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

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: underwerks
What I'm wondering is why no one is talking about the 50 nuclear bombs we're effectively just handing over to Turkey/Russia because of all this..

The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik, though never publicly confirmed or denied by the U.S. government, has long been essentially an open secret. It became even less of a secret earlier this year when a Canadian senator published, apparently by accident, a document containing the bases where the United States is keeping nuclear weapons.

A senior official reportedly told the Times that the weapons “were now essentially [Turkish President Recep] Erdogan’s hostages” since removing the weapons would effectively spell the end of America’s alliance with Turkey, but keeping them there would leave them vulnerable.

Link

I think the real story here is how after this meeting Trump canceled a classified briefing with Congress tomorrow. Therefore putting them in the dark about the dangers that are now rising because of this impulsive move.

Handing over? lol, watch Turkey turn into glass if they go near them.

Removing nukes like those require a lot of time and a lot of logistical support that also takes time to put together.

Which is lacking in an impulsive move like this.

In an interview this summer with Air Force Times on the future of Incirlik amid rising tensions with Turkey, former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James would not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons there. But, hypothetically speaking, she said that if nuclear weapons did have to be removed from that base, it would be a complicated operation. It would require negotiations with the nation that would become the weapons’ new host, James said. And it would require a great deal of logistical and security work.

If the Air Force found a new nation willing to host the nukes, James said, it would have to take “the greatest of care” in their removal and transport. If the receiving base did not have the facilities or security necessary, James said, it would require a significant construction effort. And NATO would likely be involved.

“Any time nuclear weapons are moved from point A to point B, it is a major logistical challenge," James said. "The security is enormous that goes with this.”

The question of whether nuclear weapons should remain at Incirlik took on greater urgency following the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, during which the air base’s power was cut off by Erdogan’s government.

I'm not as confident as you. The way this all happened without any forethought or planning almost guarantees something is going to go wrong.

a reply to: proximo

We were going to pull our massive force of 1,050 troops out of Syria 8 months ago. The usual callous war-hawks balked. President Trump then said he was "delaying" the withdrawal.

When Erdogan told Trump, "We're coming into Syria with 15,000 Troops, 3 days from now", President Trump ended that Departure delay.

Promises Made - Promises Kept!

If the American people prefer for our children to fight and die in foreign countries, they will elect a different President in 13 months. RIGHT?

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: proximo

Well, since no one wants ISIS I guess that means they're done for..

No of course not - but if they pop their heads up there are a lot of armies already there ready to play wack a mole. If necessary I am sure we can send some troops back in to do it also. We don't have have them stationed there as targets.

Is it really your contention it is the US's job to police the entire world?

Not at all. It's my contention that this isn't a black and white move devoid of any context. Like everyone defending it makes it out to be.

There's a huge difference in a planned, coordinated withdrawal and a spur of the moment military decision made by Donald Trump without consulting anyone about it.

You seriously believe he never consulted anyone about getting our troops out of Syria? Seriously, you believe that? He said he wanted to do that while he was campaigning 3 years ago.

He obviously knew what everyone's opinions on it was - but he is the one that gets to make the final call.

I mean this whole thing is laughable - the Kurds were the primary fighting force, we just had advisers there - everyone is acting like we left them defenseless, which is ridiculous.

...and keep history in mind. The US also helped the Afghans and it's because they STAYED in the region that Bin Laden turned against them. One thing is certain. You cannot be allies with any force in that region, ESPECIALLY militia forces not controlled by the countries govt. Asking for trouble. Do not be surprised if some Kurdish breakway group becomes the next terror threat, despite the US helping them greatly to defeat ISIS and reclaim their land.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

I think such a thing would be one member attacking another because in order to get those bombs, Turkey would have to actually attack that base.

They're already attacking our bases.

A suspected Turkish artillery strike also landed about 300 meters from a U.S. commando outpost near Kobani, Syria, on Friday. Some troops and artillery experts believe the artillery strike was intentional, as the Turkish military had detailed grid coordinates showing them where American troops were. The Washington Post quoted a knowledgeable Army officer as saying artillery rounds had been fired on both sides of the outpost, creating a “bracketing effect.”

In response to the Turkish artillery fire, arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis tweeted, “Seriously, it’s time to take our ******* nuclear weapons out of Turkey."

Link

a reply to: proximo

Is it really your contention it is the US's job to police the entire world?

