Trump sells out to Turkey

Jump to Last Post 1-26 of 26 discussions (308 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image60
    Randy Godwinposted 18 months ago

    In 2015 Trump admitted he had a conflict of interest with Turkey because he had a Trump Towers project in the works. He now stabs the Kurds in the back after they fought beside American troops to help rid the region from ISIS. Apparently money means more to him than human lives as Turkey is posed to invade Syria.

    Is there no depth this cretin will sink to for the almighty dollar? Those killed in the Trump allowed invasion should be on the conscience of those who put him in office and still defend his atrocious acts.

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Oh ye of little faith. I find great comfort in what our mentally stable President posted on Twitter:

      "As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over..."

      You just have to accept the fact that his wisdom is great and unmatched.

      https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

      1. Live to Learn profile image77
        Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Adam Schiff is that you?

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          No, but we share two things in common.

          Unlike Trump and his supporters, we have integrity and respect the Constitution.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Rudy, is that you?

          1. Live to Learn profile image77
            Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            lol Rudy Giuliani? I'd have to write twenty thousand words, not allowing a response, to be that guy.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              You sure sound like Rudy. An excuse for everything Trump does...

            2. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Well, if deflecting to the impeachment inquiry is your only retort to allowing US allies to be slaughtered in an action that clearly favors Russian foreign policy, I'd say that was a very weak attempt.

              1. Live to Learn profile image77
                Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I agree with what Trump said and, to be honest, the democratic party I remember would also.

                We cannot be the world's police force.

                1. lobobrandon profile image92
                  lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  You mean the mob. I'm not surprised you don't see that when you can't even see through Trump.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image77
                    Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    You, as usual, make no sense.

      2. Eastward profile image90
        Eastwardposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Ah, "great and unmatched wisdom". Either he is completely off his damned rocker or he's trolling the entire world. I can't imagine either leading to a positive end result.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Today the president announced he will place sanctions on Turkey as well as redeploy troops to Syria to police the. ongoing problem. As well VP Pence will be leaving immediately to Turkey for talks to try to bring an end to this accelerated aggression on the Turkeys' part.

      I am pleased he reevaluated the ongoing worsening situation and has worked quickly to help the Kurds. It well appears he listened to those around him as well as recognized that Turkey was not going to keep their word in regards to not attacking and killing civilians. This is the third time he stepped up to help stop atrocities in Syria. I very much appreciate this type of governing. Way To Go, President Trump, America should never again sit on the sidelines and witness genocide. We can't police indefinitely but we can't turn our backs on such killing.

      https://hubstatic.com/14715951.jpg

  2. Randy Godwin profile image60
    Randy Godwinposted 18 months ago

    Come om Trump fans, give me a good reason why Trump is doing Putin and Asaad's biding. You haven't failed to defnd him thus far. Or are you finally admitting you've been taken by a sorry POS?

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      This has to be a tough one, even for Trump supporters. When Lindsay Graham blows a fuse, you know something strange has happened.

      The Kurds have been a loyal, staunch ally of the U.S. It's hard to imagine any country or people feeling great about joining the U.S. side in any military mission if we're just going to stab them in the back down the road.

      I wonder what Trump's motivation is allowing Turkey to do this. If it's better relations with Turkey in order for him to build properties in their country, that would be shocking.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Putie told him to....

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          And as we speak, Turkey has already started killing Kurds, our allies.

      2. lobobrandon profile image92
        lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        It's not the first time the US has backstabbed the Kurds though: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kur … -betrayal/

        This is worse because they were asked to take down their defenses. Here's a quote from someone on Reddit (rest of this reply)

        Know what just adds insult to injury? The US had the Kurds agree to dismantling their defensive outposts and fortifications with the removal of AA along their territory of control that bordered with Turkey. US said it would help ease tensions and allow for greater cooperation.

        Legit two weeks later the US announces a pull out. Hours after the troops are withdrawn, Turkey beginnings airstrikes against the now soft Kurd positions that the US had them remove AA and hardened assets from.

        This administration literally walked the Kurds into a slaughter. They caught ISIS, other radical group, Iranian proxies, "little green men" from Russia and Assad's forces. Now the US led them into the hands of Erdogan, who has LITERALLY always been eager to kill them.

        They'll never help the west again, and it's unfortunate considering all they have done in the past, as well as in this Syrian conflict.

        Edit;. Source for the kurds having to dismantle fortifications. It's also on the guardian so go find it there if ya bitch about the source

        https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-new … -1.7795409

        As for the Turkish offensive, that shits been news since the withdrawal was announced. If you don't know or can't find it you live under a rock.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          "As for the Turkish offensive, that shits been news since the withdrawal was announced. If you don't know or can't find it you live under a rock."

          Is that your thought or part of your Reddit quote? Do I need to crawl out from under my rock?

          As for the "Turkish offensive," articles I read noted it had been in the works well before the withdrawal was announced.

          GA

          1. lobobrandon profile image92
            lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Everything was from the Reddit quote after I said the quote began. But in defense of that comment, the commentor said it's been news since then, hasn't said it's been planned since then. On Reddit people tend to ask for sources of stuff that's very easy to find, that's the reason he said that I guess.

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              It was good to hear the entire comment was from Reddit.

              I don't mean to quibble Brandon, but if something was in the news "since then" why isn't a fair assumption that it was in the news because it was planned, or being planned?

              I didn't save the source where I read this buffer zone was not a new proposal or that Erdogan had been telling Pres. Trump that he was going to execute the plan, but I suppose it could be found again if someone thought the point to be pivotal. *shrug

              My only intended point was that it appeared that Turkey was coming - regardless of a U.S. presence.

              GA

              1. lobobrandon profile image92
                lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I find it hard to believe that Turkey would directly attack any US presence in another country. But, it's shaping up to something else with Iran now asking Turkey to stop doing what it's doing.

                Iran and Israel seem to agree on something finally.

              2. profile image0
                promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Turkey was not coming regardless of a U.S. presence. The Kurd situation has existed for decades. The U.S. held back Turkey until now.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Really?  The news reported that we withdrew 50 people from the area - we must have a really scary military if that's all it takes to prevent an invasion in force.

                  1. lobobrandon profile image92
                    lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    You seem to understand international politics very well. Yes, if one or two of those soldiers were killed by Turkey, the USA would lift any current sanctions and send bouquets to Erdogan.

                2. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  As you say, that is your opinion.

                  GA

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    No, it's  a FACT that Turkey hasn't invaded for more than a decade.

  3. lobobrandon profile image92
    lobobrandonposted 18 months ago

    I hear that those crickets have multiplied and taken home on this thread too.

  4. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 18 months ago

    "And the people bowed and prayed
    To the neon god they made
    And the sign flashed out its warning
    In the words that it was forming
    And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
    And tenement halls"
    And whispered in the sounds of silence"

    1. lobobrandon profile image92
      lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      I love this. I don't love the earworm though.

  5. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 18 months ago

    The public symbolism of this decision is terrible. How can it be viewed other than an abandonment of allies?

    I don't like the way it was done, but, could there be mitigating considerations?

    Several sources are saying Turkey has been prepping for this move for some time now. One noted that they recently had a battle on the Syrian/Iraqi border that closed an opening to deny the Kurds a re-supply route.

    Another article noted that the U.S. was aware Turkey was planning and actively preparing for this for some time.

    Recent reporting is that Erdogan told Trump, (on a recent call), that the invasion was coming.

    The point being, it seems Turkey was coming and Trump's only choice was to reinforce those American troops in the line of fire and go to war with Turkey or remove 50+/- U.S. troops and use sanctions to try to contain Turkey.

    Does that sound like a fair assessment? If so, do you support going to war with Turkey to protect a force they legitimately see as a terrorist organization?

    It is said that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Are the Kurds our freedom fighters because they fight on our side, and Turkey's terrorists because they are aligned with the PDK, (which does conduct terrorist operations in Turkey)? Al Qaeda was our freedom fighters when the Russians invaded Afghanistan and look how that turned out.

    Diplomatically the Kurds are our allies, (or we are theirs), but the reality is that they were used as our proxy. They did the dirty and deadly work because we supported them, (and their territorial ambitions), with money, arms, and the prestige of U.S. recognition.

    So now we have a put-up or shut-up moment. Do we pick a side and enter another Mid-East war?

    Is our U.S. honor worth another war? Have we have gone to war for less. I also think we placed ourselves on the wrong side of this confrontation and now we have to deal with the consequences of that placement.

    If the Turkish invasion was as unavoidable as is being portrayed, how many American lives is our word worth? Vietnam only cost us 58,000 and we left without our honor.

    Most comments, here, so far, are just Trump-hater comments. Some as silly as to paint it as a goodwill gesture for another Trump Tower, but I think it is a damn hard decision to make. I am glad it wasn't on my shoulders.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Not tower GA, "Towers". In 2015 Trump constructed "Trump Towers" in Istanbul. "I admit I have a conflict of interest in Turkey," Trump said then, but we know he doesn't care about money anyway. He's simply an honest American patriot who cares deeply for the little man.     roll

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this
        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Your point?

          GA

          1. savvydating profile image92
            savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            He, promisem, perhaps your "friend" doesn't have a point....ever, except to spread hatred.

