Turkey is attacking the Kurds, who were risking their lives for the US just last week..

[Skylar]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

So here's my question. Per Trump, 100% of the ISIS fighters have been captured.

Who then are the Turks invading Kurdish held Syria to fight?

The Kurdish issue boils down to the Kurds wanting their own country, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq saying "No".

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

 

[martybegan]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

So here's my question. Per Trump, 100% of the ISIS fighters have been captured.

Who then are the Turks invading Kurdish held Syria to fight?

The Kurdish issue boils down to the Kurds wanting their own country, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq saying "No".

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

 

[Auld Phart]

And after the moron went against dems and repubs in allowing Turks to attack kurds

Anyone want to guess who has big financial interests in Turkey ? Just one guess please Will, you might need 2
and btw 1000's of kurds died wearing our flag on their shoulders

Soros?
Steyer?
Zuckerberg?
Clintons?
Pelosi?


any of a hundred other millionaires and billionaires?

I coulda made money betting you'd never guess

And I'd have bet you'd come up with some bullshit that Trump did it for financial reasons.

and made money.

Trump won't do shit unless it lines his pockets Funny you haven't noticed it

Funny you haven't noticed it

funny you think it.

 

[Skylar]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

So here's my question. Per Trump, 100% of the ISIS fighters have been captured.

Who then are the Turks invading Kurdish held Syria to fight?

The Kurdish issue boils down to the Kurds wanting their own country, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq saying "No".

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

 

[martybegan]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

So here's my question. Per Trump, 100% of the ISIS fighters have been captured.

Who then are the Turks invading Kurdish held Syria to fight?

The Kurdish issue boils down to the Kurds wanting their own country, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq saying "No".

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

 

[Skylar]

So here's my question. Per Trump, 100% of the ISIS fighters have been captured.

Who then are the Turks invading Kurdish held Syria to fight?

The Kurdish issue boils down to the Kurds wanting their own country, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq saying "No".

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

 

[martybegan]

The Kurdish issue boils down to the Kurds wanting their own country, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq saying "No".

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

The whole situation in Syria and with the Kurds in general IS a convoluted mess, and it is like watching a dog chase it's tail.

The Turks probably would gamble on the 30km move even with the US observers, they won't gamble on taking over all of Kurdish controlled syria because it would remove their cover story.

You want a binary answer to a non-binary problem.

We are compromising between two allies, or is Turkey now an enemy?

We allowed Turkey to control their own Kurds for decades, who are pretty much the same as the Syrian Kurds. The Syrian Kurds are known to work with the Turkish Kurds, AND the Iraqi Kurds.

And they have not been "abandoned". They are still receiving aid and protection, via actual forces in the non Turkish controlled zone, and via the statements by the President regarding Turkish actions in the control zone.

 

[Skylar]

So your answer is....the Turks are there to fight the Kurds?

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

So if the air power is sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory.....why isn't air power sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory?

You just said that Turkey is 'on the move'....and then cited the exact same force as both sufficient and INSUFFICIENT to ward off a Turkish invasion into Kurdish held territory.

What, the planes can't go those extra 30 miles?

 

[martybegan]

The Turks are there to get their own border out of range of the fighting, regardless of who is doing it.

They have been fighting their own Kurds for decades and we haven't said boo about it (maybe mini-boos from time to time).

They probably think the Syrian Kurds are working with the Turkish Kurds to funnel weapons into Turkey through the obvious chaos of the border region.

This is my view of things with the info I have so far.

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

So if the air power is sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory.....why isn't airpower suffecient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory?

What, the planes can't go those extra 30 miles?

Because Turkey probably has a legitimate grievance about incursions across their border by Kurds, by ISIS and by the flood of refugees caused by all the fighting.

The US has set the line for Turkey. They can go 30 km, and probably no further. The US has stated that Turkey must adhere to humanitarian laws with regards to their zone of control.

 

[Skylar]

So the Kurds again are the target of the Turkish invasion into Kurdish held Syria.

The Kurds...our allies and the very folks who did the majority of the fighting in Syria for us. And allied with us in Iraq. And are holding ISIS prisoners for us.

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

So if the air power is sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory.....why isn't airpower suffecient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory?

What, the planes can't go those extra 30 miles?

Because Turkey probably has a legitimate grievance about incursions across their border by Kurds, by ISIS and by the flood of refugees caused by all the fighting.

The US has set the line for Turkey. They can go 30 km, and probably no further. The US has stated that Turkey must adhere to humanitarian laws with regards to their zone of control.

