Trump hands over Syria to Turkey then threatens to "totally destroy & obliterate" her economy if... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15040209
...something about his "wisdom" :moron:

Independent wrote:Donald Trump has threatened to "totally destroy and obliterate" Turkey's economy if the country does anything that he does not like in Syria, amid criticism from Republicans over new US policy allowing the Turkish military to take over in the war-torn country.

The statement follows after Mr Trump announced he had decided to pull back US troops from northern Syria, allowing Turkey to go through with a military offensive in the region, a move that even strong backers of the president have blasted as "shortsighted and irresponsible". The decision appears to leave US-backed Kurdish forces there in jeopardy, which Turkey has labelled as a terrorist organisation.

In apparent response to that criticism, Mr Trump pledged to destroy Turkey's economy if it steps over the line, and cited what he called his "great and unmatched wisdom" for knowing just where that line is.

"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!)," Mr Trump wrote on Twitter Monday morning.

He continued: "They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families. The US has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!"

Mr Trump's decision to pull troops from Syria sparked backlash from many in Washington, including one of Mr Trump's most vocal supporters, senator Lindsey Graham. Other prominent supporters of the president, including senator Marco Rubio and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, also denounced Mr Trump's decision.

"This impulsive decision by the President has undone all the gains we've made, thrown the region into further chaos. Iran is licking their chops. And, if I'm an Isis fighter I've got a second lease on life. So to those who think Isis has been defeated you will soon see," Mr Graham said during an interview on "Fox and Friends".

The decision to allow Turkey to go ahead with its military offensive in Northern Syria marks at least the second time that Mr Trump has considered pulling back US involvement in the region even further. But, he ultimately decided to keep military presence there, amid backlash from the American foreign policy establishment in Washington.

In addition to Mr Graham speaking out, the president's recent decision has been derided by Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat who served as a Marine in the Iraq war.

"Allowing Turkey to move into northern Syria is one of the most destabilizing moves we can do in the Middle East," Mr Gallego wrote on Twitter Sunday evening. "The Kurds will never trust America again. They will look for new alliances or independence to protect themselves."

American backed Kurdish forces were also surprised by the White House's announcement, with the Syrian Defence Forces — a largely Kurdish militia — releasing a statement claiming they had done their part in working to reudce tensions with Turkey, but that the United States had not held up its end of the bargain.

The statement continued, warning that Turkey's planned military action could endanger progress made in the wake of the fight against Isis.

Independent
#15040239
There must be something that made Trump believe that keeping troops in that area is unsustainable.

I also wonder what had the Kurds done that effectively no country is acting in sympathy to them. I have heard about their perils for decades, by no means shorter than the Palestine people.
#15040252
Mr. Graham knows that Trump had been planning to remove U.S. troops from Syria for about a year and held off to make sure the ISIS caliphate had been 100% defeated because of earlier criticism. So it is not an "impulsive" decision as claimed. It has been reported that President Trump had talked to Turkish President Erdogan by phone just before ordering our troops withdrawal. Erdogan had wanted to meet with Trump one-on-one at the U.N. General Assembly to discuss a safe zone in northern Syria, for which the U.S. expressed support, and potentially purchasing a U.S. missile defense system, according to the officials. Turkey is a NATO Ally in custody of several U.S. nuclear weapons and has more interest in that part of the world than the United States at this time. So it makes perfect sense that President Trump would be happy to take their money to sell them a U.S. missile defense system rather than let Russia have that deal and let them take over the U.S. fight and responsibility in Syria. Also President Trump is fed up with the Europeans for not being willing to take back the captured ISIS fighters that came from their countries and has vowed to release them rather than transport them all the way to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This appears to be the perfect solution to me.
#15040257
Hindsite wrote:Mr. Graham knows that Trump had been planning to remove U.S. troops from Syria for about a year and held off to make sure the ISIS caliphate had been 100% defeated because of earlier criticism. So it is not an "impulsive" decision as claimed. It has been reported that President Trump had talked to Turkish President Erdogan by phone just before ordering our troops withdrawal. Erdogan had wanted to meet with Trump one-on-one at the U.N. General Assembly to discuss a safe zone in northern Syria, for which the U.S. expressed support, and potentially purchasing a U.S. missile defense system, according to the officials. Turkey is a NATO Ally in custody of several U.S. nuclear weapons and has more interest in that part of the world than the United States at this time. So it makes perfect sense that President Trump would be happy to take their money to sell them a U.S. missile defense system rather than let Russia have that deal and let them take over the U.S. fight and responsibility in Syria. Also President Trump is fed up with the Europeans for not being willing to take back the captured ISIS fighters that came from their countries and has vowed to release them rather than transport them all the way to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This appears to be the perfect solution to me.