            I will say, however, that I am deeply saddened, and even angry at Trump's decision to pull out of Syria. It is way too reminiscent of Obama's reprehensible decision to pull out of Iraq, thus displacing millions of Syrians and creating a pathway for ISIS to implement their brutality....

            I am not happy with the president right now. Perhaps we have more to learn about his decision, but as of yet, I am very disappointed---to say the least.

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I'm disappointed but not surprised that you haven't learned a thing about civility.

              I guess you're gearing up to get banned once again.

              1. savvydating profile image92
                savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Lol. Your purpose for living.

            2. crankalicious profile image95
              crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              It wasn't Obama's decision to pull out of Iraq. George W. Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008.

              You describe this move as "reprehensible" and direct that venom toward Obama. Perhaps facts will change your mind?

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Are you sure about that Randy? Promisem's link, Trump Towers Istanbul says Trump didn't construct anything, a Turkish billionaire did and then licensed the Trump brand.

        Did I misunderstand the intent of your comment?

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          So a Turkish guy named Trump constructed the Towers, Gus? Trump has sued several people using the Trump name before, so why did he let this guy slide? You're better than that, Gus!

          Are you asserting Trump didn't get paid for using his name? He makes a lot of cash for this, so what are you saying? Either way Trump makes money from Turkey.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Of course, Trump makes money licensing his brand. He didn't let anyone slide. That Turkish billionaire built and owns those towers. Trump just gets a licensing percentage.

            My only point was that Trump didn't do what you said he did. Whether it is hyperbole or exaggeration doesn't matter, the facts were still distorted.

            GA

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              He didn't do it? How do you know? That's an opinion disguised as a fact.

              We can't say for sure that he did. But you can't say for sure that he didn't.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Well, since I haven't seen the legal ownership documents, you may be right. It is my opinion that it is a fact that Pres. Trump did not construct and does not own the Trump Towers Istanbul.

                However, I think my opinion can be called an informed opinion that did not require any interpretation or speculation or assumptions:

                Wikipedia (familiar link?)
                "The property developer is Turkish billionaire Aydın Doğan, in a license-partnership with American businessman and current United States President Donald Trump."

                TRUMP TOWERS ISTANBUL, TURKEY
                " Disclaimer: Trump Towers Istanbul is not owned, developed, or sold by the Trump Organization or any of their current or former principals or affiliates."

                NBC News
                "Trump and his family have long had business ties in and with Turkey, the most visible example being the Trump Towers Istanbul, which licenses the Trump name."

                NewsWeek
                "Neither Trump nor his Trump Organization actually own the building. In 2010, Trump gave his permission for the Turkish owners to use his name in exchange for a fee, The New York Times noted. But nonetheless, his name connection with the building is part of his global brand."

                I could offer more if needed, but do you see any of those sources as requiring interpretation or assumption to reach a determination of fact?

                GA

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Your opinion is also a fact?

                  That's a complete twist of your own statement and the FACT that Trump makes a ton of money off those towers.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    "Your opinion is also a fact?"

                    I believe I said my opinion was based on fact.

                    I also didn't speak to whether "Trump makes a ton of money off those towers" and I certainly didn't deny that he made money from those towers. I said Trump didn't construct or own those towers. So what have I twisted and what is the point you are struggling to make? 

                    GA

        2. profile image0
          promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          We have had this conversation before. Ownership is irrelevant. Trump makes at least $1 million a year from those towers.

          It's well within the realm of possibilities that he could get a better revenue agreement in exchange for favors to the Turkish government.

          Whether or not he did is not the point. It's a conflict of interest. He even admitted it in an old interview.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Ownership may be irrelevant to the point of whether or not Pres. Trump makes money from a "Trump Tower," but it is not irrelevant to the amount of money he makes, which may be a motivation factor.

            However, that wasn't my point. Randy's statement was incorrect and misleading. And I think when speaking of motivations for actions it is important to be right.

            It is not just a semantics battle, the two different statements would lead to two different understandings, (I think), in the context of the conversation.

            GA

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              A business agreement that gives Trump $1 million+ a year isn't irrelevant.

              Are you denying that Trump has no conflict of interest with Turkey?

              Your defense of Trump on this issue is even to the right of Senate Republicans.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I see that you are back in the saddle; anything that isn't a criticism of Trump, (or agrees with you), is a defense of Trump.

                Of course, it's only my opinion, but I don't think that is working out too well for you.

                GA

      3. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Trump certainly took a  hard path that appears to protect our soldiers.  He made a hard decision perhaps to keep us out of a never-ending war.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          All 50 of them? While betraying important allies who helped us bring down Saddam Hussein?

          No potential ally anywhere in the world will ever again trust the current U.S. government.

          Even the Republican leadership thinks this was a terrible decision.

    2. profile image0
      promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      It was not a damn hard decision to make. It was quite easy for Trump. He did on his own, impulsively and without consulting anyone.

      The furious Republican reaction says it all. Even Trump's chief butt smoocher in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, was outraged.

      Let's get real. Turkey would not invade Syria and attack our allies without our permission.

      EDIT: Experts agree that this new disaster by Trump is a major gift for Putin and Russia.

      So it's not silly to suspect that Trump is doing a big favor for Putin and his buddies who have given him more than $100 million (that we know about).

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        We just disagree promisem. I know I won't convince you to change your mind, and I am fairly confident on what I base my opinion on.

        Erdogan has about 3 million(+/-?) Syrian refugees registered in Turkey. For over a year he has proposed the buffer zone, (scroll down this (NYT link to see the buffer zone map image), as both a place to resettle those refugees back in their own country and as a buffer zone between Turkey and the SDF Kurds in Syria.

        We both can imagine the national drain of supporting 3 million refugees in our country, and we can both understand our nation's seriousness concerning designated terrorist organizations. Turkey legitimately sees the SDF as a terrorist organization. I think Erdogan was extremely serious about his proposal.

        I think the Turkish invasion was coming, in some form, regardless of what Trump did or said. Considering Turkey's recent military alliance with Russia, (missile defense installation purchases), and our bumpy diplomatic relationship with them, I don't think Turkey was waiting for U.S. permission.

        GA

    3. lobobrandon profile image92
      lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      It should be pointed out that there are many Kurds in Turkey and a majority of them are okay with Turkey going against the people they too see as terrorists. They are US allies, yes, but the U.S. has a history of allying with terrorists just to get back at Russia. They did it in Afghanistan and they tried to stop India from stopping the genocide in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) just because Pakistan was allied with the US while India was friendlier with Russia. There are other examples where the U.S. was the bad guy just to get back at Russia, nothing new there.

      The Kurds however did help against ISIS and that's good, but they only did this because ISIS was going into the land they wanted as their own.

      They are probably just fighting for their freedom, and as you say someones freedom fighters are the others terrorists.

      However, the way they were asked to take down their defenses and then left to dry was not a good way to do things in my opinion.

      An official who heard the call said Trump was spineless and made this comment after Trump made a call based on his instincts:

      "To be honest with you, it would be better for the United States to support a Kurdish nation across Turkey, Syria and Iraq," said the National Security Council official. "It would be another Israel in the region."

      I do not know much about the ground situation there, but the world does not need external interference to create a new Israel in that region. Israel has not brought peace to the region.

      But if the Kurds don't have their territory anymore, the last Christians left in Syria and the last remaining Yazidis who are currently refugees in this zone are also in danger. Not an easy decision to make, stay and get into a deeper trade war or worse actual combat or leave and let things get even messier.

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        As your comment illustrates, this issue is much more complicated than Pres. Trump giving a green light so he can get another Trump Tower.

        I don't see any way a choice to stay and defend our Kurd allies would not involve more U.S. interjection into a Mid-East nation's sovereignty issues and our involvement in another Mid-East nation's war.

        What the hell, let's fill our Bingo card. How many Mid-east nations haven't we gotten involved with yet? B 12, Bingo! Turkey's Turn!

        GA

    4. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      "Most comments, here, so far, are just Trump-hater comments. Some as silly as to paint it as a goodwill gesture for another Trump Tower."

      Please give one good reason why anyone here should believe Trump would place the national interest over his own personal gain, and not the other way around. Which aspect of the Trump presidency over the last three years should give people here confidence that any of Trump's decisions are based on the national interest as opposed to what he can get out of it?

      "...I think it is a damn hard decision to make."

      It may well be... for a rational, sensible, stable person. Please give a good reason for anyone here to believe Trump is a rational, sensible, and stable person. Which aspect of Trump's presidency should give people confidence that this decision was a well thought out, rational and sensible choice, as opposed to just another Trump brain fart?

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Is this a new direction for you Don?

        "Please give one good reason why anyone here should believe Trump would place the national interest over his own personal gain, and not the other way around. "

        It appears you are rationalizing, (not denying), the claim of "Trump hater" comments rather than addressing the substance as it relates to the thread topic. That's a new direction.

        "It may well be... for a rational, sensible, stable person. Please give a good reason for anyone here to believe Trump is a rational, sensible, and stable person."

        More rationalization? What happened to addressing the content of a comment or topic? Is this your new direction?

