Author Topic: Syrian Conflict News Updates  (Read 8944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #125 on: November 04, 2019, 12:52:12 pm »

“All in all, it is a lot of wasted lives and money and time and effort spent to accomplish a goal we never accomplished,” said Mr. Wade, 31, who was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan during his five years in the Marines and is now a nursing student in Las Vegas.


@Right_in_Virginia

I find it hard to argue with Mr.Wade on this one. I would only add the modifier "a goal we were never allowed to accomplish."

Seems to me there was never any intention of winning.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 12:55:13 pm by sneakypete »
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,432
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #126 on: November 04, 2019, 12:59:02 pm »
Then, don't go in in the first place, that's an argument for 2003.

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,432
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #127 on: November 04, 2019, 01:00:59 pm »
Quote
The International coalition sends a strong message to Assad forces, and bombards their artillery in Deir Ezzor

Exclusive:
This evening, Tuesday 29-10-2019, the International coalition warplanes destroyed cannons of Assad forces’ artillery battalion on the mountain that overlooks Al-Omal and Harabish neighborhoods in Deir Ezzor city, sources told Deir Ezzor 24 network.

According to the sources, the international coalition raids came in response to Assad’s forces’ shelling of a military point of the SDF near Al-Husseiniyah town, which was followed by a clash between the SDF and Assad’s forces in the area, during which the SDF destroyed a tank of the Assad’s forces.

https://en.deirezzor24.net/the-international-coalition-sends-strong-message-to-assad-forces-and-bombards-their-artillery-in-deir-ezzor/

Hard to make what to think of stories like this.

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,432
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #128 on: November 04, 2019, 01:31:32 pm »
By-the-way, please save us the"endless wars", rhetoric, the news is we are moving Bradleys and more in that oil field area, hardly does it sound like we are ending our involvement there but if you don't have an argument, let's shut down the news.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,531
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #129 on: November 04, 2019, 02:31:04 pm »
Then, don't go in in the first place, that's an argument for 2003.

It was an argument for 1963, too.  While hindsight is 20/20, these were instances where it should have been considered more closely.  If we're going to war-war (having failed jaw-jaw), we have to win-win or it's a sure-fired eventual loss. 

In Syria's case, the mistake was made in the past decade when somebody thought putting boots on Syrian soil was a good PR move for Obama.  That's where the "We ain't getting involved" should have been spoken.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #130 on: November 04, 2019, 03:29:06 pm »
It was an argument for 1963, too.  While hindsight is 20/20, these were instances where it should have been considered more closely.  If we're going to war-war (having failed jaw-jaw), we have to win-win or it's a sure-fired eventual loss. 

In Syria's case, the mistake was made in the past decade when somebody thought putting boots on Syrian soil was a good PR move for Obama.  That's where the "We ain't getting involved" should have been spoken.

You're right.  But, it wasn't spoken, so we have to do the next-best thing, even though that may offend some tender sensibilities. 

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,243
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #131 on: November 04, 2019, 03:45:32 pm »
@Right_in_Virginia

I find it hard to argue with Mr.Wade on this one. I would only add the modifier "a goal we were never allowed to accomplish."

Seems to me there was never any intention of winning.

Good point @sneakypete

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,531
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #132 on: November 04, 2019, 03:56:16 pm »
I thought George Bush Sr. did it correctly with the first Gulf War.  I'll get pushback for this, but I agreed at the time our objective was only kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, and continuing to Baghdad would have been mission creep.  Still do, as proven out by Junior's misadventure in 2003.  We're still fighting that war without end.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline EdJames

  • Certified Trump Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,791
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #133 on: November 04, 2019, 04:22:44 pm »
Excerpt from a recent correspondence that I have ongoing, discussing excerpts of a Ted Cruz speech:

(Text from Senator Cruz' speech in blue.)


Politicians who had been associated with this brand of foreign policy include my late colleague Senator John McCain and current colleagues like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.

My view has been described as that of a noninterventionist hawk. Now, what does that mean? What it means is that I believe the overarching objective of U.S. foreign policy, the touchstone for any military involvement, should be defending the vital national security interests of the United States.



Just a couple of comments....  he is correct, Rubio and Cotton are indeed current versions of McCain..... both are despicable curs.

So, here is the crux of a lot of thought and reflection....  just what are the "vital national security interests of the United States?"  We all, politicians and the citizenry, tend to use this phrase in a manner that suggests that there is some universal and all encompassing definition!  There isn't.  And unfortunately for us, this phrase has been used to justify unspeakable horrors against ALL of us....  the citizens of this great nation, and much of the rest of the world!!

Now, I am not accusing Cruz of anything nefarious here....  just want to point out that that phrase, needs to be very carefully dissected, analyzed, placed into context, and validated, almost every time it is used in a substantive manner.