There is no US ''fight'' or ''responsibility'' in Syria. The US is there in defiance of international law completely disregarding the wishes of the sovereign government of Syria, which was and is genuinely fighting the Islamofascists like ISIS and al-Qaida. Turkey does not belong there either, neither they nor the United States requested to help the Syrians in their fight or entire their borders; they are armed illegals there, ironically.
#15040258
annatar1914 wrote:There is no US ''fight'' or ''responsibility'' in Syria. The US is there in defiance of international law completely disregarding the wishes of the sovereign government of Syria, which was and is genuinely fighting the Islamofascists like ISIS and al-Qaida. Turkey does not belong there either, neither they nor the United States requested to help the Syrians in their fight or entire their borders; they are armed illegals there, ironically.

Yes, I believe Trump has felt the same before he became president. However, he felt some pressure and responsibility to defeat ISIS in the region and to support the Kurds that had helped our troops. That is why he has warned Turkey not to annihilate the Kurds in their offensive or face economic sanctions. So if members of Congress want U.S forces there, then they should be willing to vote for it and send a bill to the president for his signature.
#15040265
Hindsite wrote:Yes, I believe Trump has felt the same before he became president. However, he felt some pressure and responsibility to defeat ISIS in the region and to support the Kurds that had helped our troops. That is why he has warned Turkey not to annihilate the Kurds in their offensive or face economic sanctions. So if members of Congress want U.S forces there, then they should be willing to vote for it and send a bill to the president for his signature.


You're still trying to dodge my main point; US and Turkish forces are there in Syria illegally under international law, as that Nation's recognized government did not invite or request the help of either country in ridding itself of Islamic terrorists trying to take over Syria. In fact, much evidence exists that the Obama/Clinton Administration in the US and the Turkish government actively supported efforts by Islamic radicals to create a new regime in Syria.
#15040267
annatar1914 wrote:You're still trying to dodge my main point; US and Turkish forces are there in Syria illegally under international law, as that Nation's recognized government did not invite or request the help of either country in ridding itself of Islamic terrorists trying to take over Syria. In fact, much evidence exists that the Obama/Clinton Administration in the US and the Turkish government actively supported efforts by Islamic radicals to create a new regime in Syria.

I am not dodging anything. All I was pointing out is that it was not President Trump that put our forces there and he has wanted them out even before he became president. He was pressured to keep them there and he did for the reasons I stated. However, he is now getting them out as he promised.
#15040270
Rugoz wrote:Now imagine there are Americans reading those tweets thinking "that's the man I want to be our president", and we have such Americans here on Pofo.

It's incomprehensible to any normal human being.

It's sardonic humor. He's tweaking the neoconservatives, who created the largest humanitarian crisis since World War II in Syria and throughout Europe, but remain completely oblivious to their catastrophic fuck up.



You'll notice that they are the ones who are the most upset about this.

Patrickov wrote:There must be something that made Trump believe that keeping troops in that area is unsustainable.

He accomplished what he intended to accomplish. I doubt that the US will have no presence, but front line combat troops will probably leave the area.

Patrickov wrote:I also wonder what had the Kurds done that effectively no country is acting in sympathy to them. I have heard about their perils for decades, by no means shorter than the Palestine people.