        GA

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          In your first response you criticized the comments in the thread up to that point. The most explicit criticism was:

          "Most comments, here, so far, are just Trump-hater comments. Some as silly as to paint it as a goodwill gesture for another Trump Tower, but I think it is a damn hard decision to make. I am glad it wasn't on my shoulders."
          https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4099040

          I object to that criticism because of it's inherent assumptions. Evidence suggests it would be unreasonable to make those assumptions in relation to Trump:

          1. the assumption that it's silly to believe Trump might be putting his self-interest above that of the national interest. Based on the last 3 years of Trump's presidency, what good reason is there for people not to immediately assume Trump's decisions are based on self-interest until there is evidence to the contrary. In other words, why should anyone here give Trump the benefit of the doubt on that score?   

          2. the assumption that this was a difficult decision for Trump on the basis of what a rational, sensible, stable person might find difficult. Again, what good reason is there to believe Trump is a rational, sensible, stable person. All publicly available information indicates he is a irrational, foolish, unstable person.

          In other words, applied to most presidents, I think your assumptions would be reasonable. In Trump's case, evidence indicates those norms of behavior and rationality do not apply. Based on publicly available information, it was perfectly reasonable for everyone in this thread to assume Trump's decision to sell-out the Kurds was based on some personal gain, and that it was an irrational, foolish decision, until evidence to the contrary presented itself.

          Whether that evidence has now been presented is arguable, but I reject your explicit criticism of people who simply assumed the worst because it was a Trump decision. At this stage it's unreasonable not to assume the worst. The worst, in Trump's case, is the norm.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Okay, I understand your objection, but I don't understand what assumptions you think I made. I thought I was simply describing the content, (as written), of the comments.

            GA

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              "...I don't understand what assumptions you think I made"

              At the time you posted your comment, the only two comments that mentioned Trump's properties as a possible motivation for his decision were two comments by Randy Godwin and crankalicious respectively:

              "In 2015 Trump admitted he had a conflict of interest with Turkey because he had a Trump Towers project in the works. He now stabs the Kurds in the back after they fought beside American troops to help rid the region from ISIS...".
              https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4098866

              "I wonder what Trump's motivation is allowing Turkey to do this. If it's better relations with Turkey in order for him to build properties in their country, that would be shocking."
              https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4098959

              That first comment references a fact. Trump did describe Trump Towers in Turkey as a "conflict of interest" in an interview in 2015. 
              https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … st-turkey/

              And both comments reference a connection between that conflict of interest and national security implications, that has been referenced by numerous articles, for example:

              "Two buildings in Turkey may have more potential to upend American national security than any of president-elect Donald Trump’s other foreign business dealings...With all the focus on ISIS and the Middle East, Turkey is a country that gets a lot of attention in the war on terror. And that’s not something you want to hear at the same time as 'conflict of interest.'"

              That articles was written in 2017.
              https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-tr … -in-turkey

              Yet, when you summarized comments to that point, you said "Most comments, here, so far, are just Trump-hater comments. Some as silly as to paint it as a goodwill gesture for another Trump Tower..."

              Since the conflict of interest, and concern about potential national security implications, are a matter of public record, I can only conclude that your criticism is based on the assumption that Trump would not place personal gain above national security decisions (or at least not overtly). As I said, for most presidents I think that assumption would be reasonable. In Trump's case, I am asking what good reason there is to make such an assumption?

              The second assumption is more straightforward I think. In suggesting the decision was "difficult" for Trump, you are assuming that norms of behavior and rationality are applicable to Trump. Again, I'm asking  what good reason there is, based on the last 3 years, to assume that's the case?

              If that's doesn't clarify, then I don't understand what you don't understand.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Your clarification did help Don. I now understand that, from your perspective, I was making assumptions about the motivation of those commenters that, again from your perspective, seems obviously rational.

                However, my perspective is slightly different from yours, and your rationalization doesn't hold as much water for me as it does for you. Although I do see why you hold the perspective that you do.

                Now I will offer a bit of clarity of my own. My first thought was not that he did it for monetary gain but for political gain. As in it was a bone for his base, keeping a campaign promise as a positive note in this storm of negative notes he is currently experiencing.

                GA

  6. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 18 months ago

    Member of US Special Forces says, 'I am ashamed for the first time in my career'

    “Turkey is not doing what it agreed to. It’s horrible,” this military source on the ground told Griffin. “We met every single security agreement. The Kurds met every single agreement [with the Turks]. There was no threat to the Turks -- none -- from this side of the border."

    “This is insanity,” the concerned U.S. service member said. "I don’t know what they call atrocities, but they are happening.”

    U.S. military officials told Fox News the president ordered the military not to get involved in the Turkish strikes, after the Kurds requested air support.

    Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria are guarding thousands of captured Islamic State (ISIS) fighters, now without the help of the U.S. in the area.

    The Special Forces member said the Kurds have not left their positions guarding detainees. In fact, “they prevented a prison break last night without us," the military source on the front line said. “They are not abandoning our side [yet]."

    "The Turks are hitting outside the security mechanism," according to the source, who said the Kurds are "pleading for our support."

    The American troops are doing “nothing," the source lamented. "Just sitting by and watching it unfold.”

    “The Kurds are as close to Western thinking in the Middle East as anyone,” said the longtime member of Special Forces. “It’s a shame. We are just watching. It’s horrible.”

    "The Kurds are sticking by us," the Special Forces source stressed to Fox News. "No other partner I have ever dealt with would stand by us."

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-sy … dier-kurds

    1. lobobrandon profile image92
      lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      The financial times has a very nice breakdown of the Kurd history in the region: https://www.ft.com/content/871c10c2-e9c … 0e5018f061

  7. Live to Learn profile image77
    Live to Learnposted 18 months ago

    In this surreal world we find ourselves in the democrats are the war mongers, insisting troops be everywhere and in harm's way.

    It will be a curiosity, if a Democrat takes office, if they will continue to beat the war drums, or if it's just anything Trump does is wrong in their eyes.

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah, why did that blasted Democrat named George Bush drag us into a Mideast war that has cost our country more than $2 trillion and thousands of American lives?

      1. lobobrandon profile image92
        lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        All based on a conspiracy that too.

      2. Live to Learn profile image77
        Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        I didn't agree with that military action either.

        But, that was many years ago. Are you stuck in the past or just don't have a defense for being against this?

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          The defense is easy, we are leaving allies, people who fought with us, to die.  If that doesn't erode our trust and standing in the world, not sure what will.  And as Dan mentioned above, we withdrew 50 people from the area.  50 people were keeping our allies safe.  That doesn't seem like much of a burden to protect people that helped us in the fight against ISIS.  This was more about Trump bending over for Erdogen.

          1. Live to Learn profile image77
            Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            This isn't that simple. The Kurds are an ethnic group who do not have their own country. We are not in a position to give them one. Or, do you know something I don't know.

            So, what is your solution to this? What's the end game? How will you achieve it?

            Unless you want us in the region, indefinitely, you really don't have a point.

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              It really is that simple.  I feel stationing 50 Americans in an area is a fair trade off to help someone who fought beside our soldiers while you appear to be selling an ethnic cleansing.  I bet most of the military men and women in the country would feel that protecting the Kurds is a noble mission as well.

              I know something you don't, perhaps you need to study up on Kurdistan.  And what's the harm of having a presence in the region?  We have a presence everywhere else in the world.  Are you saying we shouldn't be in a geographic position to enact influence to protect our national security interests?  If so, I disagree with you on that as well.

              1. Live to Learn profile image77
                Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                50 people won't stop anything.

                Don't get me wrong. When they were gassing the Kurds I was all for helping. Protecting people is, to me, the only reason for military intervention.

                But, they do not have their own country. If you think they do, you need to educate yourself. I'm sorry many in other countries have difficulties living peacefully together, but our presence will not make things better, it will not solve any problems and it is not a long term solution.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  It wasn't the 50 people preventing Turkey from invading. It was the power of the US military, but you already knew that. Trump decided against all advice to give Turkey free rein to exterminate the Kurds, something they've long wanted.

                  1. lobobrandon profile image92
                    lobobrandonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    Wildnerness made the exact same comment, it's funny how like minds think alike.

                  2. Live to Learn profile image77
                    Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    If you think Trump has given Turkey free reign to exterminate the Kurds where is the rest of the world? Why do you think we are solely responsible? Are you willing to get into a protracted battle with Turkey? Are you willing to back the idea of the world slipping into war?

                    Trump didn't give anyone free reign to do anything. His actions are not an invitation of genocide.

                    You people who think killing is the answer to everything scare me.

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Valeant, what do you think the U.S. would, or should do if a dozen, (or even 1), of those 50 U.S. soldiers were killed in Erdogan's invasion"?

            GA

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              None would be killed if Trump didn't give permission to Turkey to invade.

              No need to create unrealistic scenarios.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                How are you certain of this?

                Would it be an unrealistic scenario if Erdogan did invade regardless of Pres. Trump's words or actions? Is it a hypothetical you are afraid to address? Or do you deny it is even a possibility?

                GA

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  For the third or fourth time, because they haven't invaded in decades. Because they won't defy U.S. power. You aren't reading my posts.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    I do read your posts promisem. I have seen your repeated: "because they haven't invaded in decades."

                    You may be right, but, I don't think the Syrian situation of the last few years, (3), is like anything the Turks have faced in the last "decades." Except for the threat of a real war with the U.S., I think the Turks were holding all the cards and an invasion to secure their desired buffer zone was a real possibility..

                    However, all of that is just my armchair perspective. I may be just as wrong as you think you are right.