But on the other side, a question that I asked repeatedly both in public briefings and in classified briefings is, if a military strike is successful, if Assad is toppled - and let me be clear. Assad is a monster and a butcher who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. I have no illusions about what kind of man Bashar Assad is.

And at each of those briefings, I couldn't get a coherent answer from the administration, how you prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists who would use them, who would want to use them both against Americans and our allies - an unequivocally worse situation than the status quo.

When the administration couldn't answer that question, I came out publicly opposing military intervention in Syria. In that - agreed with me on that policy issue was Rand Paul, although for very different reasons. Likewise, in Libya, the Obama administration led a coalition of nations to topple Gadhafi - Gadhafi, like Assad, a bad, bad man with a horrible human rights record. And yet we topple Gadhafi, creating a vacuum into which stepped warlords, radical Islamic warlords that made Libya, by any measure, more dangerous and a greater threat to U.S. national security interests.


OK, a lot to unpack here....  I am glad that Cruz was against the interventions in both Syria and Libya....  though for somewhat different reasons than I hold....

Syria: two main things:

1.  Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact....  but more importantly,

2.  What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people....  I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine....  I am sure that you have heard of it....  a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power....  All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level....  (Recall also that it was originally named "Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "Responsibility!!!"

Look, either one believes in national sovereignty, or one doesn't.....  it isn't a "flexible" concept in which "we" get to choose which nation's sovereignty we will respect, and which nation's sovereignty we won't.....

Libya: much the same.... 

While Cruz is correct that the toppling of these leaders led directly into chaos resulting from the power vacuum, my point is that it would have been wrong even if our approved "replacements" were in place.....  how many times in our history have we seen the folly (and resultant destruction that follows) from that course of action?  Think Persia and the Shah.....  think of the Satellite Wars....

Now if you recall......  R2P came about just before these interventions....  convenient, no?  What were they up to?  In short (very short) it was part of the path to create the caliphate....  as part of the path to creating chaos in a significant part of the globe, and drawing in the US (and other Western "allies") into regional conflict, and ultimately much more....  (Shudder at the thought of HRC winning in 2016.)  Oh, and never forget the "side benefit" of hundreds of billions of dollars (repayable by future generations) that gets into the hands of certain actors....   to "defend" against this!!



And then there is, of course, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was yet another monster, and yet, in hindsight, it is hard to dispute that toppling that strongman opened the door for ISIS, opened the door for radical Islamic terrorists who had as an even greater objective of carrying out acts of terrorism and murder targeting American citizens. In all of those situations, I believed U.S. military force and the use of military force did not further our national security interests. So what is the counterpoint to that?


Kudos to Cruz for speaking the truth about that....  I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....

(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?")


And the counterpoint to that I would point to is Iran. I believe the threat of a nuclear Iran poses the single greatest national security threat to the United States of America. The Ayatollah Khomenei, when he chants death to America, when he chants death to Israel, I believe it. I don't believe that is mere empty rhetoric, but rather it is a radical religious commitment, a zealotry, that, if backed by nuclear weapons, could result in the annihilation of millions. I believe we should use every tool we have to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, what does that mean? That means diplomatic tools. That means economic tools. That means sanctions. And that means, yes, military force if necessary.

Some time recently, a reporter asked me a question that he thought was a gotcha question, which is he said, would you be willing to use military force against Iran? I said, absolutely. That's a gotcha question. That one is easily - if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we should not hesitate to use military force to prevent them from doing so. Now, let me be very clear. When I talk about that potential, I mean bombing their nuclear facilities into absolute rubble. I have zero desire to see an invading ground force that tries to turn Iran into a democratic utopia. If our objective is to turn Iran into Switzerland, that in all likelihood will prove a mirage - an impossible objective. If our objective is to stop a radical theocrat from acquiring weapons to be used, potentially, to murder millions of Americans or millions of our allies, that is an achievable and direct military outcome.


Here is where it gets a bit dicey for me.....  in Iran, we introduce the complication of theocracy (totally unlike Syria & Libya)....  theocracy of an insanely radical flavor....  so, it seems that we need to be "practical" here.....  yet for me, none of what I said above about national sovereignty is fundamentally different...  so what to do?

In my mind (and tell me where I am going wrong) I need to do two things.  Number one, I have to recognize that the reason that the Ayyatollahs are in control is because of us, and our prior intervention (thanks Jimmy!!  but again, not an accidental blunder by any means)....  so nutty as it may sound, I can actually justify further intervention to rectify the "mistake" of the prior one....