They often ally with communists. So there's that.

annatar1914 wrote:The US is there in defiance of international law completely disregarding the wishes of the sovereign government of Syria, which was and is genuinely fighting the Islamofascists like ISIS and al-Qaida. Turkey does not belong there either, neither they nor the United States requested to help the Syrians in their fight or entire their borders; they are armed illegals there, ironically.

Legally, this is an absolutely legitimate point. Unless Turkey invokes NATO for attacks--which would typically also involve Kurdish PPK fighters--there isn't a sound legal basis for the US to have troops in Syria.

Hindsite wrote:Yes, I believe Trump has felt the same before he became president. However, he felt some pressure and responsibility to defeat ISIS in the region and to support the Kurds that had helped our troops. That is why he has warned Turkey not to annihilate the Kurds in their offensive or face economic sanctions. So if members of Congress want U.S forces there, then they should be willing to vote for it and send a bill to the president for his signature.

Right, and to either invoke NATO or a UNSC agreement to that end, so it's not always the US that bears the responsibility alone. Although, it can be said that France and Britain took some action in Syria in the last few years.

annatar1914 wrote:You're still trying to dodge my main point; US and Turkish forces are there in Syria illegally under international law, as that Nation's recognized government did not invite or request the help of either country in ridding itself of Islamic terrorists trying to take over Syria. In fact, much evidence exists that the Obama/Clinton Administration in the US and the Turkish government actively supported efforts by Islamic radicals to create a new regime in Syria.

Yeah. I read a pretty good book written by a British SAS guy who detailed the arms trafficking that took place in Benghazi, Libya that was intended to send arms to anti-Assad forces (ISIS) in Syria, but they didn't want any US fingerprints on it. As we all know, it was a monumental clusterfuck. The book was called "Zero Footprint."

Zero Footprint: The True Story of a Private Military Contractor's Covert Assignments in Syria, Libya, and the World's Most Dangerous Places
#15040275
@blackjack21 , addressing my legal points about US involvement in Syria, you replied;

blackjack21 wrote:

Legally, this is an absolutely legitimate point. Unless Turkey invokes NATO for attacks--which would typically also involve Kurdish PPK fighters--there isn't a sound legal basis for the US to have troops in Syria.

Yeah. I read a pretty good book written by a British SAS guy who detailed the arms trafficking that took place in Benghazi, Libya that was intended to send arms to anti-Assad forces (ISIS) in Syria, but they didn't want any US fingerprints on it. As we all know, it was a monumental clusterfuck. The book was called "Zero Footprint."

Zero Footprint: The True Story of a Private Military Contractor's Covert Assignments in Syria, Libya, and the World's Most Dangerous Places


You and I usually speak together in terms of more or less pure power concepts, real-world facts, and so while I gave my ''Peace of Westphalia Nation-State'' comments, I am reminded of what the Athenian Commander said to the people of Melos, before those defeated people were sold into slavery, saying;

''The powerful do what they will; the weak suffer as they must''

Of course this is pure Classical Greek ''Hubris'' which in Greek Tragedies is always followed by ''Nemesis'', as it is a tragic flaw in the Greek idea of Heroism. Note also that the Melosians had been members of the ''Delian League'' chaired by Athens, and her voluntary membership was forced into permanent status, and ''contributions to the common defense of Greece'' became mandatory taxes, always increasing... Melos rebelled, and paid the price. Sparta defeated Athens shortly thereafter...

But enough of the history. Today, those who want America to be a great Empire, even the core of a Hegemonic World Government, interfere everywhere just as Athens did in the Aegean Sea/Greece, while simultaneously making it (with liberal social engineering) impossible to actually hold anything anywhere.

This is not so much a ''pullout'', as letting one's local Vassal State (Turkey) take care of the recalcitrant locals, subcontracting all this bloody business out to them.

Trump knows he's managing an emergency under an emergency regime. But what can he do with half the country insane and the other half terminally stupid?