                    GA

            2. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              If Erdogan began an invasion, I'm pretty sure reinforcements would be sent.  If they killed our soldiers, I'm sure someone would authorize some bombing so he got the message to never think about it again.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Valeant, I can see that scenario too. Another U.S. Middle east war involvement.

                What if, rather than "getting the message," Turkey escalates?

                GA

                1. Valeant profile image86
                  Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Do you honestly believe Turkey wants to get into a war with the U.S.?  C'mon man, you're skepticism only extends so far.

        2. profile image0
          promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          No, I'm just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of your comment.

  8. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 18 months ago

    Meanwhile...

    The Pentagon will deploy about 1,500 extra troops to Saudi Arabia in answer to requests by the leading US military commander in the Middle East and, in part, because the US Navy is unable to send a relief aircraft carrier to deter potential Iranian aggression.

    "Secretary Esper informed Saudi Crown Prince and Minister of Defense Muhammad bin Salman this morning of the additional troop deployment to assure and enhance the defense of Saudi Arabia," Chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathon Hoffman said in a statement Friday. "Taken together with other deployments, this constitutes an additional 3,000 forces that have been extended or authorized within the last month."

    The US has increased the deployment of forces in the region by 14,000 since May.

  9. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 18 months ago

    No, I do not believe Turkey wants to go to war with the U.S. But, I do believe Erdogan feels comfortable enough to do this invasion.

    After all, he was comfortable enough to snub his nose at us and buy a missile defense system from the Russians, (which should have triggered sanctions but didn't (another U.S. signal?)), and he knows we need our base in Turkey. He could have calculated that an invasion that did not engage U.S. soldiers would leave the U.S. in a position of imbalance. I think he was right.

    The American public, (and contrary to political posturing, I think U.S. politicians also), would not support our entry into yet another Mid-East conflict.

    For me, 2+2 = Erdogan feeling he had the room to do what he wanted. As another 2+2 example, I think President Trump's decision reinforced his thinking that he could get away with it.

    However, I don't think that last reinforcement was a tipping point. I think Erdogan was going to invade and Pres. Trump's decision was just icing on the cake.

    Contrary to previous portrayals of my comments, I don't like Pres. Trump's decision. Even though I remain convinced that the invasion was coming, I think keeping our 50+/- troops in that area would have restricted Erdogan's action choices.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      There are more than 50 US troops there, GA. More like a 1000. And the invasion would not have happened unless Trump gave it the go ahead.

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        I think you might be wrong about the troops "there" Randy. My understanding is that we have about 1000 troops in Syria, but only about 50+/- in the Buffer Zone area of the invasion.

        However, I still disagree with your concept of Pres. Trump giving the "go ahead." I think the invasion was coming regardless, barring any reinforcement actions by the U.S.

        That has been my contention all along. Erdogan didn't need a go-ahead, he just needed a status quo. I don't think our withdrawal announcement made a difference, but that a reinforcement announcement regarding those 50+/- troops would have been a different matter.

        GA

  10. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 18 months ago

    So . . . I decided to take a deeper look into the SDF and the YPG groups that are at the center of this "Trump Sells Out To Turkey" topic.

    I started out saying the invasion was coming regardless of Trump's withdrawal announcement, and I still think so. But, I am not so sure now.

    I started out saying I didn't like the announcement, and I am even more sure now that I don't like it. I think a little pushback, maybe in the form of a few more U.S. soldiers in the border area, might have restricted--even if they wouldn't have stopped--Erdogan's plans.

    But, I am still left with a quandary. We are supporting a group affiliated with a named, (by Turkey and the U.S.), terrorist group, the PKK/YPG.

    Now, I find that it seems the SDF and their aims for Syria are exactly what America wants for the Middle East - American-style Democratic governance. They support women's rights and education for all and local governance.

    In subsequent responses, I derided the "Trump did it for money" comments, (and I still do), and relied solely on the rationale that the invasion was coming regardless of what we did. To that point, I have changed my mind.

    I now think that if instead of withdrawing 50+/- troops, (a clear message to Erdogan), we had added 50+/- troops to that border region, we might have made a difference in Erdogan's decision.

    I still think Pres. Trump made the announcement for political gain, (although it is still possible he did it to avert involvement in another Mid-East war), but I no longer think he was right about the "averting another war" part. And even if I was right, and that was the president's motive, in this case, I still think it was a wrong decision.

    For all the reasons we have ever stated for our involvement in any Middle East conflict, this seems to be the one where we should have stood firmly on.

    If you care to see what changed my mind, start with the SDF Wikipedia page and follow a dozen or so of the related links it includes. I think you will find that this is one group, (finally?), that we should support with all available options.

    ps. Even so, I haven't changed my opinion of the Trump-Towers-haters comments. I don't think their opinions were based on any of the determinations I have mentioned, but solely on their I-Hate-Trump thinking.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Yes Gus, you're now using the "You just hate Trump" defense like Dan, Mike and the other Pro-Trump commenters. You too will soon see what type of American patriot you guys are defending and/or supporting. The blood of the Kurds are on many more hands than simply Donnie and his cronies.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Randy, Did you feel responsible for decisions Obama made when he pulled out of Iraq? Did you bear any responsibility for the people that died in Syria due to Obama's poor decision making?  Your thought process is irrational. It is irrational to blame American citizens for any decisions made by our government or president.   If this were the case you're covered with blood.

        It appears you have appointed yourself judge, jury. and executioner.

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          For the umpteenth time, Obama was required by the Status of Forces agreement signed by President Bush to pull troops out of Iraq.

          Why do Trump supporters continually refer to this as some kind of equivalence? Please explain why you're perpetuating this lie.

          Irrational? Blaming Obama for pulling out of Iraq is a blatant, misinformed lie.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            "For the umpteenth time, Obama was required by the Status of Forces agreement signed by President Bush to pull troops out of Iraq."

            A president has the right as well as the power to pull out of any agreements or treaties. I note you did not address his decision to turn his back on Syria. Which lead to Russia stepping and remaining, and supporting this long term war?

            "Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002,

            Obama actually set a match to the middle east...

            1. crankalicious profile image95
              crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I noted you're lying. Go research the Status of Forces agreement. The presidency is not a dictatorship and Obama was attempting to get Congress to come up with a resolution, but there was no agreement, so the existing agreement was followed.

              Obama set a match to the Middle East? You really don't know what you're talking about. At all. However, I will say I didn't support Obama's position with Syria.

              Ironically, I actually agree with Trump about the Middle East. We shouldn't be there. It's a cluster. All the time.

              Short of following Fox News talking points, what's your expertise in U.S. foreign affairs?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                The president has the authority to step away from any agreement... Plain and simple. You are very rude, I guess that helps you garner respect from some here, but shows your rude manners to most.

                https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/ … aties.html

                ."Termination of Treaties by Notice.—Typically, a treaty provides for its termination by notice of one of the parties, usually after a prescribed time from the date of notice. Of course, treaties may also be terminated by agreement of the parties, or by breach by one of the parties, or by some other means. But it is in the instance of termination by notice that the issue has frequently been raised: where in the Government of the United States does the Constitution lodge the power to unmake treaties?401 Reasonable arguments may be made locating the power in the President alone, in the President and Senate, or in the Congress. Presidents generally have asserted the foreign relations power reposed in them under Article II and the inherent powers argument made in CurtissWright. Because the Constitution requires the consent of the Senate for making a treaty, one can logically argue that its consent is also required for terminating it. Finally, because treaties are, like statutes, the supreme law of the land, it may well be argued that, again like statutes, they may be undone only through lawmaking by the entire Congress; additionally, since Congress may be required to implement treaties and may displace them through legislation, this argument is reinforced."

                Here is a good reference to show how Obama handled the problem I regard to Iraq. Clearly Obama had options. As he did in Syria. I looked to one of the Liberal "Bibles" for this explanation.

                https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -troops-i/

                1. crankalicious profile image95
                  crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Did you even read the link? Or just not understand it?

                  I will say this, virtually nothing we do in the Middle East will solve its problems unless we want a lot of Americans to die.

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Do you really think that offering other considerations is the same as defending Pres. Trump?

        Do you also think that your comments don't fall into the Trump-hater category?

        If my reluctance to join your rah-rah squad means I must be a Trump-defender, then so be it. Choir rooms don't hold much allure for me.

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          I've never considered defending our country from a apparent dictator want-to-be part of a "rah-rah squad" as you refer to it. Simply because I and others can see through Trump's many lies and lack of integrity--you and others apparently cannot--doesn't mean I hate the imbecile.

          But if it makes you feel better to believe that....have at it brother. smile You'll certainly have plenty of company.

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this
          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks, brother, with your blessing I feel better already.

            GA

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      It's always interesting to see a position evolve.

      However, regarding Trump hate, all publicly available information indicates we're at the stage where it's reasonable to conclude any decision made by Trump is made in bad faith, and/or for his or his associate's personal gain, and/or as part of some nefarious enterprise, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Again, if you can provide good reason why that's not a reasonable position to hold, I'd be happy to see it.

      With previous administrations, people would have to dig hard for evidence to show any wrongdoing. Now people have to dig hard to find evidence that Trump's decisions are legal, good-faith, rational decisions in the national interest. So while I credit you for always looking for the "evidence to the contrary", I confess I don't understand the apparent ease with which you have accepted this new norm.

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Did you get all of that from my comment about the Turkey invasion?

