke Russia before they had the capabilities to nuke America.

Luckily the presidents didn’t listen....

Saying that the president should listen to their generals is either a niave statement or a very anti trump statement, phrased to sound smart.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

Agreed. Kurdistan should be a reality right now.

Ideally I agree.

Realisticly I wonder what the success of a west backed Kurdistan would be.

Personally I want the country to take a period of isolationism so we can focus on issues at home, like a failing infrastructure, education system, banking system, and health care system.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I come here to challenge my own biases and beliefs.

I argue my positions until I can have them invalidated and if not, then I tend to stick with it.

It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything that is called a Way. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all ways and be more and more in accord with his own.

- Ghostdog (fictitional samurai)

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I have found myself starring posters who I am usually in disagreement with on most issues.

Some of my favorite posters are ones who I regularly disagree with.

I typically star any honest and productive posts even if I disagree. I come here to see more points of view, not hide from them.

Yeah, I star posts I think are fair and bring something to the conversation. I never star a post that is purely a troll, or hyperbolic (unless incredibly fun for the sake of fun), or posted merely to cause another person to crazy. Hurtful posts are pointless, as are the generalized posts that say "all __________ (fill in the blank) are insane, irrational, evil, trying to destroy, in league with Satan..."
I stop reading those posts the second I realize what they are. That way they don't pollute my otherwise pristine brain..

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pavil

The UN? Did you just type that?

The UN is like the Mos Eisley of the world -- a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ...

Now if the UN were actually what it was supposed to be, I could agree with that.

I did. What better place for them than to fight ISIS than US Troops......plus they would be buyers of ISIS sex slaves given their track record around the world "peacekeeping".

Notice how the UN refugee programs seemed to have ignored Libya and Syria? I'm sure that's just a coincidence though......

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Propagandalf

The Kurds in Syria, as far as I know, got along well enough with the Assad Regime. Honestly, they arent the reason we went into Syria. They are not an obstacle to us leaving, as the Kurds seem quite capable of defending themselves as long as we supply them arms.

Have the UN step in and perform that buffer role. Our airpower will still be in the area to decimate any large force that attacks them.

There is no compelling reason for us to have boots on the ground in Syria unless we mean to overthrow the Assad Regime. Is that what you want?

No, I just don’t want to destroy important allegiances because of some pacifist humbug.

a reply to: Propagandalf

important allegiances

Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances

We need to go back to this.

I believe in military isolationism, not economic.

There has been a joke going around for a while that if Trump cured cancer, the Democrats would be accusing him of hurting the pharmacutical industry and costing jobs. I now know that is not a joke. It's exactly what would happen.
They are crazy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

I would like to see a poll taken by only vets or active duty servicemen on the subject of war.

Ummm...Okay...this vet polls the following...pull the troops back from poppy protection duty...leave Syria...

Solve the Korean Peninsula issue and leave there as required by a draw down that respects the sovereignty of both the South And North...

Pull the troops out of Europe and force the Europeans to stand on their own...

Place returning troops in permanent training and basing/guard duties on the border’s...manning posts...flying drones...etc...as they are slowly rotated back into the civilian sector...

Leave minimal FOB’s with equipment staged in host nations should the need to deploy arise...


I understand the philosophy behind power projection and the need to stand behind treaty obligations...I think however...that Japan and Germany have been pacified and emasculated enough to warrant bringing the boys and girls home...with of course fully honoring treaty and ally commitments in the event of encroachment...


That’s this vets opinion...and I’m sticking with it...










YouSir