Imperials fight barbarians, then hire them, then have them fight as the Imperial Army, then the barbarians win over the Imperials later as the Empire implodes and fragments from within, into Barbarism. From one adult in the room to another, I don't like where all this is headed. Do you?
#15040289
blackjack21 wrote:They often ally with communists. So there's that.


As far as I remember many Arab and Third World countries did. Syria was certainly more friendly to Commies than the others. Saddam Huissein, who was accused for crimes against Kurds, also sided with the Communists before helping the United States to fight Iran.
#15040297
annatar1914 wrote:You and I usually speak together in terms of more or less pure power concepts, real-world facts, and so while I gave my ''Peace of Westphalia Nation-State'' comments, I am reminded of what the Athenian Commander said to the people of Melos, before those defeated people were sold into slavery, saying;

''The powerful do what they will; the weak suffer as they must''

That's more or less the case. Trump is recalibrating US foreign policy toward realism. The US doesn't have a compelling state interest to remain in Syria--although, clearly the neoconservatives have other ideas.

annatar1914 wrote:Of course this is pure Classical Greek ''Hubris'' which in Greek Tragedies is always followed by ''Nemesis'', as it is a tragic flaw in the Greek idea of Heroism.

While Nemesis was a goddess, I often think of Trump as the Nemesis of the neoconservatives.

annatar1914 wrote:Today, those who want America to be a great Empire, even the core of a Hegemonic World Government, interfere everywhere just as Athens did in the Aegean Sea/Greece, while simultaneously making it (with liberal social engineering) impossible to actually hold anything anywhere.

That seems to be the case, but their calculations seem to be way off to the point it is difficult to take them seriously anymore. It doesn't help them that they've lied with such alacrity that people would prefer Donald Trump to what they've had to offer. At least Donald Trump hasn't started WWIII or created huge humanitarian disasters.

I left the Republican party in 2006 over immigration, because it frankly made no sense whatsoever to have a huge undefended border while fighting overseas. When they started calling everyone who disagreed "racist," that was when I had enough of the Republican party. Yet, they continued to aggravate people both in the United States and abroad. The aggression toward Russia from a purely tactical point of view made no sense. With US forces committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as commitments in Europe and East Asia, the US had no capacity to spare. Obama was a hopeless greenhorn, but after 7 years of warfare, Bush faced the Russian invasion of Georgia and could do absolutely nothing about it. By contrast, in 1989 the US could push back the Iraqis with a 500k man army.

annatar1914 wrote:This is not so much a ''pullout'', as letting one's local Vassal State (Turkey) take care of the recalcitrant locals, subcontracting all this bloody business out to them.

On the surface, that's true. However, the former Stratfor guys--George Friedman and Peter Zeihan--have both identified powers that will rise in conflict zones, and both of them named Turkey. Whether that's what is intended here or not, that does seem to be part of the trend. Laura Ingraham had a former general on tonight that thought this was a positive development--that Turkey ultimately would end up blocking Iran. I can't find the clip. Here's a different one explaining the situation on the ground.



The US doesn't want to be part of a fight involving Russia as Trump is going into the 2020 election season. Turkey wants to expand a buffer zone. Turkey obviously has much more at stake in the region then the US does.

annatar1914 wrote:Trump knows he's managing an emergency under an emergency regime. But what can he do with half the country insane and the other half terminally stupid?

Can you elaborate and clarify?

Trump has his own problems. When this Ukrainegate thing came up, my first suspicion was John Bolton. I've just heard rumors that he is the second whistleblower, which ultimately means he orchestrated the first whistleblower and this is nothing more than another neoconservative attempt at a coup. So Trump does have his hands full, and he's not going to take a punch without delivering a counterpunch.

annatar1914 wrote:From one adult in the room to another, I don't like where all this is headed. Do you?

As far as the US getting out before the shit hits the fan? As an American, I think we never should have been in Syria to begin with and that Obama, Clinton and the neoconservative/neoliberal cabal were out of their fucking minds trying to topple Assad with the rest of the Middle East destabilized. So I'm fine with the US pulling out. After 18 years in Afghanistan and more than a little mission creep, I think it's time we got out of there too.

