US to send 3,000 additional troops to Saudi Arabia

  
Via:  krishna  •  one month ago  •  118 comments

US to send 3,000 additional troops to Saudi Arabia
The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region. 

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


512

US army officers stand in front a US Patriot missile defence system - AFP

The United States is to send an additional 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia “to assure and enhance” the country’s security in the wake of the Aramco oil attacks, the Pentagon announced on Friday. 

Mark Esper, the defence secretary, said the US was sending two more Patriot missile batteries, one THAAD ballistic missile interception system, two fighter squadrons and one air expeditionary wing.

The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region. 

This is all part of Trump's promise to "Stop the endless wars in the Middle East" and to end U.S. military involvement by rapidly pulling troops out of Middle Eastern countries.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    one month ago

The United States is to send an additional 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia “to assure and enhance” the country’s security in the wake of the Aramco oil attacks, the Pentagon announced on Friday. 

The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Krishna @1    one month ago

This makes no sense to me.  We have sold the Saudis billions of dollars worth of hardware and munitions for decades.  They are our number one customer for weapons sales in fact.  Are you saying that they never considered buying their own AAW gear?

Trump doesn't have any properties in SA, but he has had business deal with them going back decades.  It is a matter of record that when Trump was $900-million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi Royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess.

Given the mess with Khashoggi’s, I can't see this move of American manpower as being on the up and up.  This just smells wrong. 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.1  Ender  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1    one month ago

I don't get it. He says we are pulling out 1k troops from Syria and his base cheers, calls the left war hawks. Then send even more troops than was withdrawn to SA, all the while saying we are getting out if there.

So we basically have more troops over there than we had.

Then I read this morning that he sent 50 mil to Syria.

Unreal. Something doesn't pass the smell test in all of this.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    one month ago
I don't get it. He says we are pulling out 1k troops from Syria and his base cheers, calls the left war hawks.

No, I call the left chicken hawks. War Hawks keep the same demeanor no matter who is in the White House. By the way, we are in Syria illegally. "The War on Terror" isn't recognize outside of the US. Obama never secured permission for US forces to be in Syria; or enter Syrian air space. Syria asked the US, France, and Turkey to leave Syrian territory.

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/09/29/syria-demands-withdrawal-of-all-american-turkish-forces/

Syria’s top diplomat on Saturday demanded the immediate withdrawal of American and Turkish forces from the country and said his government reserves the right to defend its territory in any way necessary if they remain.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem’s remarks to the United Nations General Assembly were made as Turkey and the United States press ahead with a deal to create a safe zone along Syria’s border with Turkey.

On the political front, he reaffirmed the government’s support for the recently agreed committee to draft a new constitution for the country. As has been the government’s tone since the start of the 2011 uprising in Syria, the foreign minister took a hard line, stressing there must be no interference from any country or timeline imposed on the process.

The United States and Turkey maintain an illegal military presence in northern Syria,” al-Moallem said. “Any foreign forces operating in our territories without our authorization are occupying forces and should withdraw immediately.”

We never should have gone into Syria, period.

Then send even more troops than was withdrawn to SA, all the while saying we are getting out if there.

Where did Trump ever say we were getting out of Saudi Arabia? This should be good.

So we basically have more troops over there than we had.

Yes, we do. The world's oil supply is at risk. We are helping the Saudi's defend their oil supply. Funny, I didn't hear a peep out of the left when Obama backed NATO in overthrowing Gadhafi in Libya so Britain and France could get their oil fix. It was "we need to honor our commitment to NATO". Obama violated the war powers act. He exceeded the time limit to define what the US roll was, and how long they would be in Libya. He also violated it with his "War on Terror" in Syria and Iraq.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/are-us-actions-libya-subject-war-powers-resolution/

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can initiate military action but must receive approval from Congress to continue the operation within 60 days. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.

But since NATO action in Libya began, Obama has not sought or received approval from Congress. In fact, individual members of Congress have warned Obama that he can't continue military action unilaterally. That's what has caused the current face-off between the White House and Congress.

On paper, the War Powers Resolution seems clear-cut. But in practice, Congress and the White House have skirmished repeatedly over it.

But for now, the law remains in force. So, earlier this month, butting up against the 90-day mark since action in Libya began, the Obama administration released a report summarizing its actions in Libya. The administration did not claim that the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional but argued instead that its actions in Libya didn't meet the definition of "hostilities," so the War Powers Resolution did not apply.