Yet how shall this be done?   My preference in much of life is always to seek the most organic solutions possible....  we should have been assisting the people of Iran (whom are in the whole, no enemies of ours) to affect the needed changes.... that "assistance" should have taken many forms....  are we too late?  perhaps, but just recently so....  maybe we aren't.....  too late....   it would take a lot of objective (unfiltered) evidence (that I will surely never see) to convince me that we are indeed too late.....  for this type of organic solution....

Still an open issue for me, would love to know what others think....


The latter, I believe, are the most important words uttered by any leader in modern times. If any of you come to my office here in D.C., the dominant feature is an enormous painting - larger than this backdrop - of President Reagan standing before the Brandenburg Gate and, above him, the words, tear down this wall, in German in the style of the graffiti. And many don't know the backstory of that speech. Three times the State Department edited those words out of the speech, and three times President Reagan handwrote them back in. And the State Department argued to him, Mr. President, you don't understand. You can't say this. This is too belligerent. This is too provocative. This is too hostile. And Mr. President - this is our kicker - this is too unrealistic. It will never, ever, ever happen. The Berlin Wall will stand for all eternity. And Reagan, with a twinkle in his eye, he said, you don't understand. This is the whole point of the speech.

When President Reagan gave those remarks, within less than three years, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground. And if you value peace, if you value liberty, that moment should stand as a pivotal and transformational fork in the road because it wasn't American tanks that knocked down that Berlin Wall. It wasn't Minuteman missiles that bombed the wall to the ground. It was instead the incredible battering ram of truth. It was the battering ram of ideas. And because President Reagan understood the moral clarity, the bully pulpit of the presidency, because he spoke without fear and called out evil by its name, we won the Cold War without firing a shot.



Agree totally with Cruz here....  a joy to read this....  I believe that Trump is attempting to use his own personal flavor of this approach on many fronts.... I pray that he succeeds....  Another important point is his calling out of the State Department....  for decades (some date it to the Wilson administration) it has been in Star Wars terms, "a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" unlike any other...

Look. I understand that free and independent Kurdistan drives the Iraqis crazy. It drives the Turks crazy, doesn't thrill the Iranians. Going back to the principle I laid out, our focus on foreign policy should be focused directly on protecting U.S. national security. The Kurds have bled and fought and died to stand with America. And I think it is right not because we're in the business of promoting democratic utopias but because our objective should be keeping America safe and standing with those allies who fight with us against our enemies that we should support a free and independent Kurdistan. And I hope that we see that.


While I agree in theory..... the devil is in the details as to how this is accomplished....  again I argue for the "organic" approach.....  a people that fights for their independence and territory are more apt to guard and cherish it in the long run..... (at least for several generations!).....  we can't be involved in "carving up" the territory and creating a nation....

Back at the end of WWI when the French & British divyed up the land of the Ottoman Empire to create the mess that is there now (Sykes-Picot Agreement) it was a total screw up that exists to this day....  let's not make the same mistake again.....

===

Here is the link (button) to download the PDF of the subject Cruz speech, if you are interested in reading it: https://www.hudson.org/research/15291-transcript-interventionism-vs-isolationism-a-conversation-with-u-s-sen-ted-cruz


@Bigun @Cyber Liberty @Sanguine @skeeter @Right_in_Virginia




Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #134 on: November 04, 2019, 04:39:23 pm »
Excerpt from a recent correspondence that I have ongoing, discussing excerpts of a Ted Cruz speech:

(Text from Senator Cruz' speech in blue.)


Politicians who had been associated with this brand of foreign policy include my late colleague Senator John McCain and current colleagues like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.

My view has been described as that of a noninterventionist hawk. Now, what does that mean? What it means is that I believe the overarching objective of U.S. foreign policy, the touchstone for any military involvement, should be defending the vital national security interests of the United States.



Just a couple of comments....  he is correct, Rubio and Cotton are indeed current versions of McCain..... both are despicable curs.

So, here is the crux of a lot of thought and reflection....  just what are the "vital national security interests of the United States?"  We all, politicians and the citizenry, tend to use this phrase in a manner that suggests that there is some universal and all encompassing definition!  There isn't.  And unfortunately for us, this phrase has been used to justify unspeakable horrors against ALL of us....  the citizens of this great nation, and much of the rest of the world!!

Now, I am not accusing Cruz of anything nefarious here....  just want to point out that that phrase, needs to be very carefully dissected, analyzed, placed into context, and validated, almost every time it is used in a substantive manner.


But on the other side, a question that I asked repeatedly both in public briefings and in classified briefings is, if a military strike is successful, if Assad is toppled - and let me be clear. Assad is a monster and a butcher who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. I have no illusions about what kind of man Bashar Assad is.

And at each of those briefings, I couldn't get a coherent answer from the administration, how you prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists who would use them, who would want to use them both against Americans and our allies - an unequivocally worse situation than the status quo.

