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.

 

Has Trump just announced he's ending ALL international military involvement?

page: 12
48
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
You pretend like there's an actual end to this support possible.


We still fighting in France? Belgium? The Netherlands?




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You pretend like there's an actual end to this support possible.


Truth be told we were mainly an advisory role in Syria.

We're not leaving either. We just moved our spec ops out of the north further south. So here's the question, why?

50-100 operators. Now, it's a step... But is it the first one we want to take knowing Turkey will likely roll over one of our most loyal allies in the region (maybe the most loyal).

I'd love nothing more than to seriously overhaul our foreign policy... But this isn't a huge move other than the ramifications.

There are questions to be asked.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Any of those situations in anyway similar to what's going on in the middle east which is basically a whole bunch of gangs in perpetual territorial hate and vengeance wars?

There is no chance these people will ever find peace this way. It's 50 different Hatfields and McCoys all hating each other.

As frustrating as it is, the Middle East needs to either be allowed to either fight it out until there is a clear victor, no matter who it is, or made to heel by conquering it and forcing change in ways none of us could stomach.

I suppose if you're really dedicated to the Kurds, we can declare them the winner and help them conquer all of the middle east instead of taking it over ourselves. So yeah I guess there is a third option. Anything that allows for the gang divisions to continue however, will simply perpetuate the situation forever.

None of the things you mentioned even compare vaguely to this situation.
edit on 10/8/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Now some of those are good questions that do need to be asked.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop




abandoning the Kurds is cruel and heartless, no one will trust us as a temporary battlefield ally again


No one is abandoning anything. At all. 5 billion dollars and these assholes are still riding into battle on camels. There are so many factions the weapons we provide are used against us because those we help sell. Playing both sides.

I do not feel bad at all. We have done all we could for half a decade. It's over.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Any of those situations in anyway similar to what's going on in the middle east which is basically a whole bunch of gangs in perpetual territorial hate and vengeance wars?


Europe of the last century was highly tribalistic, that's how we ended up with two wars there. You really seem to have a minimal grasp of history.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   
So does this mean we will stop supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia, leave the DMZ, Afghanistan and Black ops in Africa? I highly doubt it and believe this is all a huge wag the dog to take eyes off his corruption and impeachment chatter. While I would be all for leaving all international wars this is just a shady ploy by a cornered orange furred dog.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
So does this mean we will stop supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia, leave the DMZ, Afghanistan and Black ops in Africa? I highly doubt it and believe this is all a huge wag the dog to take eyes off his corruption and impeachment chatter. While I would be all for leaving all international wars this is just a shady ploy by a cornered orange furred dog.




No trump is definitely telling the truth this time, 100% facts...winning...



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I posted a report on what appears to be an activation into active duty of Reserve Components (RC) after seeing it in a military forum I also frequent.

Marines (Reserves) Ordered To Active Duty ISO Defense Support Of Civil Authorities



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You pretend like there's an actual end to this support possible.


Truth be told we were mainly an advisory role in Syria.

We're not leaving either. We just moved our spec ops out of the north further south. So here's the question, why?

50-100 operators. Now, it's a step... But is it the first one we want to take knowing Turkey will likely roll over one of our most loyal allies in the region (maybe the most loyal).

I'd love nothing more than to seriously overhaul our foreign policy... But this isn't a huge move other than the ramifications.

There are questions to be asked.



Have you considered the possibility that maybe Trump is just baiting them?

Turkey has really been a useless ally for the USA ever since we got in bed with them. But back in the cold war they were basically the only nation offering us friendship in that area of the world. (Both for access to Eastern Europe, and access to the Middle East.)

Now we've got the Kurds, and Ukraine becoming our friends. Both better allies by far, in their areas of the world.

Diplomatically, the USA can't grant the Kurds their own nation. A lot of the territory the Kurds would want as part of their theoretical nation lies inside Turkey's borders. And it would look bad considering Turkey's longstanding place in NATO.



But.... if Turkey attacks. All the diplomacy changes.


edit on 8-10-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: shorten



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Sublimecraft



rumors activating US Marine reserves for an impending domestic situation are linked.


Afraid they aren’t true at all...

Linky


And i still say the NEW wording makes it clear...


...
MARINES ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY ISO DEFENSE SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES
...


Marines "ORDERED to ACTIVE DUTY ISO DEFENSE SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES" "Ordered to active duty" is in past tense, as in already done, and this is an order to active duty and to stay in stand by.

Meanwhile the old order was:


...MARINES ISO DEFENSE SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES (DSCA)
...


In the old order it seems that the RC were not put in active duty. Unless it is a typo this is a step closer to deployment in U.S. soil for our Reserve Components ISO Civil authorities.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Puppylove
Any of those situations in anyway similar to what's going on in the middle east which is basically a whole bunch of gangs in perpetual territorial hate and vengeance wars?


Europe of the last century was highly tribalistic, that's how we ended up with two wars there. You really seem to have a minimal grasp of history.





Indeed - See history of any European Country with a Monarchy, 100 year war, war of the roses, wars between competing families for the 'crown'. Still goes on via game theory in the US and UK behind closed doors, 'tribal' and family ties are still stronger than government grip or borders.