"U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the Resolution's 60-day termination provision," the report said. "U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."

The report also argued that NATO was leading the efforts in Libya and that U.S. strikes rely on remotely piloted drone planes for its attacks.

Members of Congress from both parties expressed skepticism.

"You know, the White House says there are no hostilities taking place," said U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican. "Yet we've got drone attacks underway. They're spending $10 million a day, part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi's compounds. It just doesn't pass the straight-face test in my view, that we're not in the midst of hostilities."

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., also rejected the administration's argument. "The War Powers Act is the law of the land," Sherman told Glenn Greenwald, a liberal blogger with Salon. "It says if the president deploys forces, he's got to seek Congressional authorization or begin pulling out after 60 days. Too many presidents have simply ignored the law."

Sherman argued that "when you're flying Air Force bombers over enemy territory, you are engaged in combat."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/obama-illegal-wars/497159/

In making war against the Islamic State, Obama also launched an assault on the Resolution, attacking Congress's constitutional position as the ultimate arbiter over war and peace. When he began his new military campaign against ISIS in June 2014, he made no effort to gain Congress’s explicit approval  within the next 60 days. He asserted that the decade-old Congressional authorizations for President George W. Bush's wars against al-Qaeda and Saddam sufficed for his new war. In doing so, he took advantage of widespread confusion. ISIS did not even exist when Congress authorized Bush’s attacks in 2001 and 2002. And by the time that Obama began his new military adventure, ISIS had become al-Qaeda's bitter enemy .

Guess laws don't matter much when a D occupies the WH.

Then I read this morning that he sent 50 mil to Syria.

Not sure what you read; but he didn't send $50 to Syria; but to select human rights groups in Syria to aid in stabilization.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-addresses-values-voter-summit-announces-50-million-in-aid-to-syrian-christians-and-religious-minorities

President Trump  announced Saturday that he had authorized the release of $50 million in aid to   human rights groups   and other aid organizations in   Syria   in an apparent attempt to counter criticism of his pullout of U.S. forces there.

“Other presidents would not be doing that, they’d be spending a lot more money but on things that wouldn’t make you happy," Trump said while addressing the Values Voters Summit's Faith, Family and Freedom gala dinner.

"The U.S. condemns the persecution of Christians and we pledge our support to Christians all over,” said Trump, who claimed that under the Obama administration, Christians in Syria had “almost no chance” to immigrate legally to the United States and that Muslim Syrians had a much better shot.

So much TDDS, so little time to counter it all.

Unreal. Something doesn't pass the smell test in all of this.

That would be the frying brains of the chicken hawks trying to wrap their heads around reality.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.3  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    one month ago

So Turkey did not go into the country? They did not attack Syria? That is what our presence did. Stop that from happening.

So how and where is this money going to be distributed. Who is going to distribute it. Assad? Is there a special envoy that decides on these organizations. What are these organizations actually.

It is going to clean up munitions and help minority groups. All fine and dandy except there is no details.

I find it ironic that the right complains about sending countries money yet trump pulls out, Turkey attacks and trump says oh well, here is 50 mil.

TDS is strong and alive, from his devote, unquestioning worshipers.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @1.1.3    one month ago
So Turkey did not go into the country? They did not attack Syria? That is what our presence did. Stop that from happening.

Yes, they did. Now they are facing the Kurds, Syrian forces, Russia, and Iran. I am sure they are loving that.

No, our presence didn't do jack shit except hold out false hope that Obama's and Hillary's goal of forcing out Assad would be achieved; and prolonging a very costly proxy war.

Note that Turkey forced France and Britain out as well; who were supposed to take over for the US.  Turkey didn't hesitate to fire on US positions either. Seems they aren't afraid of the US or NATO. Wonder why?

So how and where is this money going to be distributed. Who is going to distribute it. Assad? Is there a special envoy that decides on these organizations. What are these organizations actually. It is going to clean up munitions and help minority groups. All fine and dandy except there is no details.

Why don't you do some research on it and let us know. I stated where the money is going; and it isn't to Assad. Sorry if that upsets you.

I find it ironic that the right complains about sending countries money yet trump pulls out, Turkey attacks and trump says oh well, here is 50 mil.

