Vets, what is your opinion on the Syrian pullout?

[joko104]

Still waiting for anyone to show me the treaty or agreement - approved by Congress - that we agreed to defend the Kurds against anyone, let alone would go to war on their behalf to steal territory from other countries - including our NATO ally - so they can create their own ethnically purified Kurdistan.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Understand what the Democratic Party of war and death and the war mongers for profit want.

Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Russia - plus the Kurds and ISIS along with some other factions all are fighting in and over Syria.

They are all in that region, if not bordering Syria. Syria is on the other side of earth from us.

They want to put US troops in the middle of a 10 way fight that has been going on for centuries in their claim that the USA is the police force of the entire world for which we must be in the middle of every possible conflict everywhere all that time forever.

Do you LOVE watching WAR on TV? Really LIKE reading about all the death and destruction of wars? Then vote Democratic - the Party of perpetual wars and death. Over 90% of all American war deaths and deaths caused by the American military of others has been under Democratic Party leadership. The Democratic Party exists for destruction as the party of the racist, bigoted hate and fear mongers.

Their wars amount to holy wars. They make claim that we have the right to be their because these countries don't have the same human rights standards that we do.

But they love diversity, and kill innocent fetus.

The party of hypocrites.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Their wars amount to holy wars. They make claim that we have the right to be their because these countries don't have the same human rights standards that we do.

But they love diversity, and kill innocent fetus.

The party of hypocrites.

The hypocrite that you always ignore....

I'm bringing our troops in Syria home.

He didn't bring any troops in Syria home.

 

[oneworld2]

No, it should be obvious it was not really about removing the Syrian government by simply looking at the number of forces we sent there. Because if that was our intent, we could easily have sent enough troops and equipment to do exactly that. And of course possibly kick off a war with Russia.

No, at most we became a minor annoyance to Syria. This is obvious by their even agreeing to "allow the US" to operate from their territory, not that it really mattered as that territory had not been under his control for years.

But please, explain to me as a "serious analyst", how you come to that conclusion. Give me some factual reason to accept your conclusion.

The US has been involved in the Syrian Civil War for over 8 years now. Most of that, providing non-military aid. That changed in 2014 when the US (and also most of NATO) started going after what was believed to be chemical weapon stockpile and distribution facilitates. Both Syrian and ISIS both.



And when President Obama ordered US forces on the ground to assist, it was never more than 500 individuals. Primarily US Army Special Forces and US Navy SEALs. And they are not there to fight themselves, but to instruct those on the ground who are actually fighting.

So air strikes against another target, and 500 service members. This is apparently your "proof" of an attempt to overthrow the government.

Yea, not taking your claim seriously at all, have a nice day.

Your last sentence was always going to be the case and I can't say as I blame you for it. It does, however ,make responding to it seem like a waste of time, which it is.

You obviously understand things from a military perspective but appear to struggle with the political and pr aspects of modern day conflicts imo. As is shown by your comments regarding how the US could have just sent in thousands of troops to overthrow Assad. Sure they could but those days of just announcing wars without the manufactured consent for them are from a different time period.

For your own argument to stand up you would have to provide some evidence that the US administrations and their advisors actually care about the plight of the ordinary folk in whatever country are in the cross hairs at any given time. I put up an article about the treatment of the Kurds , firstly by the British and then since the US takeover of the region for the most part, and it shows a picture of betrayal and slaughter on a pretty epic scale over a long period of time.

The same with Iraq where Iraqis were used and abused , let down and gunned down often in the furthering of US strategic considerations. We saw the overthrow of the Libyan leader and the campaign of selective information that served as a justification for that overthrow with the state now seeing people sold openly into slavery in markets and refugees drowing in the waters of the Med in droves having been trafficked through Libya by wretched opportunists in human misery. The cameras have all but disappeared so as not to let the true cost of another regime change operation dressed in the new colours of a humanitarian intervention trouble us as we eat our dinners.

I could go on but the point has already been endorsed in that cursory glance through recent US/Western inspired savagery.

Moving on........

