• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump told Turkey's Erdogan in Dec. 14 call about Syria, 'it's all yours. We are done'

MrShangles said:
Would you rather our kids get killed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I took no poison about our kids getting killed or not getting killed. I merely pointed out a fact.
 
haymarket said:
As the source I provided clearly demonstrates, Lindbergh spoke against our involvement in Europe in 40 and 41 when they were at war helping to create an environment which helped to postpone the American entrance into that conflict..
Click to expand...

So?

Can't give me the name changes?

Look...your comparison breaks down immediately due to the fact that Trump isn't doing anything to keep from getting INTO a conflict. He's getting us OUT of a conflict we've been in for years.
 
Anyone need more evidence that trump is a weakling?
 
haymarket said:
That was later. Before that he led the isolationist America First Movement to keep us out of WW2.
Click to expand...
No. He lead a “ not VS. Germany “ movement.
 
Mycroft said:
So?

Can't give me the name changes?

Look...your comparison breaks down immediately due to the fact that Trump isn't doing anything to keep from getting INTO a conflict. He's getting us OUT of a conflict we've been in for years.
Click to expand...

Give you the name changes!?!?!?!?!? You are not aware of the war in Europe in 1940 and 41 involving the fascist nations aggression against others? :doh

read and learn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

The isolationist attitude is the same regardless of being in a conflict and getting out or not getting in in the first place. Both can be isolationist.
 
Last edited:
Tom Horn said:
No. He lead a “ not VS. Germany “ movement.
Click to expand...

Who do you think was committing violent aggression in Europe in 1939, 40 and 41? It was Germany.
 
haymarket said:
Give you the name changes!?!?!?!?!? You are not aware of the war in Europe in 1940 and 41 involving the fascist nations aggression against others? :doh

read and learn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
Change the names of the actors and your words could have well been spoken by Charles Lindbergh at an isolationist America First rally in 1940 or 41.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh#Non-Interventionism_and_America_First_involvement
Click to expand...

That's all I'm asking you to do...give me the name changes.
 
haymarket said:
Who do you think was committing violent aggression in Europe in 1939, 40 and 41? It was Germany.
Click to expand...

Who do you think was leading genocidal pogroms in China in 1931?
 
C L I believe was advocating if we convoyed shipping, we were in essence declaring war.
 
Mycroft said:
That's all I'm asking you to do...give me the name changes.
Click to expand...

The isolationism of Lindbergh was directed at keeping the USA out of the European war which involved many different nations who were victims of German aggression under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. I provided a link for you so you could educate yourself on the different ones.
 
Tom Horn said:
Who do you think was leading genocidal pogroms in China in 1931?
Click to expand...

My comments were about Lindbergh and his opposition to the USA getting involved in the European war.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Trump told Turkey's Erdogan in Dec. 14 call about Syria, 'it's all yours. We are done'

By Jeremy Diamond and Elise Labott, CNN

Updated 3:50 AM ET, Mon December 24, 2018





Wow, great job... idiot...
Click to expand...


Fine. Then spell out what you want.

So far we are sitting there in an agreed upon stalemate spending a ton of money. Why are we there in the first place?

Obama and Trump have sought to limit U.S. involvement in Syria for their own reasons. Yet both have been sucked in and still can't clearly define their objectives in this cloudy war. We can't seem to maneuver around enough to destroy ISIS. Why? Ask the generals. They are twelve move ahead of everyone.

Again, what does America have to gain. What do the democrats have to gain by objecting? It's not like they are coming over here to vote democrat. So tell me, why are we there?

I'm open minded about the whole thing.
 
haymarket said:
My comments were about Lindbergh and his opposition to the USA getting involved in the European war.
Click to expand...

So he wasn’t really an isolationist like you claimed then. What is your point?
 
joko104 said:
The Democratic Party - the party of war and death - is hysterical at the thought of us not being perpetually in war everywhere forever. Perpetual war. Perpetual Cold War. That is what the super rich want and that's who the Democratic Party works for.
Click to expand...

Hilarious post! The Dems are the party of the rich? LOL :) The draconian tax cuts for the rich passed congress without a single Democratic vote!

The Democratic party did not start these wars, sir - the Iraq War in particular. What we object to is leaving precipitously and letting evil fill the power vacuum. We don't want to be at war in the first place, but as department stores will always tell you, "You broke it? You bought it!"
 