I find it ironic the left is anti war; except when a D starts it. When an R tries to end it they turn into rampant chicken hawks. 

TDS is strong and alive, from his devote, unquestioning worshipers.

Sorry, TDS is a left wing delusional syndrome only- and has morphed into TDDS. Not everything Trump does is wrong; and sometimes he even follows the law! Must be galling that Trump is more lawful than Obama.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.5  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.4    one month ago

So our presence didn't do a damn thing....Ok, sure....

Pulling out and trump basically giving Turkey a green light actually led to war.

Through all your bullshit you seem to miss that one fact. With trump's blessing, a war has started.

And you can cite fox all day long, it still doesn't say where the money will go or what organizations it will go to.

You all will defend anything he does and blame everyone else. Everything is all the fault of everyone except the savior trump.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @1.1.5    one month ago
Pulling out and trump basically giving Turkey a green light actually led to war.
With trump's blessing, a war has started.

There was already a war going on there !

Trump started nothing !

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.7  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.6    one month ago

Turkey had already invaded? News to me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @1.1.7    one month ago
Turkey had already invaded? News to me.

There was already a war going on in Syria, since 15 March 2011 !

Turkey went into Syria.....right ?

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.9  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.8    one month ago

Either you don't know the difference or just trying to be obtuse.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @1.1.9    one month ago
Either you don't know the difference or just trying to be obtuse.

The difference is ?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.10    one month ago

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

Obtuse: annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

You're welcome. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.12  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    one month ago

What is he wrong about? Turkey was already flying missions in Syria. They had carved out a portion of Syria as a safe zone for the radical Sunnis they supported. 

They have expanded their military operations.to create a larger safe zone for 3 million plus Syrian refugees that Europe refuses to accept. Seems that Syria doesn't want them either. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/erdogan-syria-turkey-kurds-europe-refugees-invasion-sdf-latest-middle-east-a9150271.html

I have already proven Turkey doesn't give a shit who they fire on. So by Democrat standards we should have just left troops in place and fought a war against Turkey, a NATO ally.  Think any NATO country would have come to our support? How about Syria, Russia, Iran, and China- think they would love to see a full blown war between the US and Turkey on Syrian soil? Turkey and Russia are pretty close. What are the chances Russia would take the opportunity to attack from the rear and try to drive the US out? Ready to fight a world war over Syria? 

Obama sent troops into Syria with no goals (removing Assad was never going to happen once Russia, China, and Iran were invited in), and no exit strategy. 

We know, we know, but Trruuummmmppppp!!!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.12    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.13    one month ago
[delete]
 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.16  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    one month ago
[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.17  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.16    one month ago
[delete]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.18  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.17    one month ago
[delete.]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.18    one month ago
[delete]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.19    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.20    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.22  KDMichigan  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.23  Ender  replied to  Dulay @1.1.19    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.26  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.22    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.27  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    one month ago
[delete]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.28  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.25    one month ago
deleted
 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.30  Dulay  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.29    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.31  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.20    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.32  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.31    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    one month ago

This is all part of Trump's promise to "Stop the endless wars in the Middle East" and to end U.S. military involvement by rapidly pulling troops out of Middle Eastern countries.

 
 
 
lady in black
3  lady in black    one month ago

https://www.reuters.com/video/2019/10/12/trump-says-saudi-arabia-will-pay-the-usf?videoId=611590123&videoChannel=118298

Trump says Saudi Arabia will pay the U.S.for sending more troops

Sure, just like Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

So our troops are now paid mercenaries.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  lady in black @3    one month ago

Yes but remember-- Trump is acting to end the endless wars in the Mid-east, whichb is why he's pulling out all those troops!

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.1    one month ago
he's pulling out all those troops!

Don't believe it? Even ask him!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @3    one month ago

When I was in Dubai for Desert Storm, the Emir offered every soldier there an additional grand a month out of gratitude for our support and being there.  Bush turned it down saying it would make us look like paid mercenaries.  I found out later that he did take the money but it did not go towards us directly.  It went to offset the cost of us being there.

 
 
 
devangelical
3.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2    one month ago

republican management fee

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  devangelical @3.2.1    one month ago

I was making double my pay as a soldier there that I was in my civil service job but that extra grand would have come in handy for the great shopping there.  I even wrote a book called War Is Hell, But The Shopping Was Great but I never submitted it for possible publication.  I didn't name names, but the people who fucked up knew who they were and would have formed a lynch mob.