        I am going to have to learn to be more circumspect.

        GA

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          "Did you get all of that from my comment about the Turkey invasion?"

          No, I got the appearance of it from your comments. That's why I said: "... I don't understand the apparent ease with which you have accepted this new norm."

          Like the fact that you're willing to share your personal research into the aims of Kurdish militia. Yet apparently don't think it important that we both know Trump very likely couldn't tell you the aims of those militia in detail, or the main differences between them, even though (as you rightly suggest) that should be an important factor in the decision making process.

          Likewise, you suggest this must have been a "difficult" decision because of the nuances of the situation you highlighted. Yet, apparently you don't think it important that Trump doesn't seem capable of even spelling nuance let alone being troubled by it. See his letter to Erdogan as an example: https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/ … 1638748161

          Likewise, the fact that you have referenced the military personnel in the area, yet apparently don't think it important that the reaction from former and current DoD personnel suggests the DoD was blindsided by this decision, despite coordination with the DoD being safety critical (there are reports that Turkey fired on U.S. special forces in Syria: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1068361)

          In short you seem to be doing your utmost to ignore any personal failings of Donald "Sometimes you have to let them fight a little while" Trump, which evidence suggests are key factors in this decision. Are you really that sensitive to being called a Trump hater? I'm not. When the house is on fire, it's time to say the house is on fire. This is not normal or sensible:

          https://hubstatic.com/14722688_f1024.jpg

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I think you are right Don, it is not normal or sensible.

            Even though your response reads like a validation effort, I don't think you suffer from a need for validation. So is it a recruitment effort?

            I am not much of a joiner, so I will pass. If it isn't, then couldn't you simply say "I disagree"?

            GA

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Recruitment effort? I can't recruit people to reality GA. People either accept it or overlook parts of it for their own reasons.

              I prefer to explain why I disagree. Many times my thoughts have "evolved" through the process of trying to explain what I think to someone else, or I've found information I wasn't aware of that reinforces what I previously thought. Either way, I find it a useful exercise, and will continue to do that.

              1. lobobrandon profile image92
                lobobrandonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                This right here.

  11. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 18 months ago

    “We all know that if there were still those … soldiers, Turkey wouldn’t attack,”  Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)  an Air Force veteran, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation...  “This has been Turkey’s dream for a long time and the president basically gave the green light to do this … when the United States backs away, chaos follows through.”

  12. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 18 months ago

    I have a some questions.

    How many of you computer commandos writing on this thread talking down the actions of President Donald Trump are willing to take a weapon, travel to Syria and fight to defend the Kurds?

    How many of you are willing to dodge bullets, bombs and face a painful death every day of your life to protect the Kurds?  If you are not willing to do this, why do you expect others to do it?

    You computer commandos may not realize this but if you make it to that part of the world, the Kurds will supply you with weapons and bullets and let you battle the Turks as much as you'd like.

    So, why aren't any of you on your way?  I guess it's easier to come onto a forum like this a complain than stand up for your convictions.  I doubt many computer commandos have what it would take to survive such a situation.  It's too easy just to talk on forums like this than do anything.

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Mike,

      You are absolutely correct. I would not be willing to fight for my country.

      However, I have a good excuse. I have bone spurs.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        It doesn't matter.  Like I said, you don't have to be in the US military to fight the Turks.  If you make it to that part of the world the Kurds will supply you with a weapon and bullets and point to the battlefield.

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Are you saying you don't believe my excuse? I can send pictures if you want. I also have a doctor's note.

      2. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        lol

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Yes... Very easy to want to police the world when you or yours are not policemen. Well said

      How funny some don't remember supporting Obama pulling out of Iraq or turning his back on Syria or handing over tons of cash to Iran. They claim Trump supporters have blood on their hands due to a couple of a thousand troops being pulled out of Syria.

      It would seem if we did a bit of math they are literally swimming in blood. Such convenient hypocrisy. If it was not so sad I would be laughing. Millions have perished due to poor decision making.

      1. crankalicious profile image95
        crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        You should see how many lies you can pack into a single post.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Do you think baiting is the way to go?  It simply vry obvious on your part, you just do a poor job of it. Need to go back to baiting 100... Baiting 101 is beyond your ability.

          I see you are still unwilling to address Obama's handling of Syria? And the fact he could have stayed in Iraq and not given tons of cash to Iran. I do understand your situation. One would think you would give up on the conversation? Very odd

          1. crankalicious profile image95
            crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Didn't I note that I didn't agree with how Obama handled Syria?

            And Obama didn't give Iran any cash that wasn't theirs to begin with. He gave them back their frozen assets, which was part of the Iran nuclear deal.

            https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama … n-in-cash/

            Again, your expertise in international relations is what again? You and others very clearly don't understand the situation in the Middle East or the Status of Forces agreement or anything like that.

            By adhering to the Status of Forces agreement, Obama showed the Iraqis that the U.S. would keep its word. Further, there was no popular support or Congressional support for not drawing down. America was tired of being in Iraq and, if you know ANYTHING about U.S. foreign relations, you would know that lack of popular support for foreign incursions is always the death knell for that incursion. Vietnam is a prime example.

    3. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      We'll do that as soon as you go stand on a corner in Chicago and help their neighborhood watch reduce the shootings there.  Since that's a huge conservative gripe, might as well put your money where your mouth is and take some action in support of something you're critical of.

      Be sure to send us photos.  Then we'll ignore your blatant hypocrisy.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Can't.  Chicago will not allow private citizens to go armed and asking the gangs to pretty please stop killing will only result in another death.  Only the criminals in Chicago are allowed to have weapons.

        On the other hand, the Kurds will arm you, as pointed out.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Can't?  Chicago has a right to concealed carry.  I'm sure Mike, with all his tough talk, has one of those permits.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Hypocrisy, I see it as Mike putting out an actual question, it's as simple as that. And pointed out some relatively obvious observations.

        And in regards to your example of being disturbed about Chicago's crime --- In Chicago, 2,141 people have been shot this year... Certainly nothing to be upset about.  In Chicago, 407 people have died from their gunshot wounds.

        One would think that would those statistics would have us all worried?
        It is a war zone, and ya know what the people that live there should start working on this horrendous problem. Just like the middle east should start handling thier problems. We are not the world's police.

        By the numbers: The U.S. has nearly 800 military bases around the world, and U.S. Central Command says there are between 60,000 and 70,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East. Afghanistan: 14,000 U.S. troops in the country, plus 8,000 NATO soldiers.  Yes, you read right 8,000...

        A bit lopsided I would say!

      3. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't tell people to go to Chicago and do anything for that city, because I wouldn't be willing to do it myself. I wouldn't commit American troops to Syria and I'm glad our troops are leaving.  If anyone is so moved by the plight of the Kurds they CAN  go there and fight for them.  It's just easier to come onto these forums and act as if putting American troops in a hot zone is just such a simple thing.  Computer commandos are difficult to take serious.

  13. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months ago

    I'm pretty sure Trump deserves a 3rd term. It takes time to fix the mess the previous administrations made, and you can see how the scum do everything to prevent progress.


    https://hubstatic.com/14715676.jpg

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Here's a challenge - prove anything in that tweet.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        So sadly baiting...  Prove this prove that!  I am still waiting to have you respond to a few of the comments you asked me to more or less prove it...  All of what Todd posted is factual. He need not prove it to you, have a look-see for yourself.

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Virtually nothing in it is fact. It's all stuff Tucker Carlson said at one time.

          Let's just take North Korea for an example. Our situation with NK is the same as it was 10 years ago and 10 years before that, but suddenly Trump has created peace. Didn't they just fire some missiles over the Sea of Japan?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            It is very apparent we find different contexts in th Barr tweet. I did offer references to provide facts. I can't understand why you apparently have not hd a look at the links?  Once again we will have to agree to disagree. I did my research, and nowhere in my comment will ou find me quoting Tucker. It's up to you to read the information.  Not sure why one would even take such a stance with the facts re right there to read?

            Your response offered nothing? Why comment when you have nothing of substance to say? The fox thing is getting old...

            1. crankalicious profile image95
              crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I was referring to the "Educating Liberals" tweet. The only statement in there that isn't complete hyperbole is the one about the global initiative.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, all true, but you have not taken into consideration some have a hard time weeding out facts. They love all the hand wringing and whaling.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah. It's impossible for me to respect people who value emotions over facts or logical reasoning, and so, I don't associate with Democrats much.

  14. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14715869.jpg

    It's another day, and I thank God above for Donald J. Trump. The previous administration went far beyond treason, and the Democratic party today is in a state of suicide, which will obviously benefit the citizens of the United States, and thus, the entire world.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      These facts will send some into crying jags...  All very true, but not many want to pull their fingers out of their ears stop humming and face facts. You are asking too much...

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        I can't help myself Sharlee. After all of your repeated claims of relying on, and waiting for, facts. I just have to ask; have you checked out any of those tweets' "facts"?

        I would start by asking if you really believe AG Barr wrote that tweet?

        Then I would note that multiple sources I checked said that the money the U.S. government gave Iran was Iran's money to begin with. It came from frozen Iranian assets that were unfrozen with the Iran Nuclear Agreement. It wasn't U.S. taxpayer money. I will stop short of calling that a fact because the multiple sources I checked could have been lying. But have you looked into it to validate your opinion of that fact?