No. But IF we had a hand in creating isis then the honorable thing to do is to clean up our mess.
Seems like we WERE doing that.

If in the future isis never comes back then great. But if they do and you believe that america helped create them. That wouldn't be a good thing. Do you agree?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.

isnt congress the only ones with that actual power?
hmm
potus respecting that power is somehow now wrong.....imagine that

Did he consult Congress before he made this move? Nope. Did he give them the option to vote to remain? Nope.

In what way was Trump respecting Congresses power by acting without consulting them?

You clearly don't understand the War Powers Resolution.

It's sad when someone from the UK knows more about a US law than the US citizen he's responding to.

I won’t be supporting war. Glad our POTUS has the balls to tell the globalist assholes NO to their constant wars and occupations.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

I think such a thing would be one member attacking another because in order to get those bombs, Turkey would have to actually attack that base.

They're already attacking our bases.

A suspected Turkish artillery strike also landed about 300 meters from a U.S. commando outpost near Kobani, Syria, on Friday. Some troops and artillery experts believe the artillery strike was intentional, as the Turkish military had detailed grid coordinates showing them where American troops were. The Washington Post quoted a knowledgeable Army officer as saying artillery rounds had been fired on both sides of the outpost, creating a “bracketing effect.”

In response to the Turkish artillery fire, arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis tweeted, “Seriously, it’s time to take our ******* nuclear weapons out of Turkey."

Link

Nice try. It was not an attack on the base, it was a suggestion that the US soldiers are in harm's way and they should move. It was a bold suggestion, but not a direct attack. Since the Turkey/Syria issue isn't ours, we don't need to be there.

a reply to: underwerks

No. I am talking about attacking our air base in Turkey where the bombs are.

That was an incident in Syria, not Turkey. Do you read your own quotes? Sure Erdogan is a dick and untrustworthy, but even he wouldn't be that blatant unless he has decided to ditch the NATO treaty in the most blatant way possible, and he'd only do that with the backing of a more powerful player.

a reply to: Gorgonite

Did he consult Congress before he made this move? Nope. Did he give them the option to vote to remain? Nope.

You really don't know much on the subject of US Civics , do you ?
I recommend research and being informed , before you post.

Who put the troops in Syria ?
Why ?
Was Congress consulted ?

Denying ignorance
Why ?
I feel better afterwards.

a reply to: queenofswords

It's not just 26 troops. It's the backing and information that the us military brought directly to them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sure Erdogan is a dick and untrustworthy, but even he wouldn't be that blatant unless he has decided to ditch the NATO treaty in the most blatant way possible, and he'd only do that with the backing of a more powerful player.

Gee, I wonder who that more powerful player would be..

a reply to: Oraculi

The problem we have is corruption. Sure people selected these representatives, but who paid them off? Is it not safe to assume that lobbyists are not the only ones on war economy payroll?

a reply to: UKTruth

You sure like talking smack about our government from all the way over across the pound.

Do you work for m15?

a reply to: underwerks



You walked right into that.

a reply to: ketsuko

You think if it came down to it russia would side with syria over turkey?


Idk what they would do.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Russia wants to control the gas pipelines, and they need Syria to do that. It's the source of the shenanigans with Ukraine. If they do it right, they can control all of Europe through the gas lines.

Obama armed and trained the leftist Kurds.

Lindsey Graham recognized these leftist Kurds As terrorists back in 2016 but now the hypocrite is crying about how we need to protect them?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: proximo

Is it really your contention it is the US's job to police the entire world?

No. But IF we had a hand in creating isis then the honorable thing to do is to clean up our mess.
Seems like we WERE doing that.

If in the future isis never comes back then great. But if they do and you believe that america helped create them. That wouldn't be a good thing. Do you agree?

What am I missing here? We did clean them up.

The goal was to eliminate ISIS - and they are effectively eliminated - why in the heck do we have to stay there? Our goal was not to be a Kurdish protection force.

Do we have to stay there forever - is that what you are saying?

If not when is the right time to leave 5 years after isis is gone, 10 years, 100?

a reply to: carewemust

The kurds weren't fighting isis for us.
The usa did not go and fight isis for the kurds.
Both sides were already fighting isis.

There were two parties with similar goals that needed each other.
They became allies and promised each other things in return for this mutual help.

Is it right to abandon those promises now that our mutual goal has been completed?