Do I really need to tell you about how proxies are preferred to using ones one troops in order to depose leaderships/governments that are considered to be not in the best interests of the US ? The US had been bankrolling , along with some Arab allies of theirs , the Syrian opposition to Assad. I'm not sure how clued up you are about operation Timber Sycamore but you do admit to some " training " of the Assad opposition. A complete understatement imo.

In fact the use of proxies IS the US ( and many others ) preferred choice as it was in Afghanistan against Russians , Contras in Nicaragua and all of those right wing death squads that ran riot in Central and Latin America during the 70s and 80s. So much evidence it is more of an exception to the rule that they do actually send in large forces to further their interests.

I am sure you will have a whole host of MSM apologetics with which to apply fig leaves to every action mentioned and everything not but if we just take the example of the US use and abuse of the Kurds , seeing as it is at least in keeping with the topic , over the past say 70 years, the notion that the US administrations care is wholly ridiculous.

Best keep to the sanitized and spun version of history where you are always the good guys trying to do good in a bad world but sometimes making mistakes along the way and stick your fingers in your ears if anything might be uttered that challenges that.

Have a nice day yourself snug in the wooly cotton brain of plausible deniability and honourable intentions

 

[RetiredUSN]

I'll bet not a single big mouthed war hawk liberal on DP has called their congress person to draft a resolution for a actual end game for the US involvement Syria.

Just more noise.

 

[beerftw]

I'll bet not a single big mouthed war hawk liberal on DP has called their congress person to draft a resolution for a actual end game for the US involvement Syria.

Just more noise.

There never was an endgame there, other then regime change which failed. The us govt has tried to overthrow the syrian govt since hafez assad took power and failed for decades, this was the biggest attempt and I feel the bigwigs at this point are kicking and screaming refusing to admit they lost at regime change again.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Have a nice day yourself snug in the wooly cotton brain of plausible deniability and honourable intentions

Gee, I am sorry I am not woke enough, and/or lost my tinfoil hat somewhere.

The thing is, I honestly could not care less what the paranoids or the like believe. And as a general rule I tend to dismiss them along with the conspiracy theorists as a waste of time to even try to have a serious discussion with. They will pull out little bits and pieces and string them out into some kind of massive conspiracy, and I simply refuse to waste my time with that kind of nonsense anymore.

So enjoy your fantasy, and have a nice day.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'll bet not a single big mouthed war hawk liberal on DP has called their congress person to draft a resolution for a actual end game for the US involvement Syria.

Just more noise.

"End game" and "exit strategy" are only things that apply if a Republican is in office.

Kind of like "Draft Dodger". They will spin 10,000 reasons why a Democrat should not have applied for the draft, but scream at a Republican that does not.

With me, it simply shows how quite a few talk out of their anus. In reality, they could not care less, it is just something to scream.

 

[oneworld2]

Gee, I am sorry I am not woke enough, and/or lost my tinfoil hat somewhere.

The thing is, I honestly could not care less what the paranoids or the like believe. And as a general rule I tend to dismiss them along with the conspiracy theorists as a waste of time to even try to have a serious discussion with. They will pull out little bits and pieces and string them out into some kind of massive conspiracy, and I simply refuse to waste my time with that kind of nonsense anymore.

So enjoy your fantasy, and have a nice day.

I too am sorry you haven't more of a capacity for critical thinking and the questioning of your own propaganda systems dictates. But to dismiss those who disagree with you as " paranoids " or "CTers" is poor form imo even if it might be a convenient out . It also doesn't say much about your own willingness or ability to even try to support your case imo

You will bellieve many theories that with fall apart with a little independent research it's just they enjoy main stream support that you just don't see the different perspectives or inconvenient data that undermines them.

You still believe that the US leaderships care about other people in the world , as is often prortrayed to be the case for conflict justifications , and that is just so easy to destroy as absolute rubbish once you have moved away from a good western education/indoctrination.

Enjoy your life looking at the wall of the cave , where the US leaderships care about the Kurds , or the Venezuelans , or the Haitians etc etc but to dismiss those that look out of the entrance into the world beyond as " paranoids " is just a safety mechanism for yourself and I fully understand why you want to have it in place.