        I haven't looked into the Iran purchasing uranium from Russia "fact," but I thought it was the other way around; Iran was giving/selling its enriched uranium to Russia as part of the Nuclear Agreement. Have you checked that out to see if it is the fact you believe it is?

        How do you know that Russia got 20% of our uranium free? I recall that it was a business deal involving the purchase of companies involved with our uranium assets. I didn't hear anything about it being free. Did you check into that fact to be sure your opinion was solidly founded?

        I hope you notice that I posed my points as questions because I may have looked at less-than-credible sources too, (but I don't think so). The point is, have you checked out the "facts" for yourself?

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          We don't need no stinkin' facts, Gus!  tongue

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry I did not list my resources...  I always make an attempt to back my opinion with resources. Unlike many here.

            Part of the funds that Iran received was from a government fund called the "Judgement Fund". 1.3 billion to be precise came from taxpayers via this fund.

            "Few Americans have heard of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund. Most have heard of its recent intended beneficiaries: the Islamic Republic of Iran and health insurance companies reeling under Obamacare mandates."

            The Judgment Fund is a little-known account used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. Each year, billions of dollars are disbursed from it, yet the fund does not fall under the annual appropriations process. Because of this, the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, and these funds are paid out with scant scrutiny. The executive branch decides what, if any, information is made available to the public."
            "

            https://time.com/4530129/treasury-judgment-fund/

            https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con … e-bill/350

            In 2015 yes Iran did hand over stockpiles of Uranium to Russia I believe due to the  New Nuclear agreement.

            2018 ---Iran turning to those stockpiles and buying them back from Russia.


            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran … SKBN1640DO

            https://www.apnews.com/5397a202d20a4c24bfd3bd36c83ebde6

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            I supplied facts as GA was polite enough to ask for them. I do realize many on this forum don't need or respect facts. I suggest you check out my references on the subject instead of just adding a remark.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          GA,
          Part of the funds that Iran received was from a government fund called the "Judgement Fund". 1.3 billion to be precise came from taxpayers via this fund.

          "Few Americans have heard of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund. Most have heard of its recent intended beneficiaries: the Islamic Republic of Iran and health insurance companies reeling under Obamacare mandates."

          The Judgment Fund is a little-known account used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. Each year, billions of dollars are disbursed from it, yet the fund does not fall under the annual appropriations process. Because of this, the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, and these funds are paid out with scant scrutiny. The executive branch decides what, if any, information is made available to the public."
          "

          https://time.com/4530129/treasury-judgment-fund/

          https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con … e-bill/350

          In 2015 yes Iran did hand over stockpiles of Uranium to Russia I believe due to the  New Nuclear agreement.

          2018 ---Iran turning to those stockpiles and buying them back from Russia.


          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran … SKBN1640DO

          https://www.apnews.com/5397a202d20a4c24bfd3bd36c83ebde6

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            And did you happen to do any research why this $1.3 billion was paid?  It was for an arms deal that Iran paid to the US where the US never delivered the goods.  The $1.3 billion was an agreed upon sum for the interest on the $400 million Iran originally paid to the US.  I see you sort of omitted that part.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              DOH!  Nothing unusual.

              Fox News shared the same misinformation. Did you think Shar came up with the "facts" by herself?

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                The "why" wasn't the fact she defended Randy, it was the fact that we did pay $1.3 billion of taxpayer money to Iran.

                And we paid that $1.3 billion because our government didn't do what it promised to do, not as a bonus to Iran. Do you really think those circumstances make the "why" more important than the fact stated?

                GA

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes I do, Gus. Shar was using this  fine to try and unjustly giving Iran's own money back to them. Like Obama was at fault for the entire thing. If this wasn't your take on her comments, then so be it..

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    No, that wasn't my perception of the comment. I even missed the Obama connection. And since I was so wrong in my initial response, I am afraid to go back and see if I missed the Obama connection.

                    However, I would be hard-pressed to blame it on Obama. The 1979 Memorandum of Understanding that we signed seems to place the blame on Carter for not doing what we agreed to.

                    GA

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    Really, Randy, you are already in a tight corner in regard to your opinion I do my research at Fox. That comment is not called for. And let me correct your statement in regards to your comment ---" Like Obama was at fault for the entire thing". Please read my comment, you will find no mention of Obama or the Obama administration.  Why don't you read the comment and consider having a look at the links before lobbing insults? It still amazes me how some just can't see that vague insults actually make the individual appear not only bitter but ill-equipped to have a logical conversation. This is very disheartening. Please read my comment. I think you will find it polite to the point, and references provided. Information that I truely believe is factual.

                    GA,
                    Part of the funds that Iran received was from a government fund called the "Judgement Fund". 1.3 billion to be precise came from taxpayers via this fund.

                    "Few Americans have heard of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund. Most have heard of its recent intended beneficiaries: the Islamic Republic of Iran and health insurance companies reeling under Obamacare mandates."

                    The Judgment Fund is a little-known account used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. Each year, billions of dollars are disbursed from it, yet the fund does not fall under the annual appropriations process. Because of this, the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, and these funds are paid out with scant scrutiny. The executive branch decides what, if any, information is made available to the public."
                    "

                    https://time.com/4530129/treasury-judgment-fund/

                    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con … e-bill/350

                    In 2015 yes Iran did hand over stockpiles of Uranium to Russia I believe due to the  New Nuclear agreement.

                    2018 ---Iran turning to those stockpiles and buying them back from Russia."


                    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran … SKBN1640DO

                    https://www.apnews.com/5397a202d20a4c24bfd3bd36c83ebde6

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Well damn Sharlee. When I am wrong I am usually wrong BigTime! I have so much egg on my face I can scrape off breakfast for a week.

            However, there is a silver lining. I learned that I only knew part of the story and much of what I did know was also only part of a part of the story. So I learned something.

            I found that both of your response points are correct and mine was wrong.

            For the benefit of others, here are some details as supplied by a Brookings Inst. article that is more in-depth than your Times link.
            *I am aware of Brookings' reputation, so I followed every link in the article to confirm the information.
            The United States, Iran, and $1.7 billion: Sorting out the details

            The Iranian money:

            We paid Iran $1.7 billion in cash. $400 million of that was frozen Iranian money, but, $1.3 billion was U.S. Taxpayer money.

            The $1.3 billion was for earned interest. We promised (1979 Memorandum of Understanding), the Iranians that their frozen assets would be put into interest-bearing accounts. But we didn't do that. The U.S. government screwed-up and after agreeing to an outstanding claim at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague in 2016 we had to pay the piper. 40 years of interest - $1.3 billions worth.

            Here is Treasury Department Assistant General Counsel For Enforcement And Intelligence Paul Ahern's House testimony explaining the situation: Testimony of Treasury Department Assistant General Counsel For Enforcement And Intelligence Paul Ahern Before The House Committee On Financial Services Subcommittee On Oversight And Investigations

            Here is one cute detail:

            "Though the payment to settle the dispute over accrued interest was one payment, the Judgment Fund system has a technical limitation that prevents it from processing individual claims in amounts over ten digits in length.

            Therefore the single claim of $1.3 billion was broken into 13 claims of $99,999,999.99, and the remainder of $10,390,236.28. As in similar prior instances, the system’s technical limitation required a claim to be divided into smaller amounts."


            Where there is a will there is a way.

            ps. I better CC Randy on this, I know he worries about "facts" too.  ;-)

            Sorry Sharlee, I will be much more cautious and respectful in the future. (but I still doubt that AG Barr wrote that tweet.)

            GA

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

              GA - I must admit I had to dig way back in my saved references on this one. I have a government site that gives an explanation in regards to what funds are spent from the Judgement fund, and what the funds are spent on. Not surprising one must dig deep to find it.

              I am pleased to see you had a look at all the accompanying links to the reference I posted. I was going to go into more detail, but I have become tired of going over and over the same old same old.  However, I wanted to respond to your post. As I have said in the past you are very knowable and offer wonderful conversation. I  more than appreciate that you questioned my comment, and delved into the subject.

              Never need to wear an egg, you know I have been covered with it many times.  I think it wonderful that we have the ability to learn, and stand corrected without retribution.

              I also doubt Barr made wrote the tweet in question. He seems to fly under the radar.

    2. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Weird how that US cash that was 'given' was cash that already belonged to Iran and had been frozen by the US government.

      As for the rest of the lies in that post, see parts of the letter below:

      The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky
      United States House of Representatives
      Washington, DC 20515

      Dear Congressman Visclosky:
      At this time, neither Uranium One, Inc. nor ARMZ holds a specific NRC export license, which would authorize them to export uranium to any other country. However, in 2012, RSB Logistics Services, a shipping company, received from the NRC an amendment to its export license to
      allow it to export uranium from various sources, including the Uranium One, Inc. Willow Creek site in Wyoming, to the Blind River conversion plant in Canada, and then return the uranium to the U.S. for further processing. That license stated that the Canadian Government needed to
      obtain prior U.S. Government approval before any of the U.S. material could be transferred to any country other than the U.S. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Energy granted approval for some re-transfers of U.S. uranium from the Canadian conversion facility to European enrichment plants.

      Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia.