 
 
 
Kavika
4  Kavika     one month ago

Well, thank goodness that today we came to the aid of a true ally. They fought side by side with us at Normandy. A true democracy with a splendid human rights record. (except for women, gays, non muslims and a host of others and that little episode of murdering and chopping up a US resident. The Prince didn't do it. The devil did ).  Oh, and there was that little thingly about some Saudi's flying planes into towers in NY. 

So, onward Christian Soldiers we must protect the House of Saud.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @4    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
5  bbl-1    one month ago

MAGA.  Americans protecting Saudi OIL.====A thank you and payment for the Khashoggi removal. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    one month ago

Several right wingers here on NT and over at fox news, just the other day were saying that "we can't be the world's police force", as justification for not protecting the Kurds... Funny how quiet they got when trump sends forces to Saudi Arabia. 

Also, if we aren't going to be the world's police force, why exactly did we need to increase defense spending by 5.6%?

 
 
 
JBB
6.1  JBB  replied to  MrFrost @6    one month ago

Trumpers humiliate themselves enabling Trump's Follies.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JBB @6.1    one month ago

Considering the tubs with the bad teeth and pit stains I've seen in his supporter's pictures, they humiliated themselves long before Trump just by appearing in public.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2  KDMichigan  replied to  MrFrost @6    one month ago
Funny how

All these progressives have now become Neo Cons. Maybe Trump should take lessons from the great leader from behind Obama and draw a red line with turkey?

256

 
 
 
WallyW
6.2.1  WallyW  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2    one month ago

Yep... the resident liberals appear to want perpetual war in that unciviliized region

 
 
 
Krishna
6.2.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  WallyW @6.2.1    one month ago

Yep... the resident liberals appear to want perpetual war in that unciviliized region

So you must therefore be strongly opposed to Trump sending even more troops in Saudi Arabia?

Or are you one of those "Neo-Cons"?

Which is it?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Krishna @6.2.2    one month ago

There have to be some pro Russian types working it here on NT.  NOBODY could be this supportive of Trump's bonehead move to pull out from Syria, while adding 3K more to defend the country that were the home of those that attacked us on 9-11.

Trump's abrupt unilateral decision to pull US forces out of Syria has handed ISIS a new lease on life, and handed a major victory to Syria's Assad, Turkey's Erdogan, Iran, and Russia......all at the same time!   Note that all of these are our adversaries.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.4  Ender  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.3    one month ago

And 50 mil for emergency aid to Syria, the prisoners that escaped, giving up influence...

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.2.5  bbl-1  replied to  WallyW @6.2.1    one month ago

Nah.  The only uncivilized regions are the MAGA rallies.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2    one month ago
All these progressives have now become Neo Cons. Maybe Trump should take lessons from the great leader from behind Obama and draw a red line with turkey?

I don't really care, do you? 

Mission accomplished. 

384

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2    one month ago

No, they wouldn't qualify as neo-cons. Neo-cons don't change their stripes depending on who is in office.

The left have turned into chicken hawks. Ready to send others to die for whatever cause they deem worthy, any time, and any where. Rationality of the move be damned. Protect US assets? Will never make the list. Protect US allies from attack? Only the allies they like. Which changes on a regular basis; so be prepared for their unpredictable urges.  Legality of the move doesn't matter; so long as their myopic cause is protected.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.8  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.7    one month ago

Bet your all in on sending our troops to Saudi Arabia...………  The same country that gave birth to the 9-11 attackers?

Why the pullout in Syria now, and without consultation of the DOD, JCS, or NSA?  Why are you so in support of handing a major victory to Syria's Assad, Turkey's Erdogan, Iran, and Russia......all at the same time?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.2.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  WallyW @6.2.1    one month ago
Yep... the resident liberals appear to want perpetual war in that unciviliized region

This liberal veteran just takes a VERY dim view of abandoning our allies, who have bled with and for us in combat, to slaughter. It is called honoring your commitment and not being a total piece of shit.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.2.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.7    one month ago
The left have turned into chicken hawks. Ready to send others to die for whatever cause they deem worthy, any time, and any where

No. The US got involved in Syria and the fight against ISIS, a worthy fight unless you think we shouldn't have taken action against ISIS. The US allied with the Kurds, the US supported them while 11,000 of them were killed battling the plague that is ISIS. And call me crazy, but I just think that it is supremely fucked up to suddenly abandon those people to slaughter for no apparent reason and allow ISIS a new lease on life. The ONLY reason people are once again dying in that area due to war is because of dipshit Trump. The American forces who were stationed there were keeping the peace. They were doing what our military should always be trying to do, saving lives. 