So, as a departure from the norm in the spirit of adventure why not just question the narrative of the US in Syria or elsewhere WRT caring for the Kurds and seeking to protect them and put it against the documentary record and see if it stands up. If you need any help you can read the following account as a pointer to the ridiculous nature of the claim and this only skirts through them to a degree.

‘No Friend But the Mountains’: A History of US Betrayal of the Kurds - CounterPunch.org

 

[Oozlefinch]

I too am sorry you haven't more of a capacity for critical thinking and the questioning of your own propaganda systems dictates. But to dismiss those who disagree with you as " paranoids " or "CTers" is poor form imo even if it might be a convenient out . It also doesn't say much about your own willingness or ability to even try to support your case imo

The irony is, is that it is precisely my critical thinking that causes me to reject them. I apply logic skills (along with a healthy dose of Occam's Razor) to the majority of them, and the result is that the theories and other such nonsense generally cut their own throats.

And the entire "question reality", "question authority" and other such nonsense is something I am used to somebody when their real message is "Ignore any facts, just accept what we say as gospel truth because WE believe it!" And I do not just dismiss such things as being from paranoids, simply as individuals who have limited critical thinking and logic skills, and more often than not showing signs of mental disorder.

And as such, I simply wish them a good day and move on. You can not argue or discuss logic with somebody who is mentally ill. No more than you can do such with a 2 year old that has yet to develop critical thinking and logic skills.

And no, they do not enjoy "mainstream support". There are proven studies that show that "50% of Americans accept at least 1 conspiracy theory".

That means that half of all Americans reject them. And of the 50% that do, 80% of those only accept 1 or 2 specific ones. Meanwhile Conspiracy Theorists tend to accept almost all of them. I often say (with experience) that most have "Never met a conspiracy theory they did not like". 9-11 Truthers, Obama from Africa, Fluoride, Chemtrails, JFK, NWO, Protocols of Zion, the list just goes on and on and on.

And it is even more funny in the 9-11 area. You will have people that look at it critically, and then others that go on about hologram planes, remote control planes, planes filled with patsies, drones made to look like jets, the list just goes on and on and on. And amazingly, they will all band together and support each other against somebody that simply sees things as they really were.

Like a bunch of alcoholics all having DT hallucinations. One insists there are spiders on the floor, another says it is snakes. The third person says it is naked female demons. Then the doctor comes in and says there is nothing there, and all attack the doctor because they KNOW there is something there. They can not explain why each sees something different, but there HAS to be something there because they all see it.

This to me is CT individuals. And when people jump into CT as the basis of their argument (especially when they insist I ignore any other evidence and believe only the CT itself) I quickly dismiss them as having anything of importance to say.

I too am sorry you haven't more of a capacity for critical thinking and the questioning of your own propaganda systems dictates.

And yes, critical thinking and logic is how I have made my living for well over 30 years. Programming and working on computers has no room for anything else. A program will not refuse to work because it does not like you. Your computer will not refuse to go on a network because it thinks you are doing something it does not like. Pure logic, black and white. I apply that to conspiracy theories, and they never make sense.

So have a nice day.

 

[oneworld2]

The irony is, is that it is precisely my critical thinking that causes me to reject them. I apply logic skills (along with a healthy dose of Occam's Razor) to the majority of them, and the result is that the theories and other such nonsense generally cut their own throats.

And the entire "question reality", "question authority" and other such nonsense is something I am used to somebody when their real message is "Ignore any facts, just accept what we say as gospel truth because WE believe it!" And I do not just dismiss such things as being from paranoids, simply as individuals who have limited critical thinking and logic skills, and more often than not showing signs of mental disorder.

And as such, I simply wish them a good day and move on. You can not argue or discuss logic with somebody who is mentally ill. No more than you can do such with a 2 year old that has yet to develop critical thinking and logic skills.

And no, they do not enjoy "mainstream support". There are proven studies that show that "50% of Americans accept at least 1 conspiracy theory".