Or what? To quote you, just a couple of minutes ago, "So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

Either the forces are sufficient to ward off a Turkish invasion, or it isn't. You're bizarrrely arguing that our forces are both suffecient AND insuffecient. And that we shouldn't use our military forces against Turks for invading Kurdish held territory, but we have 'set a line' with our military forces if the Turks invade Kurdish held territory.

Can you see the ludicrous contradictions?

And, if Turks couldn't keep 'incursions' out with their military massed on their border, what makes you think they can prevent 'incursions' with a much larger, and more difficult to defend border in territory occupied by the Kurds?

There's nothing about this that makes the slightest sense.

To say nothing of how badly it erodes trust in American leadership and the damage it does with our relationships of our remaining allies as they watch, in real time, as we abandon our previous allies.

 

[martybegan]

Those kurds have always been targets, either syria, Iraq or Turkey. The US will still protect a large area of Syria held by the Kurds

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Yes, they are our allies, however parts of their organization also fight against Turkey, one of our other allies, one we have relations with via NATO.

Should we go to war with Turkey over the Kurds?

So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

So if the air power is sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory.....why isn't airpower suffecient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory?

What, the planes can't go those extra 30 miles?

Because Turkey probably has a legitimate grievance about incursions across their border by Kurds, by ISIS and by the flood of refugees caused by all the fighting.

The US has set the line for Turkey. They can go 30 km, and probably no further. The US has stated that Turkey must adhere to humanitarian laws with regards to their zone of control.

Or what? To quote you, just a couple of minutes ago, "So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

Either the forces are sufficient to ward off a Turkish invasion, or it isn't. You're bizarrrely arguing that our forces are both suffecient AND insuffecient. And that we shouldn't use our military forces against Turks for invading Turkish held territory, but we have 'set a line' with our military forces if the Turks invade Kurdish held territory.

Can you see the ludicrous contradictions?

And, if Turks couldn't keep 'incursions' out with their military massed on their border, what makes you think they can prevent 'incursions' with a much larger, and more difficult to defend border?

There's nothing about this that makes the slightest sense.

They weren't enough to stop the Turks from going 30km, but what we have (and could do) is enough to stop them from taking over all of Kurd controlled Syria (and the rest of it, which they probably could do).

They are sufficient to forstal total takeover, but Turkey sees the risk of keeping the fighting on their border as more than the risk of US response to taking over the 30km zone of control.

With the zone of Control, the Army can set any rules it wants for movement in the zone, because it isn't Turkish territory. In Turkish Territory the army is limited by the Constitution to what i can and cannot do on Turkish soil.

a 30km buffer also keeps short range artillery and rockets out of range of turkish soil.

Again these are the reasons the Israelis took over portions of Lebanon in the 80's and 90's.

It doesn't make sense because all you are doing is trying to figure out a way to blame Trump, not actually figure out the complexity of the situation.

 

[Skylar]

Didn't you *just* say...."So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

But now we're are 'still protecting a large part of Syria'?

With what? Your argument is a convoluted mess. Where we're protecting AND abandoning the Kurds with the same forces insufficient to hold back turkey from invading Kurdish held territory.....but more than sufficient to protect Kurdish held territory from Turkish invasion.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.



So we are abandoning our allies, the very people who fought for us in Syria, who hold the ISIS prisoners that THEY captured for us, that have been allied with us since the First Gulf war.

Why would anyone want to ally with us when we wipe our ass with them the moment they're inconvenient?

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

So if the air power is sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory.....why isn't airpower suffecient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory?

What, the planes can't go those extra 30 miles?

Because Turkey probably has a legitimate grievance about incursions across their border by Kurds, by ISIS and by the flood of refugees caused by all the fighting.

The US has set the line for Turkey. They can go 30 km, and probably no further. The US has stated that Turkey must adhere to humanitarian laws with regards to their zone of control.

Or what? To quote you, just a couple of minutes ago, "So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

Either the forces are sufficient to ward off a Turkish invasion, or it isn't. You're bizarrrely arguing that our forces are both suffecient AND insuffecient. And that we shouldn't use our military forces against Turks for invading Turkish held territory, but we have 'set a line' with our military forces if the Turks invade Kurdish held territory.

Can you see the ludicrous contradictions?

And, if Turks couldn't keep 'incursions' out with their military massed on their border, what makes you think they can prevent 'incursions' with a much larger, and more difficult to defend border?

There's nothing about this that makes the slightest sense.

They weren't enough to stop the Turks from going 30km, but what we have (and could do) is enough to stop them from taking over all of Kurd controlled Syria (and the rest of it, which they probably could do).

Dude, its the EXACT same force. The planes can fly those 30km.

And if the air power and forces we have on the ground is insufficient to stop them from going 30km, that air power and forces we have on the ground is insuffecient to stop them going 31km. Or 50km. Or 100km.