When the administration couldn't answer that question, I came out publicly opposing military intervention in Syria. In that - agreed with me on that policy issue was Rand Paul, although for very different reasons. Likewise, in Libya, the Obama administration led a coalition of nations to topple Gadhafi - Gadhafi, like Assad, a bad, bad man with a horrible human rights record. And yet we topple Gadhafi, creating a vacuum into which stepped warlords, radical Islamic warlords that made Libya, by any measure, more dangerous and a greater threat to U.S. national security interests.


OK, a lot to unpack here....  I am glad that Cruz was against the interventions in both Syria and Libya....  though for somewhat different reasons than I hold....

Syria: two main things:

1.  Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact....  but more importantly,

2.  What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people....  I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine....  I am sure that you have heard of it....  a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power....  All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level....  (Recall also that it was originally named "Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "Responsibility!!!"

Look, either one believes in national sovereignty, or one doesn't.....  it isn't a "flexible" concept in which "we" get to choose which nation's sovereignty we will respect, and which nation's sovereignty we won't.....

Libya: much the same.... 

While Cruz is correct that the toppling of these leaders led directly into chaos resulting from the power vacuum, my point is that it would have been wrong even if our approved "replacements" were in place.....  how many times in our history have we seen the folly (and resultant destruction that follows) from that course of action?  Think Persia and the Shah.....  think of the Satellite Wars....

Now if you recall......  R2P came about just before these interventions....  convenient, no?  What were they up to?  In short (very short) it was part of the path to create the caliphate....  as part of the path to creating chaos in a significant part of the globe, and drawing in the US (and other Western "allies") into regional conflict, and ultimately much more....  (Shudder at the thought of HRC winning in 2016.)  Oh, and never forget the "side benefit" of hundreds of billions of dollars (repayable by future generations) that gets into the hands of certain actors....   to "defend" against this!!



And then there is, of course, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was yet another monster, and yet, in hindsight, it is hard to dispute that toppling that strongman opened the door for ISIS, opened the door for radical Islamic terrorists who had as an even greater objective of carrying out acts of terrorism and murder targeting American citizens. In all of those situations, I believed U.S. military force and the use of military force did not further our national security interests. So what is the counterpoint to that?


Kudos to Cruz for speaking the truth about that....  I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....

(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?")


And the counterpoint to that I would point to is Iran. I believe the threat of a nuclear Iran poses the single greatest national security threat to the United States of America. The Ayatollah Khomenei, when he chants death to America, when he chants death to Israel, I believe it. I don't believe that is mere empty rhetoric, but rather it is a radical religious commitment, a zealotry, that, if backed by nuclear weapons, could result in the annihilation of millions. I believe we should use every tool we have to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, what does that mean? That means diplomatic tools. That means economic tools. That means sanctions. And that means, yes, military force if necessary.

Some time recently, a reporter asked me a question that he thought was a gotcha question, which is he said, would you be willing to use military force against Iran? I said, absolutely. That's a gotcha question. That one is easily - if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we should not hesitate to use military force to prevent them from doing so. Now, let me be very clear. When I talk about that potential, I mean bombing their nuclear facilities into absolute rubble. I have zero desire to see an invading ground force that tries to turn Iran into a democratic utopia. If our objective is to turn Iran into Switzerland, that in all likelihood will prove a mirage - an impossible objective. If our objective is to stop a radical theocrat from acquiring weapons to be used, potentially, to murder millions of Americans or millions of our allies, that is an achievable and direct military outcome.


Here is where it gets a bit dicey for me.....  in Iran, we introduce the complication of theocracy (totally unlike Syria & Libya)....  theocracy of an insanely radical flavor....  so, it seems that we need to be "practical" here.....  yet for me, none of what I said above about national sovereignty is fundamentally different...  so what to do?

In my mind (and tell me where I am going wrong) I need to do two things.  Number one, I have to recognize that the reason that the Ayyatollahs are in control is because of us, and our prior intervention (thanks Jimmy!!  but again, not an accidental blunder by any means)....  so nutty as it may sound, I can actually justify further intervention to rectify the "mistake" of the prior one....

Yet how shall this be done?   My preference in much of life is always to seek the most organic solutions possible....  we should have been assisting the people of Iran (whom are in the whole, no enemies of ours) to affect the needed changes.... that "assistance" should have taken many forms....  are we too late?  perhaps, but just recently so....  maybe we aren't.....  too late....   it would take a lot of objective (unfiltered) evidence (that I will surely never see) to convince me that we are indeed too late.....  for this type of organic solution....

Still an open issue for me, would love to know what others think....