That means that half of all Americans reject them. And of the 50% that do, 80% of those only accept 1 or 2 specific ones. Meanwhile Conspiracy Theorists tend to accept almost all of them. I often say (with experience) that most have "Never met a conspiracy theory they did not like". 9-11 Truthers, Obama from Africa, Fluoride, Chemtrails, JFK, NWO, Protocols of Zion, the list just goes on and on and on.

And it is even more funny in the 9-11 area. You will have people that look at it critically, and then others that go on about hologram planes, remote control planes, planes filled with patsies, drones made to look like jets, the list just goes on and on and on. And amazingly, they will all band together and support each other against somebody that simply sees things as they really were.

Like a bunch of alcoholics all having DT hallucinations. One insists there are spiders on the floor, another says it is snakes. The third person says it is naked female demons. Then the doctor comes in and says there is nothing there, and all attack the doctor because they KNOW there is something there. They can not explain why each sees something different, but there HAS to be something there because they all see it.

This to me is CT individuals. And when people jump into CT as the basis of their argument (especially when they insist I ignore any other evidence and believe only the CT itself) I quickly dismiss them as having anything of importance to say.



And yes, critical thinking and logic is how I have made my living for well over 30 years. Programming and working on computers has no room for anything else. A program will not refuse to work because it does not like you. Your computer will not refuse to go on a network because it thinks you are doing something it does not like. Pure logic, black and white. I apply that to conspiracy theories, and they never make sense.

So have a nice day.

I'm no CTer but rather than actually discuss my view you pigeon holed it under a probable " paranoid /CTer " . I thought it was poor form and still think it is.

Did you even look at the link that referred to the previous US betrayals of the Kurds or Iraqi Kurds the US allowed to be killed by Turkey in Iraq ? These are all factual and documented events and I contend that the notion that the US leaderships somehow " cares " about them ( a state pr conspiracy theory imo ) is not backed up by the evidence also using logic and reason. Why are you so scared to even discuss it ?

 

[MSgt]

I didn't "pick and choose" from your truths, and the only denigration was caused by the poster who was taking pot-shots at the R's. I merely pointed out what you posted, albeit in greater detail than I. We haven't had a CinC who could crap between a pair of combat boots without soiling himself since Eisenhower, and he had other problems. We need the draft back, then we might get some congress critters who have a big enough picture to legislate, and stop wasting their time and our money on playing gotcha.

Well, I didn't state that you did. But this is exactly what people do, and it is usually Conservatives. It was Conservatives who cheered our troops into Iraq, Conservatives who declared "the left" as weak on terrorism as it fell apart, and Conservatives who routinely ignore Bush/Rumsfeld blundering while raking Obama across the coals for the rise of IS. And what are they doing now? Clinging to the Turkish definition of the Kurds to exonerate Trump's blunder as Iran and Russia decide the region's future.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a train wreck ever since 9/11 for various reasons.

- The NeoCon agenda, which had no patience to understand even its own ideology, thus couldn't defend it properly.
- The ignorant population that didn't care who we attacked after 9/11 or how we did it.
- The ignorant politicians who began playing partisan games while troops were bleeding.
- And a sheer lack of understanding in to our own American history.

The single, greatest point I could make about this would be this: Bush declared to the UN in 2002 that we must spark democracy in this region. We invade and jump start democracy in Iraq. In 2010, a man in Tunisia sparks the Arab Spring and across 22 Arab nations Muslims demonstrated for socioeconomic justice and democracy. What did Washington do? Obama sat on the fence and asked for a very small and insulting amount to help new democracies, The Democrats didn't want to spend the money, and the GOP simply declared that democracy is impossible so that they could oppose Obama. In the meantime, they declare that they "support the troop," who had been struggling for years and years to create exactly what Bush called for in 2002.



We don't want the Draft back. Even with the draft the wealthy escaped national duty by making a career out of being a student or paying for a good number in the lottery. These were not only the elite's kids, but the kids of Congressmen and Senators. And our military during the Draft was unprofessional. Today, we have an all volunteer force; and during a time of war. This means that those who sign up for their Branch of choice know what that means for their possible participation in war. There are no hapless "victims" of government today, thus no real show of anti-war opposition in the civilian population.