Your argument is a self contradictory mess.

 

[martybegan]

With airpower, and with said observers as a tripwire. The Turks want a 30 mile zone of control. They were going to take it. We allowed them to do so.

So if the air power is sufficient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory.....why isn't airpower suffecient to ward off an invasion by Turkey into Kurdish territory?

What, the planes can't go those extra 30 miles?

Because Turkey probably has a legitimate grievance about incursions across their border by Kurds, by ISIS and by the flood of refugees caused by all the fighting.

The US has set the line for Turkey. They can go 30 km, and probably no further. The US has stated that Turkey must adhere to humanitarian laws with regards to their zone of control.

Or what? To quote you, just a couple of minutes ago, "So we should go to war with Turkey? The Turks were going to move. The 50-100 US troops in the zone they want to control were not going to stop them.."

Either the forces are sufficient to ward off a Turkish invasion, or it isn't. You're bizarrrely arguing that our forces are both suffecient AND insuffecient. And that we shouldn't use our military forces against Turks for invading Turkish held territory, but we have 'set a line' with our military forces if the Turks invade Kurdish held territory.

Can you see the ludicrous contradictions?

And, if Turks couldn't keep 'incursions' out with their military massed on their border, what makes you think they can prevent 'incursions' with a much larger, and more difficult to defend border?

There's nothing about this that makes the slightest sense.

They weren't enough to stop the Turks from going 30km, but what we have (and could do) is enough to stop them from taking over all of Kurd controlled Syria (and the rest of it, which they probably could do).

Dude, its the EXACT same force. The planes can fly those 30km.

And if the air power and forces we have on the ground is insufficient to stop them from going 30km, that air power and forces we have on the ground is insuffecient to stop them going 31km. Or 50km. Or 100km.

Your argument is a self contradictory mess.

The force is the same, however the justification of the Turks for taking the 30km is something the rest of the world seems to be OK with.

You are equating force with intent to use that force.

To stop the Turks from taking that 30km, we would have had to threaten them with US force to prevent it. Trump and his advisors obviously don't think the 30km is worth the risk of a war with Turkey.

Our planes can currently bomb Moscow, should be we considering doing that just because we can?

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't so tragic. Lefties loved the bombing of Yugoslavia sponsored by Hillary's husband that killed an estimated 5,000 or 8,000 or maybe 10,000 innocent people including farmers who were obliterated by daisy cutter bombs. Democrat Bill Clinton was caught with his pants down so the mainstream media considered the attack on Europe to be justified while the 9-11 terrorists who already attacked the WTC in his first year of office were attending flight school in freaking Florida. NATO even bombed an embassy because they were probably relying on old AAA road maps. Ironically the primary targets were our former WW2 allies. Lefties need to get some historical perspective before they become hysterical about Syria.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

Where in the past have you stood with regard to the US involvement in Syria specifically, and the Middle East generally?

Provide proof of your stance with past commentary you have made regarding America's involvement in each instance.

The Turkish president brow beat the orange coward to allow his army to kill defenseless women and children.....simple as that....

Maybe trump is doing Putin another favor?

So, you won't answer. Know I know not to give you any credence in any discussion. Thanks.

jim wont answer questions if it means he might not look to good....he is like his idle dean....same way...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

Where in the past have you stood with regard to the US involvement in Syria specifically, and the Middle East generally?

Provide proof of your stance with past commentary you have made regarding America's involvement in each instance.

The Turkish president brow beat the orange coward to allow his army to kill defenseless women and children.....simple as that....

Maybe trump is doing Putin another favor?

So, you won't answer. Know I know not to give you any credence in any discussion. Thanks.

Here is your answer....IGNORE!

Keep supporting the orange coward..

answer the guy jim....or are you going to take the pussies way out?..

 

[2aguy]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

Where is the U.N........you doofus?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Approve or not, it was going to happen anyway.

Nonsense.

 

[Ame®icano]

Turkey begins military offensive in Syria, Erdogan announces

Turkey begins military offensive into Syria after US pulled back troops - CNNPolitics

trump will be remembered as the spineless coward who turned his back on our allies....the Kurds....

Where in the past have you stood with regard to the US involvement in Syria specifically, and the Middle East generally?

Provide proof of your stance with past commentary you have made regarding America's involvement in each instance.

The Turkish president brow beat the orange coward to allow his army to kill defenseless women and children.....simple as that....

Maybe trump is doing Putin another favor?

But "women and children".

Pathetic.

 

[Ame®icano]

The blood will be flowing from the very people that helped us defeat ISIS. If you support trump on this one....you must be. Russian Troll....

OMG, I can't believe my eyes, lefties finally admitting that ISIS is defeated.