It's a human nature issure, not an inssue unique to coffee coloured people or the Middle East.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, and they all fought it out for hundreds of years, with no one trying to force them to get along interfering in their business. It took two devastating world wars, and a desire on all parties to form a union to try and end these wars. None of which is true in the Middle East which has a bunch of outside nations carving up their country and creating whole nations of people they didn't want as neighbors and then trying to force them to accept these neighbors they despise, as well as force them to get along, which none of them have any desire to do. Again, totally different situation.

That's the problem with modern warfare. Too many nations getting involved in everyone else's business, setting too many rules, and interfering with things ever actually reaching any kind of conclusion. The only way wars end are with clear decisive conquerors and/or victors with the losers either wiped out or forced to adapt or with the people at war both deciding for themselves that they are done fighting and want peace.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Have you considered the possibility that maybe Trump is just baiting them?


Maybe, but I won't see that as a possible scenario until it starts transpiring.

How many times has a situation people have been critical gotten his base to come up with alternate outcomes that never materialized?

I'll be fair and say we've been surprised that sometimes things do pan out in favor of him, but honestly it's a coin flip much of the time.

Once you have evidence to this playing out as you described, I'll begin humoring it. I'll remain open minded as most parties weighing in on this are doing so with mostly speculation.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Yeah, and they all fought it out for hundreds of years, with no one trying to force them to get along interfering in their business.


Once again, you really have a poor grasp of history. That is not the case at all.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're comparing the modern middle east situation to Europe over hundreds of years and I don't know history. Tell me, what ultra mega superpowers were interfering with everyone in Europe? From what I remember most of the countries in Europe were the superpowers, and there was no grand oversight interfering in them all.

The thing that really United Europe was the world wars. When various groups had a common enemy and put aside their difference to unite against them, and realized they actually could work together. What further fixed things was helping the nations they conquered rebuild and deciding together to form a union to settle differences in the future.

None of which can happen in the middle east because it's a pseudo guerrilla civil war throughout the entire middle east which is divided into basically tribal gangs. France vs. England for example was France vs. England, not a bunch of subgroups littered throughout England and France fighting each other within both countries. It's not even comparable.

We force a democracy on them, that none of them believe in, and leaders none of them respect. There really is no Iraq or any real nation in the middle east so long as the people in that region stay so divided.
edit on 10/9/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
You're comparing the modern middle east situation to Europe over hundreds of years and I don't know history.


I'm comparing it to the Europe of the 20th century and to a degree the Europe of the 21st. Pay attention, I made this point clear in my last post.

You make these very longwinded posts in reply to things I either did not say or you did not read properly.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Puppylove
Yeah, and they all fought it out for hundreds of years, with no one trying to force them to get along interfering in their business.


Once again, you really have a poor grasp of history. That is not the case at all.


Nothing gonna change in the ME until they redraw the borders like Europe did post ww1 and 2. Brits and French drew up the nation states of the ME with straight edged rulers, until nation states are properly created for the locals nothing gonna change



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, and they all fought it out for hundreds of years, with no one trying to force them to get along interfering in their business. It took two devastating world wars, and a desire on all parties to form a union to try and end these wars. None of which is true in the Middle East which has a bunch of outside nations carving up their country and creating whole nations of people they didn't want as neighbors and then trying to force them to accept these neighbors they despise, as well as force them to get along, which none of them have any desire to do. Again, totally different situation.



Yeah. It would be similar to like if the USA and Mexico were forcibly fused into one single country.




That's the problem with modern warfare. Too many nations getting involved in everyone else's business, setting too many rules, and interfering with things ever actually reaching any kind of conclusion.


To be fair, the intention was to obliterate the Ottoman Empire.

It is easy to forget that, in their heyday the Ottomans were actually a pretty big threat to Europe.

The immediate goal was certainly achieved. The fragments that remain of that empire are ineffective, weak, nations with no power to make any trouble.

But nobody was looking at the long term. How can future generations live in such badly fragmented failed nation states?

The Kurds right now look like they are actually in the best position to create a working nation, if only half the territory they want for that project didn't lie inside Turkey's borders.



The only way wars end are with clear decisive conquerors and/or victors with the losers either wiped out or forced to adapt or with the people at war both deciding for themselves that they are done fighting and want peace.


Things seem to have turned out alright for Japan, even though they lost a war.



originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Have you considered the possibility that maybe Trump is just baiting them?


Maybe, but I won't see that as a possible scenario until it starts transpiring.

How many times has a situation people have been critical gotten his base to come up with alternate outcomes that never materialized?

I'll be fair and say we've been surprised that sometimes things do pan out in favor of him, but honestly it's a coin flip much of the time.

Once you have evidence to this playing out as you described, I'll begin humoring it. I'll remain open minded as most parties weighing in on this are doing so with mostly speculation.


If he plays his cards right, nobody will see it, because in order to fool the Turks, he has to fool his own base.

But I agree that it is far from certain that he has a plan. He might simply be demilitarizing. (Or worse, it might turn out to be some kind of backroom deal with the Russians over something else.)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I see since pulling out a two hundred troops that were keeping a massive incursion at bay - ISIS fighters have escaped Syrian prisons, our own troops are under bombardment by Turkey (accidentally), and we are now sending 2 thousand to Saudi. So, apparently no... not pulling out all the troops, only pulling out the troops that in some way benefits the administration / Trump.

One day maybe, Trump's follower will realize he doesn't ACTUALLY really care about the troops.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join