The latter, I believe, are the most important words uttered by any leader in modern times. If any of you come to my office here in D.C., the dominant feature is an enormous painting - larger than this backdrop - of President Reagan standing before the Brandenburg Gate and, above him, the words, tear down this wall, in German in the style of the graffiti. And many don't know the backstory of that speech. Three times the State Department edited those words out of the speech, and three times President Reagan handwrote them back in. And the State Department argued to him, Mr. President, you don't understand. You can't say this. This is too belligerent. This is too provocative. This is too hostile. And Mr. President - this is our kicker - this is too unrealistic. It will never, ever, ever happen. The Berlin Wall will stand for all eternity. And Reagan, with a twinkle in his eye, he said, you don't understand. This is the whole point of the speech.

When President Reagan gave those remarks, within less than three years, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground. And if you value peace, if you value liberty, that moment should stand as a pivotal and transformational fork in the road because it wasn't American tanks that knocked down that Berlin Wall. It wasn't Minuteman missiles that bombed the wall to the ground. It was instead the incredible battering ram of truth. It was the battering ram of ideas. And because President Reagan understood the moral clarity, the bully pulpit of the presidency, because he spoke without fear and called out evil by its name, we won the Cold War without firing a shot.



Agree totally with Cruz here....  a joy to read this....  I believe that Trump is attempting to use his own personal flavor of this approach on many fronts.... I pray that he succeeds....  Another important point is his calling out of the State Department....  for decades (some date it to the Wilson administration) it has been in Star Wars terms, "a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" unlike any other...

Look. I understand that free and independent Kurdistan drives the Iraqis crazy. It drives the Turks crazy, doesn't thrill the Iranians. Going back to the principle I laid out, our focus on foreign policy should be focused directly on protecting U.S. national security. The Kurds have bled and fought and died to stand with America. And I think it is right not because we're in the business of promoting democratic utopias but because our objective should be keeping America safe and standing with those allies who fight with us against our enemies that we should support a free and independent Kurdistan. And I hope that we see that.


While I agree in theory..... the devil is in the details as to how this is accomplished....  again I argue for the "organic" approach.....  a people that fights for their independence and territory are more apt to guard and cherish it in the long run..... (at least for several generations!).....  we can't be involved in "carving up" the territory and creating a nation....

Back at the end of WWI when the French & British divyed up the land of the Ottoman Empire to create the mess that is there now (Sykes-Picot Agreement) it was a total screw up that exists to this day....  let's not make the same mistake again.....

===

Here is the link (button) to download the PDF of the subject Cruz speech, if you are interested in reading it: https://www.hudson.org/research/15291-transcript-interventionism-vs-isolationism-a-conversation-with-u-s-sen-ted-cruz


@Bigun @Cyber Liberty @Sanguine @skeeter @Right_in_Virginia

@TomSea, I noticed this comment had been deleted.  I'm assuming that was a mistake and have restored it.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #135 on: November 04, 2019, 04:40:04 pm »
Then, don't go in in the first place, that's an argument for 2003.

@TomSea

No,it is an argument for NOW,because if we don't argue about it NOW,it WILL happen again in the near future. The dirty little secret is the government and the defense industry both LOVE wars because they decrease unemployment and increase profits for industry and tax collection for government.

We should NEVER get involved in any war we don't intend on winning. We MUST get rid of the "fight them to a draw and then leave peacekeepers behind for decades" mentality.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline EdJames

  • Certified Trump Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,791
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #136 on: November 04, 2019, 04:42:36 pm »
@TomSea, I noticed this comment had been deleted.  I'm assuming that was a mistake and have restored it.

Ahh, was this post deleted as well?  (If so, thanks for restoring it...)

I was ticked by the fact that my post from yesterday was deleted....   

 9999hair out0000

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #137 on: November 04, 2019, 04:46:17 pm »
I thought George Bush Sr. did it correctly with the first Gulf War.  I'll get pushback for this, but I agreed at the time our objective was only kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, and continuing to Baghdad would have been mission creep.  Still do, as proven out by Junior's misadventure in 2003.  We're still fighting that war without end.

@Cyber Liberty

Saddam Hussein may have been one of many evil bastards in the Muddle East,but he was OUR "evil bastard",right up to the time Boy Jorge's handlers decided he was in trouble in the upcoming election,and they needed something to get Republicans to rally behind that clueless fool. Since Boy Jorge was blowing the King of Saudi Arabia and not Hussein,we declared Saddam Hussein to be the most evil bastard that ever lived because he had been responsible for the deaths of more fundie Muslims than any other man alive,and it looked like he was eyeing Saudi Arabia.

So we invaded and had our army find and hang him. To the delight of every fundie Muslim in the world.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #138 on: November 04, 2019, 04:49:37 pm »
Excerpt from a recent correspondence that I have ongoing, discussing excerpts of a Ted Cruz speech:

(Text from Senator Cruz' speech in blue.)


Politicians who had been associated with this brand of foreign policy include my late colleague Senator John McCain and current colleagues like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.