I've read several other books on those wars too. I've detailed one of the problems with the CIA and the deep state in juxtaposing Left of Boom: How a Young CIA Case Officer Penetrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Outlaw Platoon: Heroes, Renegades, Infidels, and the Brotherhood of War in Afghanistan, and also Level Zero Heroes: The Story of U.S. Marine Special Operations in Bala Murghab, Afghanistan.

Getting past the war porn aspect of those type of books, I found it striking how much the CIA blacked out of Left of Boom that you could easily infer from Outlaw Platoon. It's to the point of just being stupid. Yet, they do seem to think "secret" or "classified" means super-special or "nobody else knows," when it is just plain obvious. I try to articulate that with my own work and the sheer stupidity of storing 4 petabytes of data per month from US telcos with so-called lawful intercept. You get into computational problems like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. The movie Zero Dark Thirty has some technical aspects of what I do for a living in mass storage, cloud computing and telco, but intelligence agencies still end up having to do things like bribing people to get the one phone number they really want. You can't infer that or mine it from exabytes or yottabytes of data.

So for me, part of liking Trump is just a no-confidence vote in the establishment of neoconservative/neoliberal "elites." None of those fuckwits knows how to build these systems, so they do not understand their limitations from an architectural perspective. I found the quip in 13 Hours comical when they shook a tail, and the SEAL driver says something like, "I didn't go to Harvard, but that looked like a tail to me."

Trump, I think, knows that these people fucked up big time. By contrast, the neoconservatives/neoliberals don't see it at all. They're upset about Brexit? Marine Le Pen, etc.? They caused it. They just have virtually no capacity for reflection, introspection, etc.
#15040422
Rugoz wrote:You can project and rationalize all you want, Trump is still a POS.

Presidents are known for their charms and fucking people over whether through the military, intelligence services or law enforcement. That's how it is with the big boys. There is nothing new revealed by your distaste for Trump. However, in contrast to Obama's administration and the huge humanitarian crisis that resulted from his policies (with help from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel), Trump is a veritable cream puff.

On to more substantive points:

Luongo: Are These The Five Tweets That Change The World?

(click on the tweet to get the full five Trump tweets)

Luongo theorizes:

Because it signals that Trump is...

  1. Ascendant in his own White House.
  2. Realizing nothing good comes from further escalation
  3. Not getting re-elected if he’s in quagmires around the world
  4. Washing his hands of the Arab infighting
  5. Responding to the realpolitik of a vulnerable Saudi Arabia
  6. Understanding that Syria is an Obama-era mess which is now unwinnable.
  7. Telling Israel what the limits of his support is.
  8. Informing our allies the U.S. is not subsidizing their adventures anymore.
  9. Notifying the Neocons that he’s done making deals they won’t keep.
  10. Resetting the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan as unwinnable by neocon/Israeli standards.

I'd submit that both the latest impeachment row and the firing of John Bolton are tied to this policy change. I find the Ukrainegate story line even less compelling than Russiagate, and I suspect hastily cobbled together by the deep state since it's obvious the neocons were behind Russiagate too.

Getting the US out of that mess is also important to free up US forces and focus on more important issues like the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and the fact that Prince Mohammed's foray into Yemen has faired poorly. I rather doubt that Trump would have advocated that action, but it wouldn't surprise me if US neoconservatives and/or Israel had a hand in it.
#15040457
blackjack21 wrote:Presidents are known for their charms and fucking people over whether through the military, intelligence services or law enforcement.


Rhetoric matters. Soft power matters. Everybody outside the US thinks Trump is disgusting or a fucking moron. His presidency undermines the West and Western ideas. It plays right into the hands of China.

blackjack21 wrote:Trump is a veritable cream puff.