      Mark A. Satorius
      Executive Director
      For Operations

      You guys really are ridiculous with the things you'll re-post and claim as fact.  It's why many of us just have to laugh at the lies you'll believe.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        It would be laughable if wasn't so sad. sad

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          And even more sad is the person subscribing to full on conspiracy theories is now Attorney General.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            The 10+ hour session with ex-Russian aide today has made some from the Right a tad jumpy, Val. Oh to be a fly on the wall....

          2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            It's pretty funny when some random person on a website believes they know more about what is going on than the Attorney General of the United States of America.

            So you'll pardon me while I laugh for the next half hour.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I'll pardon you for laughing, but not for being wrong. tongue

            2. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              You mean the Attorney General that mis-characterized the Mueller Report for partisan political reasons?  Or the one that doesn't understand that 20% figure isn't even close to accurate?  I'm still laughing at what you'll believe.

              1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                CNN boy says what?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Part of the funds that Iran received was from a government fund called the "Judgement Fund". 1.3 billion to be precise came from taxpayers via this fund.

          "Few Americans have heard of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund. Most have heard of its recent intended beneficiaries: the Islamic Republic of Iran and health insurance companies reeling under Obamacare mandates."

          The Judgment Fund is a little-known account used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. Each year, billions of dollars are disbursed from it, yet the fund does not fall under the annual appropriations process. Because of this, the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, and these funds are paid out with scant scrutiny. The executive branch decides what, if any, information is made available to the public."
          "

          https://time.com/4530129/treasury-judgment-fund/

          https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con … e-bill/350

          In 2015 yes Iran did hand over stockpiles of Uranium to Russia I believe due to the  New Nuclear agreement.

          2018 ---Iran turning to those stockpiles and buying them back from Russia.


          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran … SKBN1640DO

          https://www.apnews.com/5397a202d20a4c24bfd3bd36c83ebde6

  15. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 18 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/72332794_1410777279098944_4247590722938601472_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_oc=AQmzlbzXt7Qhu3My5nyf9DYaLD0IQ5qKVFYyin7EBl_zx8ZCjeu3DJm7JNFMF0Lkleg&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=53e64f75d5e973947e737f355d058a76&oe=5E233A6F

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      All legacy mass media is trash. I wonder what sorts of persons own and control that trash.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks for posting this. The media or should say some of the media just are not covering the story.

  16. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months ago

    Just look what orange man has done to Syria!


    https://hubstatic.com/14717647.jpg

    1. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Excellent!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Nice one

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Todd do you not find it amazing how some could insult President Trump's handling of the current situation in Syria and not consider how Obama handles the Syrian crisis? Death toll over 500,000, the killing dragged on for such a long period. One of the worst stains on America.

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/ob … ory-works/

        https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/ … s-in-syria

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Those people don't have a high enough IQ to understand how the mass media manipulates them. Having a low IQ isn't their fault, but continually remaining under the spell of mass media, despite the never ending exposed hoaxes is something to where they must accept responsibility.
          Have another meme, and thank God above we don't have another Clinton running the show.



          https://hubstatic.com/14718527.jpg

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            I am so happy that this feed was not digested before it was retracted as fake news...

        2. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          I think a person can criticize both. I thought Obama's policy with Syria wasn't good.

          But do bless us with your foreign policy chops, Shar, and tell us what Obama SHOULD have done. Maybe you know how to solve this whole Middle East mess?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            This oughta be good!

          2. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think it matters what Obama should have done.  His time in the White House is over.  He did what he did and I don't see any value in debating it.

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              At least Turkey didn't invade and slaughter our Kurdish allies while Obama was President.

              Then again, Obama wasn't getting paid $1 million+ a year from his Turkish investments. He didn't have any.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause and his supporters don't care in the least, Scott. It seems he can do anything and some will not care to what length he goes to enrich himself.

                Some of Trump's financial records are of public record and they show he commits fraud with regularity. Imagine what his recent tax records will show.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, he's violating the Emoluments Clause and a whole lot more. smile

            2. crankalicious profile image95
              crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Of course it matters what he SHOULD have done. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, right?

              If you blame Obama for the current Middle East situation, then what SHOULD he have done to change it? Many people here are behaving like experts on the Middle East. Well, I'd like to know what you think he SHOULD have done.

              Hindsight is always great when it comes to the Middle East and American foreign policy because pretty much every President can be blamed for screwing it up.

            3. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I agree, but I grow tired of liberals accusing Trump of "selling out Turkey"... This is so hypocritical I had to point out Obama's foreign policy decision in regard to Syria.  One would think this a liberal would not have even gone there...

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                The incredible irony here is that Trump's foreign policy is exactly what Obama did in Syria - tried to avoid getting involved, let them fight their own war; etc. So there's hypocrisy all over the place.

                One thing I know for sure: nobody on this site has the answers to the Middle East.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  There are big differences... Too many to discuss here. For one Trump is drawing literally a handful of troops  I believe 1000 troops. Obama pulled June 4, 2010 - U.S. military says there are 88,000 troops in Iraq. Leaving a huge vacuum that left it ripe for all kinds of problems. One such problem the rise of ISIS. And yes you are right ultimately is doing the same thing Obama did on a smaller scale. WE will play a waiting game to see how Trump handles the problem if it turns into genocide.
                  .
                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq … EL20111215

                  1. crankalicious profile image95
                    crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't really want to give history lessons, but the situations are entirely different. When Obama pulled those troops out, America had been over there for 10 years. He was simply doing the will of the American people who wanted to be done with that conflict. Troop withdrawals in long conflicts are almost always conducted as a result of domestic political pressure.

                    The political calculus of the two situations is entirely different. You simply can't compare the two withdrawals as if they are the same thing. To do so is to be ignorant of the two situations.

  17. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 18 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14718496.jpg

  18. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 18 months ago

    It appears President Donald Trump has worked out a ceasefire deal with Turkey. 

    "It will be a pause in military operation for 120 hours, while the United States facilitates the withdrawal of YPG (the People's Protection Units) from the affected areas in the safe zone. And once that is completed, Turkey has agreed to a permanent ceasefire and the United States of America will work with Turkey -- will work with nations around the world -- to make sure peace and stability are the order of the day in this safe zone," Pence said at a news conference.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vice-pr … d=66345538

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      So let me get this straight. You're going to give him credit for causing the problem and then for stopping the problem?

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Turkey was going to invade eventually.  President Donald Trump got American soldiers out of harms way.  So, he fixed a very difficult situation.  Turkish troops had been massed on the border with Syria for several weeks.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Trump allowed an ethnic cleansing of an American ally.  Here's a question - why couldn't the US Soldiers help evacuate the Kurds instead of leaving them to be attacked?

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Do you know that the US Soldiers didn't help evacuate the Kurds? I don't know, haven't seen anything that says it one way or another.  I'm not one to assume.

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              You just assumed that 'Turkey was going to invade eventually,' that is unless you happen to sit on Erdogan's military counsel.

              As for Shar's comment, Trump makes a decision that gets American allies killed.  Figures out how bad he messed up when he is soundly rebuked.  Then tries to act to correct his mistake and makes America look weak in doing so.  This is like reading an idiot's guide to American foreign policy.

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                You have to realize any type of invasion takes time.  Massing troops takes a long time.  You have to move troops, munitions, equipment and other supplies into place. Here is an article about Turkey massing troops along the Syrian border.  Turkey's president was planning an invasion back then.  The article was written in December 2018.  As I said, it takes time to get ready for an invasion.

                "Turkey moved masses of troops to its border with Syria on Sunday, near a town held by US-backed Kurdish forces."

                https://www.dw.com/en/turkey-massing-tr … a-46848508

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  I see I have been addressed? I just wanted to point out we now have a president that acts quickly to avert hundreds of thousands of deaths due to a development that he would have no way of knowing would occur. I am so pleased to have a president that daily problem solves and does it quickly. He can chew gum and walk.  I am very happy Trump put a bandaid on the problem. However, we all know they will cry about something new tomorrow.

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    Problem solves?  He created the problem.  If he didn't pull troops, the Kurds would still have homes and would not have been attacked.  Are you happy that we abandoned an ally to be attacked?

                2. Valeant profile image86
                  Valeantposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Turkey massed troops when Trump made a declaration in December of 2018 that he wanted to pull troops at that time and was similarly rebuked by Congress then.  Why didn't they invade at that time? Because of the presence of US troops.  So your claim of they were going to invade is clearly false and you making an assumption.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image96
                    Readmikenowposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    Turkey was going to invade.  They told President Donald Trump they were going to invade.  There were 24 US soldiers guarding that boarder area.  He did the right thing getting those 24 US Soldiers out of there.  I know our military is good, but I don't think they could have stopped thousands of Turkish military.  Are you foolish enough to believe we should sent troops against Turkey, an NATO ally?  Sorry, President Donald Trump was faced with a difficult situation and he protected US soldiers and stopped the Turkish invasion.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          I thought he made a good decision pulling the troops out. However, it seems I was in the minority?   

          Actually I like how Trump quickly reevaluated the situation. He is a president that took stock in what the people wanted. He appears to have taken the House vote very seriously. The House overwhelmingly backs resolution condemning Trump's withdrawal from Syria. I am very much impressed with his decision to act quickly to alleviate the growing problem. Hopefully, we can pull out with some kind of solution, we should not have to police any country. It's always America sending our military into harm's way. NATO needs to do more.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      What a buncha horse$hit, Mike. He caused the mess and is now trying to act like a hero trying to clean it up!  Pence is a dork as well. We'll soon be better off without either stinking up the WH.