Rexedgar said:
Good post; the Saudi military is stretched a bit thin at the moment: ‘press 1 for service, 2 for parts, 3 for sales; all calls are very important to us........’
Click to expand...

Stretched thin is a poor answer, because technichally they have no real military, they have some saudi officers, with the rest of it's ranks being mercenary forces. They have a piss poor command structure, their military lacks unity, and none of the mercenaries they send have any interest in fighting wars for saudi. Saudi arabia is the perfect example of why advanced military equipment and massive military budgets do not mean squat if the military is incapable of using those resources efficiently. You could send those guys a bunch of f-22 and f-35 fighter jets brand new modern abrahms tanks new mraps etc and they would still lose to goat herders.


I will put it this way, the abrahms holds the record for worst performing tank since ww2, 99% of that record is from saudi arabia in they war against yemen and iraq against isis, hinting that there was nothing wrong with the carburator but something very wrong with the operator.
 
chuckiechan said:
Fine. Then spell out what you want.

So far we are sitting there in an agreed upon stalemate spending a ton of money. Why are we there in the first place?

Obama and Trump have sought to limit U.S. involvement in Syria for their own reasons. Yet both have been sucked in and still can't clearly define their objectives in this cloudy war. We can't seem to maneuver around enough to destroy ISIS. Why? Ask the generals. They are twelve move ahead of everyone.

Again, what does America have to gain. What do the democrats have to gain by objecting? It's not like they are coming over here to vote democrat. So tell me, why are we there?

I'm open minded about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

One correction: Trump wasn't sucked into US involvement in Syria. He inherited that involvement and he is ending it.
 
Airyaman said:
So do you believe the Saudis and UAE will protect the Kurds against Turkey?
Click to expand...

saudi and uae will not protect the kurds, infact during the afrin offensive the only one who came to the kurds aid was the iran shia militias and assads forces, and they only came in what little each could spare for a side battle. It will most likely end up as a status quo kurds go back with assad and take the best deal they can get vs the option of fighting turkey.

However turkey may not have a pleasant run fighting the kurds, it took them quite a while just to take afrin, the kurds love to retreat and pull a pincer attack, and you have to wonder how many times they can get turkish forces with such maneuvers.
 
Mycroft said:
Snark looks worse on you than it does on Maddow...and it looks pretty damned bad on her.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Great rebuttal Professor.

If you really think the Saudis can defend the Kurds you truly are lost.
 
Tom Horn said:
So he wasn’t really an isolationist like you claimed then. What is your point?
Click to expand...

I made my point. Lindbergh in 40 and 41 was an isolationist who did not want to get involved in Europe.

Are you really attempting to rewrite history that was well settled three quarters of century ago!?!?!?!?!?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Great rebuttal Professor.

If you really think the Saudis can defend the Kurds you truly are lost.
Click to expand...

I'm not a "Professor". I'm a "Sage". Get it right, eh?

The Saudis don't have to "defend" the Kurds. They just have to "help" defend the Kurds. Just like the US is helping defend the Kurds by sending them truck loads of armament.
 
Mycroft said:
It's not just the Dems. There are plenty of Reps who want perpetual war.

It's about money and power. The Congressional Elites want it...and the global multinationals have it because of war.
Click to expand...

You sounding just like a Alex Jones Infowars episode.
 
Airyaman said:
Yes, that was before the pull-out, while US troops were there. Now Trump is pulling those troops out. Will the Saudis and UAE troops stay?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they? Their being there wasn't dependent upon the US being there. They are dealing with the Kurds on their own.
 
Mycroft said:
Why wouldn't they? Their being there wasn't dependent upon the US being there. They are dealing with the Kurds on their own.
Click to expand...

Actually, it appears it really was.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/withdrawal-syria-region-181223131305616.html

Saudi Arabia also has strategic interests in the area. Over the past year, Riyadh exerted tremendous efforts to convince President Trump to maintain a substantial military presence in northeast Syria to counterbalance both Turkey and Iran. Last November, the Saudis committed $100m to convince the US to keep its troops in Syria. At one point, Riyadh even offered to send troops to patrol the area alongside the US and the YPG. Hence the US decision to leave the area likely caused major disappointment for the Saudis and encouraged them to play an even more hands-on role in the country's future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom