The president has a complete 'meltdown' today following a Congressional vote

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Oraculi

If so many representatives want the US military involved in Syria, then they should vote to declare war.

Simple.

I agree why does this vote even matter. Declare war on turkey and send our troops in to invade northern Syria. Why does both sides want war so badly?

Brilliant. Maybe that was always the plan. Turkey wants nukes.

Step1: Deliver them.
Step2: Trigger conflict.
Step 3: Remotely detonate nukes and make it look like kurdish conflict with turkey was the cause.
Step 4: profit.

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..

a reply to: underwerks

Virgil:
Hippy, you think everything is a conspiracy.

Alan "Hippy" Carnes:
Everything is.

-- The Abyss

Ok, Hippy.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Oraculi

I don't understand. If they want us at war all they have to do is declare it. The president is not the one who declares war, congress is. Duh, you would think they would know that.

I'll explain this too. The War on Terrorism was declared almost 20 years ago. Much of ATS supports the war on terrorism, supports the fight against ISIS/ISIL, and wants to keep our nation safe from another 9/11. That has been an ongoing war and George W Bush declared it. The White House is aware of this and uses this pretense as basis for declaring national emergencies as they see fit, since we are technically in a war.

Now, there is a difference between a peace-making and a peace-keeping operation. In Syria our troops were involved in a peace-keeping operation, supporting peace and making sure that it endures. We do this in a few areas around the world and heavy amounts of money are appropriated every year and approved by the president to support this purpose. In fact, the president is always saying that we need more money for the troops and for the military - this ongoing war on terrorism is the reason for that.

It is all of this that makes the president's actions completely bizarre and unable to be explained by anyone in the administration. Have you noticed that? Nobody has been able to provide a good reason for this retreat?

That's because nobody understands what is going on and why the sudden breakdown in foreign policy on war on terror.

a reply to: Oraculi

The "War on Poverty", result? More poverty.

The "War on drugs", result? More drugs.

The "War on Terror", result?. . . . . .

a reply to: Oraculi

So what's the right course?

We can try to stop them from killing each other while they focus on killing us because we oppress them or we can pull back to stable ground and let them sort it out.

Ironically, the Middle East was mostly stable prior to the last two presidencies.

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..

on this, I admit not knowing the right answer. But rather than try for war, trying for peace seems to be frowned upon. A hater likely sees it different. I guess time will tell. All I can do is continue to hope for less of my brothers and sisters dying for what I consider a non just cause.

originally posted by: GreenGunther

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: GreenGunther

No sir. Dems are mostly self-serving obstructionists.

I hear what you say, but I’m sure there must be a few on the blue side who aren’t ticked off by this?
It’s become a huge pissing contest, and neither side is fighting for whats right, it’s all about ticking off the other side.

It doesn’t matter anymore if someone does the right thing, no one notices.

I think Tulsi flip-flopped on the topic but I dont exactly know why. Democrats seem to expect loyalty to the party leaders even if you disagree on the topic, unless they feel your vote can be sacrificed to maintain your electability in a purple district. I would be interested to hear each "yea" justify their vote to continue the occupation.

a reply to: Oraculi

20-9-2019

who the F made you the go to guy on foreign affairs?

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Oraculi

I don't understand. If they want us at war all they have to do is declare it. The president is not the one who declares war, congress is. Duh, you would think they would know that.

I'll explain this too. The War on Terrorism was declared almost 20 years ago. Much of ATS supports the war on terrorism, supports the fight against ISIS/ISIL, and wants to keep our nation safe from another 9/11. That has been an ongoing war and George W Bush declared it. The White House is aware of this and uses this pretense as basis for declaring national emergencies as they see fit, since we are technically in a war.

Now, there is a difference between a peace-making and a peace-keeping operation. In Syria our troops were involved in a peace-keeping operation, supporting peace and making sure that it endures. We do this in a few areas around the world and heavy amounts of money are appropriated every year and approved by the president to support this purpose. In fact, the president is always saying that we need more money for the troops and for the military - this ongoing war on terrorism is the reason for that.

It is all of this that makes the president's actions completely bizarre and unable to be explained by anyone in the administration. Have you noticed that? Nobody has been able to provide a good reason for this retreat?

That's because nobody understands what is going on and why the sudden breakdown in foreign policy on war on terror.

Seems most in congress don't care the American people are tired of spending lives and money in faraway places that there is no reason for us to be in. It is now clear the president knows this.

I have never voted because it has never really mattered. Didn't matter who you voted for because the R's & D's are really on the same team.

I will vote in 2020 because it has become clear to me Trump is not on that team!

a reply to: Oraculi

Well yes he's being very emotional but not a complete meltdown.

If it was complete he would have been crying.


I feel bad for him.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Oraculi

So what's the right course?

We can try to stop them from killing each other while they focus on killing us because we oppress them or we can pull back to stable ground and let them sort it out.

Ironically, the Middle East was mostly stable prior to the last two presidencies.

It's too late for that. We were on the right course and I don't think there is a way of putting that genie back in the bottle unless we want to risk a peace-making operation again, which means going back to war. We had stabilized the region and had peace and now all that work is gone.

Also interesting is the fact that our mission in Syria has been so effective that our own causalities in this peace-making and then peace-keeping mission have been very low. In all these years 3 Americans lost their lives in Syria. Compared to some 570,000 causalities of the war. 30,000 ISIS troops killed, 3 Americans lost. Every life is a great loss, but this operation was pretty smooth.

There is no right course now, we're back to square one, except we lost credibility and trust, internationally.

It's a shame that so many Democrats love CHINA and KURDS more than the USA.

a reply to: Oraculi

Who made you the authority on what ATS thinks?

You've been here less than a month. You know nothing of what "ATS thinks" about the bogus war on terror.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Oraculi

Send Trump and his minions to Syria unescorted.

And the problem will solve itself.

trump can't go...he has bonespurs remember?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Oraculi

If so many representatives want the US military involved in Syria, then they should vote to declare war.

Simple.

BINGO! Just like they did for Iraq. Obama apparently made most of Congress lose their morals and integrity over an 8 year period.

a reply to: Oraculi

Probably one on this board believes the official narrative for 9/11 except maybe you, and a few particularly dense people. Also probably no one believes iraq had weapons of mass destruction, barring the same conditions in my previous statement.

This is less of an explaination, which is generally objective factual information, than it is "your own version of events."

Convince me that we have to occupy Syria based on a threat to the United States that exists in Syria.

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: JDmOKI

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Oraculi

If so many representatives want the US military involved in Syria, then they should vote to declare war.

Simple.

I agree why does this vote even matter. Declare war on turkey and send our troops in to invade northern Syria. Why does both sides want war so badly?

Why do they want war? Defense contractors make big donations to their campaigns for one.

For Democrats they just want war because Trump doesn't - you know mindless resistance.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why can't they want to both NOT go to war but also want to help our allies?