Good to know you have no problem with the US permitting the massacre of our allies though. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.12  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.8    one month ago
Bet your all in on sending our troops to Saudi Arabia...………

Bet you would be wrong, don't worry it is not the first time people have been wrong about what I believe. While I understand the need to send in troops to protect the Saudi oil supply; which would drastically affect world oil prices if it is shut down long term- I am all about countries taking care of their own defenses. We can sell the Saudis whatever weapons they need to defend themselves and take on the Houthi in Yemen. We can send a very small amount of troops to train them how to use it; and provide logistical support.

The same country that gave birth to the 9-11 attackers?

In case you didn't notice it the world still runs on oil. Would you be willing to hold the US responsible for what a US born terrorist does on foreign soil?  There are US citizens that are a part of ISIS/ISIL. Should the US pay reparations for the actions of those citizens?

  Why the pullout in Syria now, and without consultation of the DOD, JCS, or NSA?

Trump has been trying to pull out of Syria for two damn years. It is not his fault if the government, left, and our allies haven't been listening. Our supposed allies Britain and France were supposed to take over for us once we left. Guess they turned tail and ran instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/09/uk-and-france-to-send-further-forces-to-syria-in-aid-of-us-withdrawal

Britain has agreed to deploy additional special forces in Syria alongside France to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the ongoing fight against the remaining   Isis   forces in the country.

US officials briefed on Tuesday that Britain and   France   would contribute 10% to 15% more elite soldiers, although the exact numbers involved remain secret.

The decision was first reported in the journal   Foreign Policy , which described the development as “a major victory … for Donald Trump’s national security team” because few other countries had been willing to help out.

Earlier this week, it emerged that Germany had rejected a request to deploy ground troops in   Syria . Other countries have been dragging their heels, the US admitted, although Italy is considering whether to join Britain and France.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-orders-u-s-forces-to-withdraw-from-northern-syria-11570974688

French and British forces, which had accompanied U.S. forces in Syria, were expected to depart along with the U.S., officials said, marking a complete withdrawal of Western allies fighting Islamic State.

“Our priority remains to secure the lasting defeat of Daesh and we will continue to work with the U.S. and other international partners in northeast Syria as part of the global coalition for as long as possible,” a U.K. government spokeswoman said, using another name for Islamic State.

French officials declined to discuss future troop deployments.

Great allies we have. They say they will take over, and then flee once we depart. No US means nothing gets done. 

Why are you so in support of handing a major victory to Syria's Assad, Turkey's Erdogan, Iran, and Russia......all at the same time?

Read my comment 1.1.2 and you will find out part of the reason why. We are there illegally. Obama never sought permission at any level for US forces to be in the country, or enter Syrian air space.  Russia and Iran were invited in.  Turkey is there illegally; and they don't really seem to give a damn about anyone's opinion. The world doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop them either.  Again, no US to do the heavy lifting and nothing gets done.

As for the rest of your rant. Assad will not be removed, unless Putin decides he should go. Obama's and Hillary's warped dream of removing Assad ended as soon as Russia, China, and Iran were called in. Putin received the port, air, and military bases he so desperately wanted in the region in return.  Assad has already won. Our illegal proxy war is doomed to failure; unless you want to start WWIII over Syria. Hillary would really like that.

Also, if you are so worried about Iran- you should support Trump sending troops to Saudi Arabia. The Houthi are backed by Iran. Do you want to see Iranian control further extended across the ME? We already handed Iraq to them on a silver platter; and defended it for them from ISIS/ISIL. We even trained and armed Iraqi troops twice!  Iran must be laughing their asses off.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.13  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.12    one month ago

Let me get this straight...… the lives of our American..."troops to protect the Saudi oil supply; which would drastically affect world oil prices" ...….Is a price worth paying.

But the lives of those that bled to protect Americans and American troop aren't?