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Trump seems to have a habit of creating a crisis and then claiming credit for cleaning it up.

        But he doesn't ever claim credit for creating the crisis in the first place.  smile

    3. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      This is very good news. I for one did not want to live through another genocide.  I am very grateful President Trump was quick to try another solution to this horrendous situation. The Syrian people have already suffered, losing over 500,000 men, women, and children, and over 2 million citizens being run out of their country. Yes, enough...

  19. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 18 months ago

    Liberals can now calm down.


    https://hubstatic.com/14720079.jpg

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Oh My...LOL

  20. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 18 months ago

    It appears that Syrians in the United States believe President Donald Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    "A Syrian American doctor is spearheading an initiative to nominate President Trump for a Noble Peace Prize after Trump managed to convince Putin to throttle back on plans to seize the Syrian refugee city of Idlib in 2018, an attack that could have potentially killed upwards of 3 million civilians."

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/syrian … -come-home

  21. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
    Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months ago

    In a few years they will be back. And with no allies.

  22. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 17 months ago

    Thank God for the US mass media, man, were it not for those legendary stalwarts of truth, we'd not know what was going on.


    https://hubstatic.com/14722647.jpg

    1. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Thank God for the most transparent administration in history...

      https://hubstatic.com/14722774.jpg

  23. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 17 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75075670_2730520423664820_8207162678469197824_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQn-Grz4FIrpxEddUEjTIoBZjIuQptAPy6UXUqiNmtMguz6n94n5T5-EeBMXZhi4x3M&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=c7cfb9d66c895ae7604b359610b13ccd&oe=5E1A49C3

    1. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Of course you'd see it that way because all you have is hatred for Democrats.  Actually, everyone but Trump and his supporters want to protect allies that helped us fight ISIS.

      1. profile image0
        Onusonusposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        https://pics.me.me/and-just-like-that-the-democrats-were-pro-war-made-with-38902870.png

      2. profile image0
        Onusonusposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        And then there's this.
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsrRaSuIIAAsJgC.png

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Remind us all again how much fighting there was before Trump pulled the troops.  Oh yeah, you thought we were in a war at the Syrian border.

          https://hubstatic.com/14723344.jpg

          1. profile image0
            Onusonusposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I'm pretty sure that honor goes to Obama.
            http://m.quickmeme.com/img/45/455c7b1bd49e5c038c92e5b6996df0fce02c1361ef947f47600149a7a64b8f53.jpg

      3. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Been there done that... We have all but defeated ISIS, trained the Kurds as well as Iraqis rebuilt Iraq, and still support them both with weapons and humanitarian aid.

        You might have lost sight America joined the Kurds to fight ISIS. We had a clear reason for fighting alongside the Kurds. and that was our own national security.  The Kurds now have an entirely different battle. The battle over land... This is a battle we have no stake in. They need to pick their own fights, and fight their own battles?  It's not our place to police or fight battles for other countries unless it is to protect our national security or we have agreed to be part of a NATO coalition to prevent atrocities.

        The middle east has been fighting for hundreds of years over religion and land. We should in no way enter in any of those battles. If atrocities are being committed NATO should do their job forming a coalition to aid the people in danger. It is then the UNs job and responsibility to protect embodies a political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution. They are obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law to protect a population at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

        We more than helped the Kurds, time for them to fight their own battles over land if they choose to hold the land along the Turkish border.

        I completely realize we disagree on this subject.  Good article on subject
        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/worl … story.html

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          I suppose you're against us hiring our soldiers out to protect Saudi Arabia then, Shar?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            No, I am not against it. We have a security interest in doing so. Tensions with Iran have spiked since May when the Trump administration said it had detected increased Iranian preparations for possible attacks on U.S. forces and interests in the Gulf area. Iran is a threat not only to the middle east but America.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      This would be funny if it was not so true... Go figure

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I didn't realize heavily armed troops were invading the US border? Do tell Trumpsters!

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          No not armed troops just people that won't follow our laws. Such an easy battle if Congress would just do their job and revise a few very old laws. But Trump is doing a good job decreasing people from walking into the country.

          We have no place defending the Syrian border fighting to secure land for the Kurds against a NATO partner.  We completed our mission in regard to our national security issue with ridding ISIS from Syria. Time to come home.  If the Kurds want to battle for land that is their battle. If authorities occur it's up to NATO to form a coalition to defend innocent people, hich we would be a part of. Then it's up to the UN to step in...

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Our generals and Republican politicians disagree with you.

            We were there as much to counter Russian influence in the Middle East as we were there to defend the Kurds.

            NATO's Security Council includes Russia. They wouldn't agree to NATO intervention.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I can't comment on what the generals have advised in regards to the Syrian problem, I am aware there are some Republicans in Washington at odds with Trump's decision to pull the troops.


              In regard to NATO and Russia, I would very much doubt it if Russia would have any say in NATO's decision to build a coalition to protect any innocent people that were being targeted and killed?  Although that would remain to be seen. 

              "NATO's Security Council includes Russia. They wouldn't agree to NATO intervention."

              Is Russia a member of NATO?
              In 1994, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program, and since that time, NATO and Russia have signed several important agreements on cooperation. ... On 1 April 2014, NATO unanimously decided to suspend co-operation with the Russian Federation, in response to the Ukraine crisis.  NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia due to its aggressive actions in Ukraine. However, we continue to keep channels for political dialogue open. The NATO-Russia Council, an important platform for dialogue, has never been suspended. We have held ten meetings since 2016.

              NATO members ---
              Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                The generals have been all over the news saying the same thing including Colin Powell, Patreus and Mattis.

                I didn't say Russia is a member of NATO. I said it is a member of the UN Security Council which makes the decisions about UN military intervention.

                Even McConnell wrote an op-ed attacking Trump's decision.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Here is your comment as written. Perhaps you meant to say UN?

                  "PROMISEM WROTE:
                  Our generals and Republican politicians disagree with you.

                  We were there as much to counter Russian influence in the Middle East as we were there to defend the Kurds.

                  NATO's Security Council includes Russia. They wouldn't agree to NATO intervention."

                  As I said frequently, I very rarely tune in to Media talk jocks, I will assume this is where these generals were interviews. I will make an attempt to see if there is any information on their statements. I am aware there are some Republicans in Washington at odds with Trump's decision to pull the troops. It's been well published in many online outlets. I was well aware of the vote the House conducted and that it overwhelmingly passed.

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Thank you, Shar, for the polite correction. Yes, it was a typo on my part. I meant to say the UN.

                    My point, which you clearly understand, is that Russia would not agree to UN intervention in Syria.

            2. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              NATO's security council includes Russia?  Are you serious?  NATO was created to stand against Russia.  Russia's response to NATO was the now defunct Warsaw Pact.  Russia and NATO are always at odds. 

              https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

              What you may be confused about is the NATO Russia Council.  This is were NATO and Russia try to work together.  But Russia has NO voting authority in NATO and no influence over what is does. NATO doesn't have a security council.  The United Nations has a security council that Russia is part of but NOT NATO. 

              Why do you make this stuff up? Do you think it can't be researched and found to be false?

              "Work under the NATO-Russia Council focuses on all areas of mutual interest identified in the Founding Act. Cooperation is being intensified in a number of key areas, which include the fight against terrorism, crisis management, non-proliferation, arms control and confidence-building measures, theatre missile defence, logistics, military-to-military cooperation, defence reform and civil emergencies. New areas may be added to the NRC's agenda by the mutual consent of its members."

              https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                OH MY GOSH! I HAD AN OBVIOUS TYPO!

                LET'S ALL PANIC AND MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT!!!

                lol

                1. Valeant profile image86
                  Valeantposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Are you shocked that Mike could not recognize an obvious typo to understand a point you were trying to make?  I'm not, he's shown he'll pretty much believe anything written by certain people.

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Even if he did recognize such an obvious typo, he wouldn't give up a chance to yell about it.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          If you find it acceptable to call me a Trumpster, I would think it only fair I call you a maybe a Buttigiegie or Demastat. Due to perhaps having a very quick response to fake news. Get it? Not sure we need to call each other names?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            You don't support and defend Trump, Shar? My bad!  roll

        3. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          If you find it acceptable to call me a Trumpster, I would think it only fair I call you a maybe a Buttigiegie. I like that hope he makes it, thats a great handle Would mke up a great Tshirt.

    3. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      The meme King fails again...

  24. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 17 months ago

    Trump often seems more interested in pleasing autocrats like Kim Jong Un of North Korea and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey than in organizing any kind of coherent policymaking process to consider the pros and cons.

    “When he canceled the South Korea military exercises, the only person he consulted was Kim Jong Un,” Brigety said. “The decision to abandon the Kurds came after a brief phone call with Erdogan. So they weren’t taken because he had personally reflected on the strategic disposition of American forces around the world. They were taken after he took the counsel of strongmen over that of his own advisers.”

    This is in my top five reasons why I'd vote for a toaster over Trump in 2020.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Trump is ignorant of history, as he shows quite often. I'm for the toaster as well...

  25. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 17 months ago
  26. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 17 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14726617.jpg

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      A perfect example of Trump think!

    2. lobobrandon profile image92
      lobobrandonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      lol

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)