My view has been described as that of a noninterventionist hawk. Now, what does that mean? What it means is that I believe the overarching objective of U.S. foreign policy, the touchstone for any military involvement, should be defending the vital national security interests of the United States.



Just a couple of comments....  he is correct, Rubio and Cotton are indeed current versions of McCain..... both are despicable curs.

 

It is safe to say that I am not Cruz's biggest fan,but when he is right,he is right,and nobody has ever been more right about anything than he was the above.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,866
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #139 on: November 04, 2019, 05:10:01 pm »
I thought George Bush Sr. did it correctly with the first Gulf War.  I'll get pushback for this, but I agreed at the time our objective was only kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, and continuing to Baghdad would have been mission creep.  Still do, as proven out by Junior's misadventure in 2003.  We're still fighting that war without end.

With respect @Cyber Liberty, I disagree.  I personally think that G.H.W. Bush should have allowed General Schwarzkopf the additional time he requested before declaring the cease-fire. If he had done so I seriously doubt we would have had to return again.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,866
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #140 on: November 04, 2019, 05:22:09 pm »
Quote
Excerpt from a recent correspondence that I have ongoing, discussing excerpts of a Ted Cruz speech:

(Text from Senator Cruz' speech in blue.)


Politicians who had been associated with this brand of foreign policy include my late colleague Senator John McCain and current colleagues like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.

My view has been described as that of a noninterventionist hawk. Now, what does that mean? What it means is that I believe the overarching objective of U.S. foreign policy, the touchstone for any military involvement, should be defending the vital national security interests of the United States.


(Comments of @EdJames in red)

Just a couple of comments....  he is correct, Rubio and Cotton are indeed current versions of McCain..... both are despicable curs.

So, here is the crux of a lot of thought and reflection....  just what are the "vital national security interests of the United States?"  We all, politicians and the citizenry, tend to use this phrase in a manner that suggests that there is some universal and all encompassing definition!  There isn't.  And unfortunately for us, this phrase has been used to justify unspeakable horrors against ALL of us....  the citizens of this great nation, and much of the rest of the world!!

Now, I am not accusing Cruz of anything nefarious here....  just want to point out that that phrase, needs to be very carefully dissected, analyzed, placed into context, and validated, almost every time it is used in a substantive manner.

Whew! THAT is one hell-of-a-post so I'm going to address it in sections.

I agree completely with your assessment of Rubio and Cotton.

"Just what are the "vital national security interests of the United States?"

I know what I think they are and you can bet your @$$ they damned well are NOT what the striped pants crowd in the Department of State tell you they are for sure!

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,243
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #141 on: November 04, 2019, 05:22:42 pm »

Syria: two main things:

1.  Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact....  but more importantly,

2.  What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people....  I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine....  I am sure that you have heard of it....  a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power.... 

All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level....  (Recall also that it was originally named "Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "Responsibility!!!"

Look, either one believes in national sovereignty, or one doesn't.....  it isn't a "flexible" concept in which "we" get to choose which nation's sovereignty we will respect, and which nation's sovereignty we won't.....     

 :thumbsup:  Excellent points @EdJames   Excellent!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,866
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #142 on: November 04, 2019, 05:32:47 pm »
But on the other side, a question that I asked repeatedly both in public briefings and in classified briefings is, if a military strike is successful, if Assad is toppled - and let me be clear. Assad is a monster and a butcher who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. I have no illusions about what kind of man Bashar Assad is.

And at each of those briefings, I couldn't get a coherent answer from the administration, how you prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists who would use them, who would want to use them both against Americans and our allies - an unequivocally worse situation than the status quo.

When the administration couldn't answer that question, I came out publicly opposing military intervention in Syria. In that - agreed with me on that policy issue was Rand Paul, although for very different reasons. Likewise, in Libya, the Obama administration led a coalition of nations to topple Gadhafi - Gadhafi, like Assad, a bad, bad man with a horrible human rights record. And yet we topple Gadhafi, creating a vacuum into which stepped warlords, radical Islamic warlords that made Libya, by any measure, more dangerous and a greater threat to U.S. national security interests.


OK, a lot to unpack here....  I am glad that Cruz was against the interventions in both Syria and Libya....  though for somewhat different reasons than I hold....

Syria: two main things:

1.  Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact....  but more importantly,

2.  What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people....  I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine....  I am sure that you have heard of it....  a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power....  All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level....  (Recall also that it was originally named "Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "Responsibility!!!"

Look, either one believes in national sovereignty, or one doesn't.....  it isn't a "flexible" concept in which "we" get to choose which nation's sovereignty we will respect, and which nation's sovereignty we won't.....

Libya: much the same....