WTF   Ronin2!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.14  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.13    one month ago

Let me set you straight. Where did I defend the decision to send US troops to Saudi Arabia? I understand it; I do not agree with it.

We are in Syria illegally. It doesn't matter for what idiotic reason Obama used. Our troops were vulnerable; and unless you want to fight WWIII over a third world reject like Syria it was past time for us to go.

Our "allies" joined up with the Syrian government. Which they would have done in the first place had we not entered the country; and given false hope about Assad being removed. Hey, what if, we hadn't have entered and the Kurds teamed up with Assad from the start. The damn proxy civil war may never have started.

Oh, by the way, thank you for your service in Vietnam; but as someone whose father served and has spoken to many that served on the ground- not just no; but fuck no to ever being in that situation again.  Unfortunately that is what Afghanistan and Syria are.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.2.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.13    one month ago

Ronin has never served. That is obvious. 

Ronin cannot possibly understand what it means to be close to those around you and to a cause. Ronin does not know the bond you form with the people who eventually have to leave, and with those that must stay there, knowing that is the last time you will see them. 

 
 
 
Kavika
6.2.16  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.14    one month ago
Oh, by the way, thank you for your service in Vietnam; but as someone whose father served and has spoken to many that served on the ground- not just no; but fuck no to ever being in that situation again.  Unfortunately that is what Afghanistan and Syria are.

Yet you feel free to call democrat's neo-cons or chicken hawks because we want to honor our word to the Kurds. 

Sadly I don't think you really understand what we are talking about. You may want to ask your father and the others that you have spoken to about what we did to the Montagnards in Vietnam. 

I served two tours in Vietnam and my son served two tours in the ME and other relatives have as well. Some are career military and they are all disgusted that we abandoned our allies, the Kurds. 

The last people that you want to call or imply that they are neocons or chicken hawks are people that have served. The last thing we want is a war since we really know what it is like. We simply chose not to abandon an ally. 

 

 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.2.17  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Kavika @6.2.16    one month ago

You found the exact words to express my feelings in the matter Kavika.  Thanks. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.18  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @6.2.16    one month ago

My father is dead, But he hated his time in Vietnam.  He wanted out more than anything. He also served in the Navy air recon- not on the ground.

I have spoken to several former soldiers that served on the ground in Vietnam. Most of them were more concerned about getting out alive; not about protecting anyone. Some even came home with Vietnamese wives. Their wives regret leaving their families behind; but the soldiers cared only about getting their loved ones out safe.

The last people that you want to call or imply that they are neocons or chicken hawks are people that have served. The last thing we want is a war since we really know what it is like. We simply chose not to abandon an ally. 

But a war is exactly what you are asking for by keeping troops in Syria. What is your end game? What is your exit strategy? Simply have troops sit there forever in the middle of a proxy civil war and hope no one attacks them?  Waste billions every year bombing the same targets over and over in the vain hope that someone will still believe you are fighting the "War on terror"?

The Kurds were hoping we would create Kurdistan for them. It was a delusional wish in the extreme.

 
 
 
Kavika
6.2.19  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.18    one month ago
My father is dead, But he hated his time in Vietnam.

I'm sorry to hear that. 

I have spoken to several former soldiers that served on the ground in Vietnam. Most of them were more concerned about getting out alive; not about protecting anyone. Some even came home with Vietnamese wives. Their wives regret leaving their families behind; but the soldiers cared only about getting their loved ones out safe.

Everyone that I know, myself included were very concerned about getting out alive. That, IMO, can be said of every war.

As far as having Vietnamese wives and wanting to get them out alive, that would also be SOP.

But a war is exactly what you are asking for by keeping troops in Syria. What is your end game? What is your exit strategy? Simply have troops sit there forever in the middle of a proxy civil war and hope no one attacks them?  Waste billions every year bombing the same targets over and over in the vain hope that someone will still believe you are fighting the "War on terror"?

You've heard of Korea and the 30,000 plus troops that we have there acting as a deterrent haven't you? We have that position in multiple areas of the world, including Saudia Arabia. 

My point from the beginning was been about not deserting an ally that has fought and died for and with us. Trump handled this situation badly, to say the least. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.20  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.3    one month ago

With the cherry on top of emergency evacuations of bases that has put our troopers is harms way and caused us to have to do 'mop up' bomb runs to destroy the provisions they were forced to leave behind. 