 

[braindrain]

Well, I didn't state that you did. But this is exactly what people do, and it is usually Conservatives. It was Conservatives who cheered our troops into Iraq, Conservatives who declared "the left" as weak on terrorism as it fell apart, and Conservatives who routinely ignore Bush/Rumsfeld blundering while raking Obama across the coals for the rise of IS. And what are they doing now? Clinging to the Turkish definition of the Kurds to exonerate Trump's blunder as Iran and Russia decide the region's future.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a train wreck ever since 9/11 for various reasons.

- The NeoCon agenda, which had no patience to understand even its own ideology, thus couldn't defend it properly.
- The ignorant population that didn't care who we attacked after 9/11 or how we did it.
- The ignorant politicians who began playing partisan games while troops were bleeding.
- And a sheer lack of understanding in to our own American history.

The single, greatest point I could make about this would be this: Bush declared to the UN in 2002 that we must spark democracy in this region. We invade and jump start democracy in Iraq. In 2010, a man in Tunisia sparks the Arab Spring and across 22 Arab nations Muslims demonstrated for socioeconomic justice and democracy. What did Washington do? Obama sat on the fence and asked for a very small and insulting amount to help new democracies, The Democrats didn't want to spend the money, and the GOP simply declared that democracy is impossible so that they could oppose Obama. In the meantime, they declare that they "support the troop," who had been struggling for years and years to create exactly what Bush called for in 2002.



We don't want the Draft back. Even with the draft the wealthy escaped national duty by making a career out of being a student or paying for a good number in the lottery. These were not only the elite's kids, but the kids of Congressmen and Senators. And our military during the Draft was unprofessional. Today, we have an all volunteer force; and during a time of war. This means that those who sign up for their Branch of choice know what that means for their possible participation in war. There are no hapless "victims" of government today, thus no real show of anti-war opposition in the civilian population.

There was quite a bit of anti war protests going on when bush was president. They just seemed to all end the day Obama took office for some reason.

 

[MSgt]

There was quite a bit of anti war protests going on when bush was president. They just seemed to all end the day Obama took office for some reason.

That was anti-Iraq War. Not anti-war. Those people had no problem with Afghanistan.

And those numbers were nothing compared to anti-war demonstrators during the Draft of the Vietnam War. Even with that war we saw anti-war demonstrators dramatically rise and fall according to the Draft.

And they seemed to disappear with Obama because Obama kept to the time line and ejected the troops (very prematurely and entirely on popularity). That whole thing pissed me off. McCain, stupidly ran a campaign on "can't set a deadline," despite the fact that Bush had not just already set one, but the pieces in the desert were already shifting around before the election. In the meantime, Obama, promising to "end the war in Iraq," was merely going off the timeline that Bush set and getting away with it. And when the time came, he refused the Intel on the ground and the controlled positive mood in Baghdad and called it.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Can we just be upfront about all this? The Kurds were always going to get burned by the US. They were simply pawns in a larger game of chess. We won't stay to protect them because 1) We'd be there forever and 2) we need to get our own troops home or just generally out of Syria. There are trade offs and this is one of those trade offs. Trump, to his credit, is pretty up front about the situation I would argue, mainly because he doesn't give two ****s about what happens to the Kurds whatsoever. International politics is a ****ed up trip.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

When our A-10 unit was deployed to Turkey providing close air support for Kurds in Northern Iraq. We met with several of the community leaders but werent boots on the ground in those areas. About midway through our tour we got a call in the middle of the night to reconfig the jets and fly CAS missions for the Turkish F4s...the targets...the Kurds...on the wrong side of the border. When word got out, people were pissed, upset, confused, betrayed...how the **** do we defend them here and kill them there?

Do your job. Your job was to make sure the pilots were safe coming and going. Make sure the jets were well maintained. Do your job. Dont argue global politics. Thats not your job. Dont question the motives of the Commander in Chief...thats not your job. Dont like your job? Next time you have the opportunity to raise your hand and say "I do"...dont. If you do...then do. Because the moment you say i do your world becomes about the guy standing next to you. Not momma and the kids back home. Bot God, baseball, the flag, or apple pie. The guy standing next to you and going home safe.

I let people bitch a bit then about the ****ty end of the stick and Clinton...and then told them to shut up and color, reminded them that he was our boss, and we went to work and did our job. I reckon if I was in Syria today I'd feel the same way.

Id love to say if I was in charge I would have told Erdogan to kiss my ass and stood against any aggression there. Id love to say that its worth any price to save lives of innocent men women and children including putting our military base and assets as well as the lives of 6000+ men women and children currently living in Turkey at risk. Id love to believe that if I was president I would have the full backing and support of the people and congress of my decisions and not 50% of the country that would **** themselves over any and everything I do. But thats the beauty of being an idealist in an armchair world. As someone that has served under 4 commanders in Chief in 7 combat tours and seen some of the worst **** people can do to each other and sometimes knowing there wasnt **** we werent going to do in response, I have learned to see the world more pragmatically. If you struggle with that concept read "Shake Hands with the Devil" and ask yourself why you are only now finding your voice.

The military is muscle.
Washington is supposed to be the brains.
Well put, and a grateful nation thanks you for doing your job.

Now, about those brains in Washington...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

How touchy feely of her to send such a sweet letter.

On the other hand, I never read anything from you about Obama's betrayal of the massacred Iraqi civilians after he pulled out. ISIS wasn't very kind after they moved in.

So here is a little lesson for you. It's a quick read.

How the 2011 US Troop Withdrawal from Iraq Led to the Rise of ISIS | Small Wars Journal

You talking about SOFA 2008, signed in by Bush and enforced by Baghdad in 2011?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I know far more about what you just ran off to get for some cut & paste material.

You don't have a clue as to what you just cut and pasted.

We both had a clue that you blamed Obama for a Bush act of office that was further demanded and enforced by Iraq when 2011 rolled around.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Willy pete is so nasty that it burns badly, and when burned out can re ignite again when taking off clothing or bandages, so bad that it is forbidden against civilians or even insurgents, the only lawful use is against actual military targets. Ol willy pete makes napalm look humane as with napalm you can atleast shed your clothes with a hope of surviving, willy pete will burn much longer and often stay dormant until re exposed to oxygen.

It doesn't even stop when it hits bone.

 

[Oozlefinch]

There was quite a bit of anti war protests going on when bush was president. They just seemed to all end the day Obama took office for some reason.

I always found this funny. Lots of protests under Bush I and II, but none under Clinton or Obama. To me it was always purely political and not "honest" protest.

I clearly remember those in 1990-1991, having been caught in one personally in Baghdad by the Bay. And others in 2003 when I lived in Hollyweird. But amazingly, there were almost none from 1993-2000, or from 2009-2016.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Did you even look at the link that referred to the previous US betrayals of the Kurds or Iraqi Kurds the US allowed to be killed by Turkey in Iraq ?

Nope. Because the moment I saw it was Counterpunch.Org, I knew it was a waste of my time.

A well recognized far-left "source", they are about as reputable as Disclose.TV, HAARP.NET, and Alex Jones.

Overall, we rate CounterPunch Left Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the progressive left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use and endorsement of poor sources. (5/13/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/19/2019)

CounterPunch - Media Bias/Fact Check

The following scores Counterpunch’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.
Reliability: 25.06
Bias: -19.38
Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.
Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

Counterpunch Bias and Reliability - Ad Fontes Media

And from their own "About Us" description:

"Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature.

Nope, I did not even bother to read it, because your "source" is extremely biased, and has little credibility. And it is not the first time I have run across somebody using them as a source in here.

This is where I encourage people to "Vette their sources", and not to simply cherry pick ones they are able to find that support their beliefs. Notice, I did not just pick sources I agree with, I picked ones that have a good reputation for being accurate.

As well as giving their own "about us" data. Something that should always be paid attention to when relying upon a source.