While Cruz is correct that the toppling of these leaders led directly into chaos resulting from the power vacuum, my point is that it would have been wrong even if our approved "replacements" were in place.....  how many times in our history have we seen the folly (and resultant destruction that follows) from that course of action?  Think Persia and the Shah.....  think of the Satellite Wars....

Now if you recall......  R2P came about just before these interventions....  convenient, no?  What were they up to?  In short (very short) it was part of the path to create the caliphate....  as part of the path to creating chaos in a significant part of the globe, and drawing in the US (and other Western "allies") into regional conflict, and ultimately much more....  (Shudder at the thought of HRC winning in 2016.)  Oh, and never forget the "side benefit" of hundreds of billions of dollars (repayable by future generations) that gets into the hands of certain actors....   to "defend" against this!!


@EdJames

My only note here would be to remind you that the ME remained a relatively stable place for a long time with the Shah running things in Iran and stopped being so shortly after Jimmiuh CAAAATA allowed the damned Mullahs to return.

The same two families have been fighting over the throne in Persia for six centuries and we can absolutely tell which of those families are in the best interests of the USA to have control of that country.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,866
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #143 on: November 04, 2019, 05:40:53 pm »
And then there is, of course, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was yet another monster, and yet, in hindsight, it is hard to dispute that toppling that strongman opened the door for ISIS, opened the door for radical Islamic terrorists who had as an even greater objective of carrying out acts of terrorism and murder targeting American citizens. In all of those situations, I believed U.S. military force and the use of military force did not further our national security interests. So what is the counterpoint to that?


Kudos to Cruz for speaking the truth about that....  I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....

(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?")


@EdJames

I assume your question is directed at GW's actions toward the Hussein regime in Iraq.  If true, My response is to repeat what I have said elsewhere.  The blunder was that of G.H. W. Bush in not allowing General Schwarzkopf the additional time he requested before declaring the cease-fire. If he had done so I seriously doubt we would have had to return again.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,243
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #144 on: November 04, 2019, 05:42:57 pm »
Kudos to Cruz for speaking the truth about that....  I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....

(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?") 

Was this an "inadvertent blunder"?  No @EdJames .  This was a colossal mistake because all evidence that nation building in an Iraq without Saddam would not work to our benefit was simply pushed aside.  The unmitigated hubris shown by the powers that were at that time should prove once and for all we have no business trying to restructure millennial-old societies and ever-shifting alliances in the Middle East.

This was a glaring example of intrusive R2P.  Saddam was a monster, but sometimes that monster wore wings.  We had no right to decide he served no redeeming role and that he had to go.  All we did was shift the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of Iran. 

As for the current situation in Syria --- please, let's not follow the GWB doctrine.  Let's give the Trump doctrine a chance.  Go in, kill ISIS, pull back and watch.  Nothing in the Trump doctrine says we can't return with the full force of the US military should our interests dictate it.

Now we leave Syria to reunite and end its civil war.  Let Syrians decide Assad's fate.   We have done all we can R2P--we have helped stop the flood of blood. 

For us:  we have stopped the flood of ISIS AND refugees. Now we stand down.








« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 05:57:36 pm by Right_in_Virginia »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,866
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #145 on: November 04, 2019, 05:46:56 pm »
And the counterpoint to that I would point to is Iran. I believe the threat of a nuclear Iran poses the single greatest national security threat to the United States of America. The Ayatollah Khomenei, when he chants death to America, when he chants death to Israel, I believe it. I don't believe that is mere empty rhetoric, but rather it is a radical religious commitment, a zealotry, that, if backed by nuclear weapons, could result in the annihilation of millions. I believe we should use every tool we have to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, what does that mean? That means diplomatic tools. That means economic tools. That means sanctions. And that means, yes, military force if necessary.

Some time recently, a reporter asked me a question that he thought was a gotcha question, which is he said, would you be willing to use military force against Iran? I said, absolutely. That's a gotcha question. That one is easily - if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we should not hesitate to use military force to prevent them from doing so. Now, let me be very clear. When I talk about that potential, I mean bombing their nuclear facilities into absolute rubble. I have zero desire to see an invading ground force that tries to turn Iran into a democratic utopia. If our objective is to turn Iran into Switzerland, that in all likelihood will prove a mirage - an impossible objective. If our objective is to stop a radical theocrat from acquiring weapons to be used, potentially, to murder millions of Americans or millions of our allies, that is an achievable and direct military outcome.



Here is where it gets a bit dicey for me.....  in Iran, we introduce the complication of theocracy (totally unlike Syria & Libya)....  theocracy of an insanely radical flavor....  so, it seems that we need to be "practical" here.....  yet for me, none of what I said above about national sovereignty is fundamentally different...  so what to do?

In my mind (and tell me where I am going wrong) I need to do two things.  Number one, I have to recognize that the reason that the Ayyatollahs are in control is because of us, and our prior intervention (thanks Jimmy!!  but again, not an accidental blunder by any means)....  so nutty as it may sound, I can actually justify further intervention to rectify the "mistake" of the prior one....

Yet how shall this be done?   My preference in much of life is always to seek the most organic solutions possible....  we should have been assisting the people of Iran (whom are in the whole, no enemies of ours) to affect the needed changes.... that "assistance" should have taken many forms....  are we too late?  perhaps, but just recently so....  maybe we aren't.....  too late....   it would take a lot of objective (unfiltered) evidence (that I will surely never see) to convince me that we are indeed too late.....  for this type of organic solution....

Still an open issue for me, would love to know what others think....


@EdJames you are EXACTLY right when you say
Quote
... we should have been assisting the people of Iran (whom are in the whole, no enemies of ours) to affect the needed changes.... that "assistance" should have taken many forms....  are we too late?  perhaps, but just recently so....  maybe we aren't.....  too late....   it would take a lot of objective (unfiltered) evidence (that I will surely never see) to convince me that we are indeed too late.....  for this type of organic solution....
 

And BTW: That is what WAS done in the 1950's in Persia to bring the Peacock clan back to power.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 05:48:01 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #146 on: November 04, 2019, 05:48:31 pm »
I thought George Bush Sr. did it correctly with the first Gulf War.  I'll get pushback for this, but I agreed at the time our objective was only kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, and continuing to Baghdad would have been mission creep.  Still do, as proven out by Junior's misadventure in 2003.  We're still fighting that war without end.

@Cyber Liberty

Iraq wasn't a "misadventure."  There was a purpose for being there...oddly enough it had to do not only with numerous violations of the original cease fire agreement but allowing AQ camps to operate freely within his borders and his harboring of known wanted terrorists.

Which tied in with Bush saying on Sept. 20th:

Quote
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13


The honest truth is that in the 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama nothing was done to continue to suppress terrorism.  Saddam was allowed to flourish and rebuild under Clinton...in addition to his administration refusing to use one of the many opportunities they had to get Bin Laden.

Obama completely erased the gains we made in Afghanistan Iraq and elsewhere by befriending our enemies and shunning our allies and friends.

It never fails...a Republican always has to clean up the mess of the Progressive Democrat he succeeds and seems to always get the blame for his predecessors lack of action.  Every.single.time.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #147 on: November 04, 2019, 05:51:00 pm »
Quote
I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....

(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?")

@Bigun what a bullshit question to ask.  There was plenty of of justification.  JHFC this is like arguing with the Lib trolls that would invade TOS back in 2003 and spew the same crap.

And you spit on every single grave of the soldiers that sacrificed in Iraq when you use that Liberal "blunder" crap.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,866
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #148 on: November 04, 2019, 05:52:03 pm »
The latter, I believe, are the most important words uttered by any leader in modern times. If any of you come to my office here in D.C., the dominant feature is an enormous painting - larger than this backdrop - of President Reagan standing before the Brandenburg Gate and, above him, the words, tear down this wall, in German in the style of the graffiti. And many don't know the backstory of that speech. Three times the State Department edited those words out of the speech, and three times President Reagan handwrote them back in. And the State Department argued to him, Mr. President, you don't understand. You can't say this. This is too belligerent. This is too provocative. This is too hostile. And Mr. President - this is our kicker - this is too unrealistic. It will never, ever, ever happen. The Berlin Wall will stand for all eternity. And Reagan, with a twinkle in his eye, he said, you don't understand. This is the whole point of the speech.

When President Reagan gave those remarks, within less than three years, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground. And if you value peace, if you value liberty, that moment should stand as a pivotal and transformational fork in the road because it wasn't American tanks that knocked down that Berlin Wall. It wasn't Minuteman missiles that bombed the wall to the ground. It was instead the incredible battering ram of truth. It was the battering ram of ideas. And because President Reagan understood the moral clarity, the bully pulpit of the presidency, because he spoke without fear and called out evil by its name, we won the Cold War without firing a shot
.


Agree totally with Cruz here....  a joy to read this....  I believe that Trump is attempting to use his own personal flavor of this approach on many fronts.... I pray that he succeeds....  Another important point is his calling out of the State Department....  for decades (some date it to the Wilson administration) it has been in Star Wars terms, "a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" unlike any other...

 :amen: to what Cruz said and another  :amen: to what YOU said @EdJames!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,531
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Syrian Conflict News Updates
« Reply #149 on: November 04, 2019, 05:52:26 pm »
@txradioguy  The problem I had with Dubya, and others who set about toppling regimes, is that as bad as these characters were, they kept a lid on the worse parts of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Soldiers did their jobs flawlessly.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed: