(December 20, 2018 at 9:25 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(December 20, 2018 at 8:35 am)wyzas Wrote: It's only 2000 troops, meh.

You wouldn't say " meh" were you one of those 2000....

You're right. But the number 2000 is ridiculous and should not have been left to begin with. We sent more to Grenada.

(December 20, 2018 at 9:40 am)Cato Wrote:

(December 20, 2018 at 8:30 am)Maketakunai Wrote: All the noise about ISIS and humanitarian efforts has always just been a pretense. We're only there for oil. ISIS will be around for a long time because they're fanatics. Let someone else keep them in check for a while. The only question we should be concerned with is whether or not that oil is worth all the aggravation. If the goal is to use less oil, pollute less, and save the planet from global warming (or whatever) then pulling out of Syria would seem to be a step in the right direction.

Unless of course Elon Musk, the political left, and all the climate change alarmists are all wrong and we really do need the oil...

Based on 2015 production statistics, Syria produced 30K barrels/day (ranked 66th), the U.S. produced 9.41M barrels/day (ranked 3rd).  I have seen recent article claiming that the U.S. is now the number one oil producing nation.  The U.S. is most assuredly not in Syria for the oil.

Yes, but were fighting ISIS in Syria destabilized the oil producing region. ISIS and Al Qaeda in the middle east disrupt oil production and sales in other countries because their violence isn't resticted to just one country. ISIS wants a Caliphate that transcends borders. The easiest way to get oil into Europe for Kuwait and Iraq is through Syria. Turkey only shares 25% or so of the Iraq border on in the East. Syria and Jordan have the rest on the West side of Iraq and block Iraq from the Mediteranian.

If we don't need the oil then we really don't need Syria. 

And.... we only have one real ally in the region. I'm not entirely sure we even need land troops in the Middle East anywhere to help protect Israel, as long as we can ger carriers into the Med...

We don't need syria.  Syria needed us...and we failed.

(December 20, 2018 at 9:04 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(December 20, 2018 at 8:30 am)Maketakunai Wrote: Unless of course Elon Musk, the political left, and all the climate change alarmists are all wrong and we really do need the oil...

 
...you mean the crushing majority of scientists?  The people best qualified to examine the issue?  All of them are 'alarmists'?

It's a little naive to think that all climate change alarmists are scientists. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio are no more qualified to understand the data than you or I. Gore's characterization of climate change has been proven to be so grossly politically motivated that as a result of Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills that the government issued "guidance notes" to teachers which are required when screening An Inconvenient Truth in British schools. DiCaprio has a G.E.D. without any higher education as near as I can tell. 

It's also a little naive to think that no scientists are alarmists... For instance the British physicist Prof. Brian Cox who gained notoriety as an alarmist for throwing climate change graphs at people on a BBC panel discussion between his classes on theoretical time travel. 

Scientists are starting to wake up to the notion that the climate data is not nearly as dire as many scientists in this crushing majority would have us believe. About 4 hours ago, an article was published online by the Irish Times addressing this very subject.

Climate data is nothing less than alarming and dire.  We'll survive it, ofc...surviving is pretty much our biological niche. That doesn't make the situation any less shitty.

For our part..we don't actually "need the oil". Tons of developing countries do..but we're not them. We just like it, it makes things easier for us.

China, for example..major polluter...but it's trying to become us, or maybe even a better version of us. The most direct path to that goal is to burn x amount of fossil fuels...like we did. Now....that, is an inconvenient truth.

(December 21, 2018 at 12:29 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: We don't need syria.  Syria needed us...and we failed.

You are aware that the the Obama administration was supplying "rebels" in Syria with weapons from Croatia to take out Assad, right? That all came out in 2015. Trump stopped funding the "rebels" in 2017 and about 8 months later declared ISIS was no longer a threat in Syria. Who do you think those "rebels " are exactly?

Obama had the CIA funding and training the Free Syrian Army to overthrow the Syrian government since around 2011. As it turns out, the FSA collaborates quite a bit with Al Qaeda. By 2017 intelligence was reporting that FSA was primarily Al Qaeda. Let's backtrack -  From 2011 to 2014 Al Qaeda supported ISIS openly. Even though they broke ties formally, they still support each other when it's convenient. Right now there are so many groups in Syria that it's really just not worth the effort to try to keep track of them all. We can't treat them all like allies, and we can't treat them all like enemies. Here's a map from May, 2018 that shows what I mean.

The only thing anyone knows for sure is that without money from America, ISIS control has been reduced to holding a miniscule portion of the country. That only took about 8 months after President Trump cut off the flow of arms and equipment. And, like I wrote earlier, as long as we can get carriers into the Mediterranean we really don't need to put American lives at risk for this cluster-fuck.

(December 21, 2018 at 1:52 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Climate data is nothing less than alarming and dire.  We'll survive it, ofc...surviving is pretty much our biological niche.  That doesn't make the situation any less shitty.

For our part..we don't actually "need the oil".  Tons of developing countries do..but we're not them.  We just like it, it makes things easier for us.

China, for example..major polluter...but it's trying to become us, or maybe even a better version of us. The most direct path to that goal is to burn x amount of fossil fuels...like we did.  Now....that, is an inconvenient truth.

Will we survive .yes 

Will there be widespread destruction and suffering. yup 

Is it worth it nope were seriously tempting fate .

And the idea America should act reckless because China is rather silly . I don't know how anyone can defend that .

---

(December 21, 2018 at 2:36 am)Maketakunai Wrote:

(December 21, 2018 at 12:29 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: We don't need syria.  Syria needed us...and we failed.

You are aware that the the Obama administration was supplying "rebels" in Syria with weapons from Croatia to take out Assad, right? That all came out in 2015. Trump stopped funding the "rebels" in 2017 and about 8 months later declared ISIS was no longer a threat in Syria. Who do you think those "rebels " are exactly?

Obama had the CIA funding and training the Free Syrian Army to overthrow the Syrian government since around 2011. As it turns out, the FSA collaborates quite a bit with Al Qaeda. By 2017 intelligence was reporting that FSA was primarily Al Qaeda. Let's backtrack -  From 2011 to 2014 Al Qaeda supported ISIS openly. Even though they broke ties formally, they still support each other when it's convenient. Right now there are so many groups in Syria that it's really just not worth the effort to try to keep track of them all. We can't treat them all like allies, and we can't treat them all like enemies. Here's a map from May, 2018 that shows what I mean.

The only thing anyone knows for sure is that without money from America, ISIS control has been reduced to holding a miniscule portion of the country. That only took about 8 months after President Trump cut off the flow of arms and equipment. And, like I wrote earlier, as long as we can get carriers into the Mediterranean we really don't need to put American lives at risk for this cluster-fuck.

Russian barrel bombs and chemical weapons have more to do with ISIS current predicament than scrotus does, lol. You're not talking to a person who has problems with arming and training rebels, with me. Personally, I think the failure to follow up directly on our red line back in the day was one of the worst mistakes of the obama presidency.

(December 21, 2018 at 10:26 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(December 21, 2018 at 2:36 am)Maketakunai Wrote: You are aware that the the Obama administration was supplying "rebels" in Syria with weapons from Croatia to take out Assad, right? That all came out in 2015. Trump stopped funding the "rebels" in 2017 and about 8 months later declared ISIS was no longer a threat in Syria. Who do you think those "rebels " are exactly?

Obama had the CIA funding and training the Free Syrian Army to overthrow the Syrian government since around 2011. As it turns out, the FSA collaborates quite a bit with Al Qaeda. By 2017 intelligence was reporting that FSA was primarily Al Qaeda. Let's backtrack -  From 2011 to 2014 Al Qaeda supported ISIS openly. Even though they broke ties formally, they still support each other when it's convenient. Right now there are so many groups in Syria that it's really just not worth the effort to try to keep track of them all. We can't treat them all like allies, and we can't treat them all like enemies. Here's a map from May, 2018 that shows what I mean.

The only thing anyone knows for sure is that without money from America, ISIS control has been reduced to holding a miniscule portion of the country. That only took about 8 months after President Trump cut off the flow of arms and equipment. And, like I wrote earlier, as long as we can get carriers into the Mediterranean we really don't need to put American lives at risk for this cluster-fuck.

Russian barrel bombs and chemical weapons have more to do with ISIS current predicament than scrotus does, lol.  You're not talking to a person who has problems with arming and training rebels, with me.  Personally, I think the failure to follow up directly on our red line back in the day was one of the worst mistakes of the obama presidency.

I'm not a fan of arming rebel groups history shows that it often goes poorly . Yet another reason I don't support militia's .

(December 21, 2018 at 5:06 pm)Amarok Wrote:

(December 21, 2018 at 10:26 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Russian barrel bombs and chemical weapons havell more to do with ISIS current predicament than scrotus does, lol.  You're not talking to a person who has problems with arming and training rebels, with me.  Personally, I think the failure to follow up directly on our red line back in the day was one of the worst mistakes of the obama presidency.

I'm not a fan of arming rebel groups history shows that it often goes poorly . Yet another reason I don't support militia's .

So NOW you tell me.



Signed


Geo. Washington