Want me to take you seriously? Find a source that has a reputation for being neutral and factual. Not with a strong political bias (in either direction - as a moderate I distrust the fringes on both sides). And notice I did say "fringes". For a critique organization like adfontesmedia, a 10 to negative 10 is barely acceptable. But when they are -19.38 and their main "about us" statement is that they are "muckraking with a radical attitude", then there is no point in even bothering to read what they had to say.

No more than I would bother to read from Disclose.TV, a far-right source with about the same numbers on the Right side of the spectrum.

 

[braindrain]

That was anti-Iraq War. Not anti-war. Those people had no problem with Afghanistan.

And those numbers were nothing compared to anti-war demonstrators during the Draft of the Vietnam War. Even with that war we saw anti-war demonstrators dramatically rise and fall according to the Draft.

And they seemed to disappear with Obama because Obama kept to the time line and ejected the troops (very prematurely and entirely on popularity). That whole thing pissed me off. McCain, stupidly ran a campaign on "can't set a deadline," despite the fact that Bush had not just already set one, but the pieces in the desert were already shifting around before the election. In the meantime, Obama, promising to "end the war in Iraq," was merely going off the timeline that Bush set and getting away with it. And when the time came, he refused the Intel on the ground and the controlled positive mood in Baghdad and called it.

No I saw plenty of straight anti war protests all the time.

So if they didn't protest because Obama kept to the time line why exactly were they still protests when Bush created that time line.
And what happened to the daily tv reports on the death toll, or the constant updates on the Cindy Sheehan protests.

The fact of the matter is that a whole heck of a lot of the protests were motivated by little more then politics.

 

[oneworld2]

Nope. Because the moment I saw it was Counterpunch.Org, I knew it was a waste of my time.

A well recognized far-left "source", they are about as reputable as Disclose.TV, HAARP.NET, and Alex Jones.


CounterPunch - Media Bias/Fact Check


Counterpunch Bias and Reliability - Ad Fontes Media

And from their own "About Us" description:



Nope, I did not even bother to read it, because your "source" is extremely biased, and has little credibility. And it is not the first time I have run across somebody using them as a source in here.



No more than I would bother to read from Disclose.TV, a far-right source with about the same numbers on the Right side of the spectrum.

So now having already used the excuse of me being a " paranoid /CTer" as the reason you don't want to carry on a conversation on whether the charge ( CT ? ) that the US administrations cares about any other people on the planet holds up to scrutiny you now want to dismiss a source I used in order to delay it.

You surely know that there will be no sources that are absolutely " neutral " because those who write articles , be it radical Leftists or Rightists or in the MSM ( that you will be more likely to believe by the sounds ) will not be free from bias or subjectivity themselves. As something of a researcher on media I have found that many MSM articles regularly use terms like , " sources close to the government " , " a government official speaking anonymously said " etc etc but there will be scant comment in your media bias sources about the obvious problems these present in what they will consider to be " balanced " sources.
I have found many many dodgy sources and " mistakes " / bias in the MSM articles I have read and feel the right thing to do is not to completelyt bomb out this or that source but rather research the factual claims they are making about whatever subject is under discussion.

I thought you might just want to actually discuss the US betrayals of/using of the Kurds in order to decide for yourself whether the charge that the US administrations claims that they care, that these are humanitarian motives, actually stands the test of further investigation. It is clear you don't and prefer to stick with the official version in case there's a danger that this is not the reality and the actual reality is a little too hard to take.

I have tried to engage with you and found you to be using insults as the first line of defence , then claim that I must live in a fantasy world to hold a different view to yourself and then sources serving as the another diversion/postponement with God knows what else to come later.

It's easy , you can check the factual veracity of the claims of sources yourself easily enough and , if you choose , ignore then spin put on them by everyone else. You have shown no willingness to do anything of the sort imho

I thought you had potential to be able to discuss the subject that you obviously think is true......... wrt alleged US humanitarianism.......... but I am not desperate enough to have that discussion to carry on flogging that dead horse.

If you want to believe that US foreign policy is based on compassion and caring for the unfortunates here or there around the globe because it is the reality then you are the one that will be forced to jump through hoops in doing so even if it is easier on the conscience to hold that position. I say it's BS and the record shows it's BS and that's the reason why you don't want the discussion and , as I have said already , I can uynderstand why that would be the case.