Utter garbage. Trump has continued Obama's strikes in Syria. Unlike Obama he hit Syrian government forces. He feeds the Saudi war machine in Yemen. He tries to cripple Venezuela and Iran with economic sanctions. He ignores climate change, which will cause more serious upheavals in the region than any war could.

He's better than the neocons, but in no way or form better than Obama.
#15040482
Rugoz wrote:Rhetoric matters. Soft power matters.

Trump has already put sanctions on Turkey before and cancelled the F-35 program for them. Laying out a specific set of consequences, in whatever style, is a straightforward communique. Contrast that with Obama's red line in the sand, and Trump could be characterized as more consistent.

Rugoz wrote:Everybody outside the US thinks Trump is disgusting or a fucking moron.

That would be true of globalists and their talking heads in the media. However, that's not the case with everyone as you should already know.

Rugoz wrote:His presidency undermines the West and Western ideas.

Which ones? Which Western idea says the US should participate in a civil war in a country on the other side of the globe? @annatar1914 has already pointed out that there is no basis in international law for this action. Fighting against ISIS was relevant, because they did make threats against the US, kill US nationals and nationals of US allies. They are now defeated. What is the compelling "Western idea" that says the US should remain fighting in Syria? Keep in mind, nothing precludes the British, French, Germans, et. al. from fulfilling the duties the US was fulfilling.

Rugoz wrote:It plays right into the hands of China.

What role do you think China is playing in Syria? The relevant players are Turkey, Iran, Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Additionally, if we should be discomfited by China's behavior, don't you think the US should cease trading with them? Don't you think the West should include trade sanctions against China and its Western ideas ought to involve deprecating China?


Rugoz wrote:Utter garbage. Trump has continued Obama's strikes in Syria.

Obama wasn't just conducting strikes. He was backing rebels against Assad, destabilizing Syria and creating the largest humanitarian disaster since WWII. Trump has done no such thing.

Rugoz wrote:Unlike Obama he hit Syrian government forces.

Yes. Obama accused Syria of the same thing and did nothing as Syria crossed his red line in the sand. Trump didn't even need a red line in the sand. He simply attacked based on the information he was provided by the CIA--which some people dispute as to its accuracy. If Assad is the enemy, attacking him directly rather than supplying radicals is a more direct and straightforward approach than what Obama was trying to do.

Rugoz wrote:He feeds the Saudi war machine in Yemen.

And the Saudi War machine things he's disgusting or a fucking moron for doing so? How about Israel? A lot of anti-Iran factions champion Trump for doing that. Thinking about this from a geostrategic perspective, the Kurds offer virtually nothing of strategic value to the US other than from an the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend sort of logic; whereas, Saudi Arabia has the Ghawar fields, and provides energy to fund much of the global economy. So you think Trump is disgusting or a fucking moron for pulling out of Syria, and for standing with an ally of geoeconomic significance you also think he's disgusting and/or a fucking moron?

Rugoz wrote:He tries to cripple Venezuela and Iran with economic sanctions.

Yes. They are US adversaries. I can understand why they might thing Trump is disgusting or a fucking moron. That would make sense.

Rugoz wrote:He's better than the neocons, but in no way or form better than Obama.

Well, there are a lot of Europeans that would have preferred not to be overrun with millions of Syrian refugees who might take issue with your point there.

I don't think Donald Trump is going to win any Emily Post awards for etiquette, but at least he won't have the ironic humiliation of having won the Nobel Peace Prize as Obama did for doing exactly nothing, and then going on to create anarchy throughout the Middle East with untold bloodshed.
#15040485
As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over...


Utterly disgraceful. Pathological.

25th Amendment.
#15040490
Drlee wrote:Utterly disgraceful. Pathological.

25th Amendment.

He he. You'd need the VP and the majority of the cabinet for that. Good luck with that.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 23

Yea, I can't agree with this. The latest trend in[…]

If Trump authorizes Giuliani to represent him, […]

Trump and Russiagate

In the legal system that Donald has been gaming w[…]

An EU for the whole damn planet

It's silly but there are some parallels. The EU […]