• 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!

Withdrawl of troops from Syria -- do you agree with the decision?

Do you agree with Trump's decision on Syria?


  • Total voters
    84
A decidedly bad decision. The Pentagon Inspector General states that there are ~20,000-30,000 active ISIS members today in Iraq/Syria.

Those numbers (whatever they actually are) will balloon after the US pulls out (cuts and runs) due to the propaganda value of driving the Great Satan out.

We were doing just fine with a very small boot-print (~2,200) on the ground. Why leave when US/SOF casualties are very low and enemy casualties are extremely high?

Whatever happened to Trumps "I will not telegraph my intentions to the enemy" military doctrine?
 
The point is: if you respond to the things people say instead of your personal interpretation of what they say, you are much more likely to come away with a correct understanding of what they mean. If you take people's words and turn them into different words, you will not be likely to come away with a correct understanding of what they mean.

I would not normally come down this forcefully on everybody else, but you make a habit of this sort of thing and my patience with you is thin.

:) All I have access to is what your words say, which I have quoted for you repeatedly, and which you have ignored. If you meant to say something else, then howsabout you respond to my repeated request that you simply let us know what that magical "something" was", instead of whining about how nobody understands you :)
 
:) All I have access to is what your words say, which I have quoted for you repeatedly, and which you have ignored. If you meant to say something else, then howsabout you respond to my repeated request that you simply let us know what that magical "something" was", instead of whining about how nobody understands you :)

So what you're saying is that you hate minorities? I have only your own words to go on. If there is any other way to interpret your post I'm all ears.
 
So what you're saying is that you hate minorities? I have only your own words to go on. If there is any other way to interpret your post I'm all ears.

:) Sure. I do not hate minorities in particular. I hate everyone.

See? That's not hard at all. Now, why don' you tell us what you meant to say, as I've repeatedly asked you to, and as you've repeatedly refused to do?
 
:) Sure. I do not hate minorities in particular. I hate everyone.

See? That's not hard at all. Now, why don' you tell us what you meant to say, as I've repeatedly asked you to, and as you've repeatedly refused to do?

Per your own post, you hate minorities in particular. There's just no other way to read your post.
 
Per your own post, you hate minorities in particular. There's just no other way to read your post.

:) Except that - unlike you, since you refuse to bother to address what you said - I'm more than happy to address what I said and clear up the question in particular.


If you didn't, in fact, mean,

Cardinal said:
a better question for the thread is, "Should the decision to pull out of Syria be made by Trump?" Such a question demands whether Trump is best qualified to determine the motive, timing and manner of a pullout, a question that by this point answer itself.

When you said

Cardinal said:
a better question for the thread is, "Should the decision to pull out of Syria be made by Trump?" Such a question demands whether Trump is best qualified to determine the motive, timing and manner of a pullout, a question that by this point answer itself.


Then what did you mean? I keep asking, and you keep refusing to say. Odd, that.
 
:) Except that - unlike you, since you refuse to bother to address what you said - I'm more than happy to address what I said and clear up the question in particular.


If you didn't, in fact, mean,



When you said




Then what did you mean? I keep asking, and you keep refusing to say. Odd, that.

So are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to hold office? Sorry, man, but I just can't agree with that.
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-mi...ts-forces-from-northeastern-syria-11545225641

WASHINGTON—President Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Syria, officials said Wednesday, marking an abrupt shift of the U.S.’s posture in the Middle East....

Please vote and explain your vote if you wish.
If we had a president who thought things through, consulted with military leaders and proposed a plan to the America people I would consider it, but that is not what is happening.
 
Yeah, there's that. I think you said it well. I have nothing to add on that topic and it makes me have a VERY sour taste in my mouth too.

You can put 10 people in a room and I bet 9 of them can't articulate WHY we are actually there to begin with. In fact, if the guy on TV is right, right now, TODAY, we are dropping bombs in nine different countries. Those same 10 people cannot name half of them or have a clue as to why we are doing it.

That make me rub my chin and go, "Hmmmmm....."

I don't like hardly anything about Trump. But I do like his approach to not kicking in doors and killing people half way around the world as past president's have been quick to do. Trump talks blustery crap in his attempt to portray a Ronnie Reagan/John Wayne image. But, in truth, he spends more time in a tanning booth next to his hair-stylist's and manicurist's office, than he does in a macho-man saddle, (so to speak.) Trump puts cotton balls between his toes. Combat boots irritate his bone-spurs. He is no war hawk. And that is puzzling because, typically, it's the GOP, especially the Lindsey Grahm types, that never pass up a good oppertunity to enrich the military industrial complex by throwing bombs and bullets around the world willy-nilly. I'm surprised the GOP support a war ***** like Trump. That's out of character for them.

I read your post as an endorsement of the Presidents decision. Is that so? Then why not say so, without the backhand.
Regards,
CP
Regards,
CP
 
If we had a president who thought things through, consulted with military leaders and proposed a plan to the America people I would consider it, but that is not what is happening.

Perhaps you are confusing President's Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon with the current President. The afore named presidents listened to their Generals. I hope you appreciate the difference between the military-industrial state and the current presidents willingness to think like a civilian.
Regards,
CP
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you are confusing President's Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon with the current President. The afore named presidents listened to their Generals. I hope you appreciate the difference between the military-industrial state and the current presidents willingness to think like a civilian.
Regards,
CP
I have real confidence that I will never have to consider it.
 
A decidedly bad decision. The Pentagon Inspector General states that there are ~20,000-30,000 active ISIS members today in Iraq/Syria.

Those numbers (whatever they actually are) will balloon after the US pulls out (cuts and runs) due to the propaganda value of driving the Great Satan out.

We were doing just fine with a very small boot-print (~2,200) on the ground. Why leave when US/SOF casualties are very low and enemy casualties are extremely high?

Whatever happened to Trumps "I will not telegraph my intentions to the enemy" military doctrine?

US Military Says It Can't Take Out Remaining ISIS Fighters Because They're Hiding In Tunnels.
A spokesman for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria estimated in December 2017 that fewer than 3,000
ISIS fighters remained in both countries. Since then, defense officials have said consistently that roughly
2,000 ISIS fighters are trapped in Syria’s Middle Euphrates River Valley.

Army Col. Sean Ryan, a spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, repeated the 2,000 figure when briefing
reporters on Tuesday. However, it is difficult to determine exactly how many ISIS fighters remain in their last
enclave in Syria because they are dug in deeply and the terrain is difficult for combat operations, he said.
https://taskandpurpose.com/syria-isis-avoids-annhilation

So again you're are imagining or exaggerating that ISIS has 10X the manpower that really exists in the theatre.
You have just doubled down on your absolute silliness that 'The US military controlled almost 50% of Syria 'by this 20,000 to 30,000
ISIS fighters still in the field tidbit. And you're hoppin' angry at Trump for wanting to leave Syria, I hope your reasoning is based on
better material than what you've posted here.
 
If we had a president who thought things through, consulted with military leaders and proposed a plan to the America people I would consider it, but that is not what is happening.

You mean like Bush #2 did in his idiotic invasion of Iraq? That indulgence was a sickening example of the CIA getting everything wrong
& the military eager to join in the folly. Trump is not so cavalier as that.
 
You mean like Bush #2 did in his idiotic invasion of Iraq? That indulgence was a sickening example of the CIA getting everything wrong
& the military eager to join in the folly. Trump is not so cavalier as that.

Odd, isn't it, how the President Trump opposition moves their opinion's around like a blind dog in a Butcher shop? If the president had said we need more troops in Syria, there would be huge demonstrations against that as well.
Regards,
CP
 
No, not at all. Isis isn't defeated and until then our troops should stay there.
 
So are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to hold office? Sorry, man, but I just can't agree with that.
So, what DID you mean to say, anywho? You keep refusing to answer. Odd, that..... :)

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
No, not at all. Isis isn't defeated and until then our troops should stay there.

Depends some on what you are willing to accept as defeated. I don't think you will ever be able to say ISIS is defeated, if your definition means all their followers are dead or changed. I have no doubt that Al Qaeda and ISIS will continue to kill innocent people in the lands they control. I also see no reason for us to be there any longer. Let the Russians and Iranians screw with them for a while. I prefer to use our strength for our own immediate interest's. No American soldiers need die for country's that hate us no matter what.
Regards,
CP
 
Back
Top Bottom