There is nothing " moderate " imo in supporting the actions carried out to further US imperialism/global hegemony and the state terrorism/war crimes that acompany it and I have no problem being pushed to the margins for voicing opposition to them. Seeing as the manufacturing of consent in the public for these crimes is the role of the MSM I wouldn't expect anything else than to be classed as an extremist/fringe member.

You don't want to explore the notion that the US acts on humanitarian grounds and its administrations have troops everywhere because they care for the ordinary folk around the globe , I get it, but I see it as a widely held theory that crumbles as soon as you start to examine it and is thus little more than a conspiracy theory itself, just with main stream support hence how it is not seen as such

 

[MSgt]

No I saw plenty of straight anti war protests all the time.

You would have to define "plenty" and compare that to the history of anti-war movements. Of course pacifist exist. I don't mean to be absolute. The Gulf War also had a few. Even both World Wars saw a few as high as Congress. But these were few, especially in comparison to the Vietnam-era. And the biggest difference from those of Vietnam, the Gulf War and the post-9/11 era was the existence of the Draft. A Draft, forcing people into uniform and into an unpopular war would have seen these demonstrations at Vietnam-era levels.

So if they didn't protest because Obama kept to the time line why exactly were they still protests when Bush created that time line.

Because the GOP kept implying that there was no timeline in response to the Democrats saying that we needed to get out of Iraq. Most people didn't even know, especially FOX News viewers who only knew the GOP/Tea Party narrative. It was political nonsense built around idiotic opposition and it became a broken record. So when McCain did his campaign a disservice by pushing the GOP line and adapting to Tea Party garbage through Sarah Palin extremism, Obama merely followed the timeline and took credit.

And what happened to the daily tv reports on the death toll, or the constant updates on the Cindy Sheehan protests.

I don't know what you mean here. Democrats exploited Sheehan and used her to shore up the fact that the Democrats were not really on board with Iraq in the first place. They were reluctant, thus consistently pushed the idea that they weren't responsible, but were going to get us out. Thus, Obama merely using the Bush timeline while the GOP doubled down in opposition. While Obama's agenda was anti-Iraq, no matter what the ground was saying, the GOP's agenda was purely anti-Obama, no matter what the ground was saying. In the meantime, the military was trying to do what it was set loose to do while fighting distant idiots in suits the whole way. AND THEN...when the Arab Spring broke across the region, our civilian leaders all stuck their heads up their asses as if "democracy and social justice" wasn't the whole ****ing point!

The fact of the matter is that a whole heck of a lot of the protests were motivated by little more then politics.

There is always more than one motivation. Like I stated, pacifists exist. But clinging to the notion that these should be translated into pro-Obama/anti-Bush demonstrations is false. The actual fact of the matter is that significant opposition to the Iraq War occurred worldwide, both before and during the initial 2003 invasion. This didn't occur with our invasion of Afghanistan. Smaller protests throughout the world also occurred throughout the Iraq occupation. But the protests during the occupation correspond with episodes of greater violence, such as Fallujah I and Fallujah II or during times of domestic terrorism such as in Madrid or London. We saw much less during the time after Bush precisely because our military (through General Patreaus and Mattis) had finally gotten the Malaki government to a place where the Sunni and the Shia were moving away from their sectarian BS. The violence was down and troop numbers were diminishing (with most of the coalition already gone). And then, all of a sudden, Obama pulled the glue, which allowed Malaki to jump right back into sectarian BS, which provided IS the instability it needed.

Of note here is that these protesters were not politically motivated. They didn't come back when Obama put troops back in to fight IS, and they didn't come back when Trump inherited the ongoing fight. And they weren't protesting over Afghanistan. Any protest that wasn't just about the Iraq War was entirely insignificant.

 

[VySky]

Other- Pullout should have been done long ago. No more blood of our men and women spread in the sands of the ME. Put them on our border. As a matter of fact, a contingent from Fort Campbell KY is doing just that. Going to protect OUR border, not other nations borders abroad

-VySky