Starker on 29/10/2019 at 14:57
Lord Dampnut's speech vs Obama's speech on US forces killing a notorious terrorist leader:
[video=youtube;OsBOWSjOLsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsBOWSjOLsE[/video]
Starker on 29/10/2019 at 17:21
Lord Dampnut almost fucked the operation up because of his whimsical decision to betray key allies who have been crucial in fighting ISIS. Also, nice of you to point out that Obama took the high road while Cadet Bone Spurs couldn't help but act weak and petty.
Oh, and what's that? Baghdadi was also given a sea burial? Well, fancy that.
Finally, he didn't "pull out of Syria". He hastily and sloppily relocated some of the troops there to Iraq and thereby lost leverage to push for a diplomatic solution all the while he is planning to send even more to another part of Syria to protect some oil fields. Because that's where his priorities are.
jkcerda on 29/10/2019 at 18:14
SO oretard invaded Syria for the oil fields???
Nicker on 29/10/2019 at 18:43
SOOOOO you are back with the whaddaboutisms and strawmen?
But at least Drumph didn't compromise the security of the operation by blabbing to Congress about it before hand. Instead he told the Russians all about it beforehand.
jkcerda on 29/10/2019 at 18:50
Starker DOES have valid good points, cheeto hitler left Syria AND like the dumb fuck that he is just put troops elsewhere.
you guys live in a bubble of your own making, overlooking the picture is partly how we get here........ we had no damn business in Syria to begin with.
Nicker on 29/10/2019 at 19:49
Quote Posted by jkcerda
.... we had no damn business in Syria to begin with.
Take it up with the British, post WW2. And big oil. Good luck with your time machine.
Renzatic on 29/10/2019 at 22:03
Quote Posted by jkcerda
SO oretard invaded Syria for the oil fields???
We never invaded Syria, given that we didn't have a large military presence there until Trump escalated our involvement. What we had were a handful of people, likely headed by the Pentagon, possibly the CIA, who'd hand out guns to insurgents like so much free candy, train them in their usage, then sic them on our intended targets. In short, Obama's intentions were to use a proxy to topple Assad's regime, go after ISIS, then possibly have an ally in the region who'd probably sell us oil for cheap after the dust had settled.
It's about bog standard US foreign policy as far as the Middle East is concerned. In contrast, Trump's plans seems like a bunch of short term jumps to get headlines (TRUMP DEFEATED ISIS! TRUMP PULLED THE US OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!) without any regard for further strategy. The problem now is he's all over the place. We withdrew. Tensions immediately escalated thereafter, and a bunch of our long term allies took some flak for Trump's grand gesture. The troops who were expected to return home have instead been rerouted to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, seemingly at the last minute, and now we may be redeploying them to Syria over some bullshit with oil fields. Obama's plan would've likely lead us to yet more of the same crap we've been dealing with since the petrodollar became a thing, but hey, at least there was a plan. I can't say the same for whatever it is Trump's doing.
jkcerda on 29/10/2019 at 22:24
deflection...................oh what the fuck...............
I am reaching the fuck trump point..................
Renzatic on 29/10/2019 at 22:37
Hell no you're not! You'll keep triggering the libs if you know what's good for you. :mad:
