Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The US asked the Kurds to help them defeat ISIS, which cost the Kurds over 10,000 fighters, The US would probably still fighting ISIS and their causalities would of been more than eight Americans who lost their lives., Isn't that enough of a reason to protect the Kurds?
Thank you for your usual thoughtful response. I'll address your comments paragraph by paragraph:The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.
Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?
I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html
Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.
NATO is an ALLIANCE based on COLLECTIVE SECURITY. Each NATO member pays for its own military forces regardless of where they are deployed in the world. That is how it has been for decades. U.S. forces in Europe along with other NATO forces contribute to the defense and deterrence of a Russian invasion of Europe. The United States defense of Europe is NOT a matter of charity. That United States does it because it is in the NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST of the United States to defend Europe, the same as it would be South Korea or the U.S. mainland. Its been that way for over 70 years now.
The United States, Kurdish Allies, and other NATO forces have taken all territory held by ISIS and destroyed the Caliphate. But ISIS is still a force like Al Quada, hiding where it can, and trying to rebuild itself. NATO forces have rotated in and out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So have Australian forces. It only happens to be in the past year that there have only been U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. NATO and other coalition aircraft have been apart of patrolling the skies over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO does have ground troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the moment.
There was no risk to war with Turkey or Russia by staying in North Eastern Syria. Neither Russia, Syria, nor Turkey viewed it as worth it to risk war with the United States. Russia even tested the idea in 2018 by sending a large non-official group of Russian mercenary's to try and take over a Kurdish base. The Kurdish base happened to have a few members of the U.S. special forces. Together with the Kurds, they called in airstrikes on the attacking forces and killed over 300 Russian mercenary's in catch in the attack. Only one Kurdish soldier was wounded, non killed.
Its that type of firepower in coordination with Coalition Aircraft flying in the region and Kurdish and U.S. special forces on the ground which have kept Turkey, Syria and Russia from daring to challenge the U.S. position in northeastern Syria.
ISIS had been crushed and its remaining members were being chased down. The United States and the Kurds had a established a relatively stable area in North Eastern Syria, north of the Eurphrates River and south of the Turkey/Syria border. Now Trump has ruined that entirely by pulling U.S. forces from their positions and giving Turkey a green light to enter the area.
The NATO charter only goes into effect if there is an attack on the mainland territories in Europe and North America of the countries that are members. For example, in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, it did bring about a NATO response because it was British territory in the far southern hemisphere. As long as any fighting between Turkey and Russia is in Syria, it would not legally bring in the NATO response. Russian airstrikes on Turkish land though would bring about a NATO response.
The probability of a Turkish/Russian fighting has increased though with the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Again, there were multiple reasons why keeping U.S. forces where they were was good for the entire region at the given time.
The Turkish invasion happened after the U.S. pullback and Trump giving the green light to Turkey. There would be no Turkish invasion right now if Trump had kept U.S. forces where they were and not given Turkey a green light to enter this party of Syria.
Other NATO forces have played a role in Syria in years past.
U.S. troops in Syria were not in harms way except in their mission to track down ISIS.
Fuck NATO. The Kurds are realigning with Assad. They, and the Syrian Defense Force, with their Russian allies, have it handled.
The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.
Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?
I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html
Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.
Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.
If NATO sent troops to Syria they would be fighting ISIS and keeping Turkey out of Syria, as well as keeping Assad and Russia out of the Kurdish areas. Isn't preventing a genocide of Kurds a worthy NATO mission?
If NATO won't do "endless wars" why should the US send troops to the ME to do "endless wars"? Trump is right to us pull out of Syria. I hope pulling US troops home from the EU and saving $24b a year is next on the agenda.
The UN can't do anything, never could. Talk is cheap. Turkey would just stonewall like Baghdad Bob in the old days.
Nothing is ever accomplished except by military force. In this case the extermination of Kurds.
NATO has troops on the ground in Afghanistan. They also have some troops in Iraq and are apart of the air component that provides air-support to U.S. ground troops in Syria. The United States has the largest and most capable ground forces and are sometimes the only forces that can reliably respond to various crisis around the world. Crisis that impact U.S. national security interest. The United States has no choice but to be there to defend its interest whether or not other country's choose to participate or not.
Fuck NATO. The Kurds are realigning with Assad. They, and the Syrian Defense Force, with their Russian allies, have it handled.
Well, if the Russians end up bombing the Turks the way they bombed ISIS, (even tho' they'll need to hit the Turks even harder!), yes, it will be handled.
Putin Shows Off Su-57 Stealth Fighter After Turkey Barred from Buying F-35Erdogan looked into the cockpit of the Su-57 on display and asked whether it was available for sale. Putin smiled and said, "Yes, you can buy it," according to the Associated Press.
Fuck NATO. The Kurds are realigning with Assad. They, and the Syrian Defense Force, with their Russian allies, have it handled.
Well, if the Russians end up bombing the Turks the way they bombed ISIS, (even tho' they'll need to hit the Turks even harder!), yes, it will be handled.
Russian-Turkish trade is equal to Syria's GDP.
BlueStream - Gazprom
https://www.gazprom.com/projects/blue-stream/']https://www.gazprom.com/projects/turk-stream/']TurkStream[/URL] - Gazprom[/URL]
Russia gave Turkey its most advanced anti-missile system.
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that's a problem - CNN
And its latest nuclear energy technology
Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia
Putin and Erdogan inspecting Su-57
Putin Shows Off Su-57 Stealth Fighter After Turkey Barred from Buying F-35Erdogan looked into the cockpit of the Su-57 on display and asked whether it was available for sale. Putin smiled and said, "Yes, you can buy it," according to the Associated Press.
Seems Russia and Turkey get along quite well
Turkey paid for it.
Russia doesn't give away anything.
Turkey paid for it.
Russia doesn't give away anything.
Off course, Turkey paid for it.
I just wanted to show you that Russia-Turkey relations are, have a big economic dimension and cooperation is increasing.
Syria is just a sub-category of the relation and there won't be war over it
The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.
Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?
I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html
Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.
The US asked the Kurds to help them defeat ISIS, which cost the Kurds over 10,000 fighters, The US would probably still fighting ISIS and their causalities would of been more than eight Americans who lost their lives., Isn't that enough of a reason to protect the Kurds?
The short answer is, NO. I'm not going to risk US lives to protect Kurds.
My OP is about, why isn't NATO involved in "peace-keeping" in Syria and preventing genocide?
Trump stepped up and defeated ISIS, w/o NATO. Its a matter of "hold my coat", or thanks for the help keeping the peace.
NATO should at least condemn Turkey for invading Syria and the genocide of the Kurds.
The United States, Kurdish Allies, and other NATO forces have taken all territory held by ISIS and destroyed the Caliphate. But ISIS is still a force like Al Quada, hiding where it can, and trying to rebuild itself. NATO forces have rotated in and out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So have Australian forces. It only happens to be in the past year that there have only been U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. NATO and other coalition aircraft have been apart of patrolling the skies over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO does have ground troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the moment.
p2: no comment
The United States, Kurdish Allies, and other NATO forces have taken all territory held by ISIS and destroyed the Caliphate. But ISIS is still a force like Al Quada, hiding where it can, and trying to rebuild itself. NATO forces have rotated in and out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So have Australian forces. It only happens to be in the past year that there have only been U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. NATO and other coalition aircraft have been apart of patrolling the skies over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO does have ground troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the moment.
Yep. But the OP doesn't know that. Moreover, the information inconveniences him, spoils his whining about poor, widdle, much-exploited U.S. of A., and, rather than doing some research and correcting himself, he comments:
p2: no comment
Goes without saying, after the loose cannon in the Oval Office announced to withdraw troops from Syria - Mattis resigning over it - about a year ago, thus destroying the defense network established in the Syrian north, the French and Britons scrambled to get their troops out. For with that network destroyed, they'd be left holding the bag, and possibly be overrun at a moment's notice. That's how erratic, unpredictable behavior on the world stage comes with a cost - because no one wants to risk their troops' lives with a twittering goof, like Trump, at their side.
Not sure what point you're trying to make?! NATO may have been involved in Syria, but as you say, NATO had no involvement for "the past year". I'm not sure why that is?? Was Turkey making noise about invading Syria back then? The EU has more skin in the game than the US when it comes to killing ISIS and ME terrorists, so why did NATO leave Syria?
Not sure what point you're trying to make?! NATO may have been involved in Syria, but as you say, NATO had no involvement for "the past year". I'm not sure why that is?? Was Turkey making noise about invading Syria back then? The EU has more skin in the game than the US when it comes to killing ISIS and ME terrorists, so why did NATO leave Syria?
Funny how that goes, and the reason is also fairly clear - you plainly don't understand anything that runs counter to your whiny, mendacious narrative.
In that infamous prison camp in Iraq, Camp Bucca, after Bush's criminal war of aggression, that brought together the remnants of Saddam's military and Islamists, combining military expertise and religious fanaticism, AQI emerged and infested Iraq, then moved to Syria while it morphed into Da'esh. That monster is the creation of the U.S., and what's needed now is the U.S. cleaning up the mess it created, like grown-ups do. President Obama did a reasonably good job, using minimal means, joining up with the Kurds who took the bulk of the casualties and did all of the on-the-ground fighting. Whereas the Trumpy cuts and runs, with your support, leaving the Kurds exposed to the Turkish army but also to al-Nusra-style monsters Turkey cultivated, while Trump is in effect indignant others aren't changing his diapers fast enough.
All you have is your whining about why, oh why, others aren't cleaning up the mess the U.S. created. And why, oh why, poor, widdle U.S. is being taken advantage of, and exploited. Now, whine along.
so far this has been a great discussion with information being offered on the why's and how's. then you come along and just bash.I love the way deplorables dis any collective agreement to which the US is signatory and recommend unilateral action then moan when it blows up in their face, whining for allies.
Erdogan made sure "our guys" were out of the way BEFORE the invasion, so just end that lie right there.The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.
Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?
I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html
Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.