Brilliant military strategy that. /s

FUBAR!

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.21  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @6.2.19    one month ago

You know that South Korea requested our troops be there right? They even pay for a part of the cost for them remaining.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/south-korea-u-s-sign-new-cost-sharing-deal-troops-n969756

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea and the United States struck a new deal Sunday on how much Seoul should pay for the U.S. military presence on its soil, after previous rounds of failed negotiations caused worries about their decades-long alliance .

Last year, South Korea provided about $830 million, roughly 40 percent of the cost of the deployment of 28,500 U.S. soldiers whose presence is meant to deter aggression from North Korea. President Donald Trump has said South Korea should pay more.

On Sunday, chief negotiators from the two countries signed a new cost-sharing plan, which requires South Korea to pay about $924 million in 2019, Seoul's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"We realize, the United States government realizes that Korea does a lot for our alliance and peace and stability in the region," chief U.S. negotiator Timothy Betts said in Seoul. "We are very pleased our consultations resulted in agreement that will strengthen transparency and deepen our cooperation and the alliance."

The allies had failed to reach a new cost-sharing plan during some 10 rounds of talks . A five-year 2014 deal that covered South Korea's payment last year had expired at the end of 2018.

Unlike past agreements this one is scheduled to expire in a year, potentially forcing both sides back to the bargaining table within months.

"It has been a very long process, but ultimately a very successful process," South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha said at a meeting before another official from the foreign ministry initialed the agreement.

While acknowledging lingering domestic criticism of the new deal and the need for parliamentary approval, Kang said the response had "been positive so far."
OMG we're mercenaries; and Trump didn't even start the practice!
Every single country you mention wants US troops there. They have protections from the government that is in charge; even if it is a puppet government we put in power (Afghanistan & Kosovo).  That means our troops are in those countries legally. Our presence in Syria is ILLEGAL.  We wouldn't tolerate the Russians, Chinese, or Iranians having a troop presence and supporting rebels in any country with a government allied with the West.
Let me make this easy for you. Get Assad to ask for US troops to stay in Syria; agree to what their roll will be and guarantee their safety (meaning Syrian government forces, Iranian militia, and Russian mercenaries will not attack them); and I will drop my objections to US military presence in Syria. I wish you luck as I have linked repeatedly that Syria has asked US, French, and Turkish forces to leave. "The war on terror is over"
 

 
 
 
warmall
7  warmall    one month ago

It will be a hot spot until a new energy revolution happens. The oil crisis of 1973 looked bad. Maybe Republicans just want to prevent it. In a way that seems effective to them. The recent drone attack is a bad sign.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  warmall @7    one month ago

Pretty hard to believe that our number one customer for weapons sales, going back decades never thought to purchase their own AAW equipment.  So we have to send our troops and equipment to protect the country that spawned the 9-11 attackers...…

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1    one month ago

Kind of makes me ill. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    one month ago

Kind of makes me ill.

Proves that you put America first Perrie...…  Rather than oil profits.

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1    one month ago

What is so hard to believe. So long as the US is willing to do the heavy lifting why bother with defensive weapons systems. Offensive weapons are where the glitz, glamour, and threatening power comes from.

The Saudis can afford to buy them- we should have just sold them the weapons and provided training and logistical support.

 
 
 
warmall
7.1.4  warmall  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1    one month ago
Pretty hard to believe that our number one customer for weapons sales, going back decades never thought to purchase their own AAW equipment.  So we have to send our troops and equipment to protect the country that spawned the 9-11 attackers...…

Perhaps this will support that part of the citizens of Saudi Arabia who were not related 9-11 tragedy ...

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.6  FLYNAVY1  replied to  warmall @7.1.4    one month ago

No..... This is more to keep the Saudi oil flowing at the potential of American servicemen.

 
 
 
Kavika
8  Kavika     one month ago

The Syrian army is moving its troops to the Syrian Turkish border as we speak. The Syrian Kurds have joined forces with the Syrian Army and the Russians to protect their borders. 

Perhaps Ronin can tell us what will happen if Turkey, a NATO ally going to war with Syrian...We are obliged to help Turkey since we are both part of NATO. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago

And all of this mess, and all of this bloodshed because...…...Trump is as incompetent as his followers are stupid.

 
 
 
Krishna
8.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago
Perhaps Ronin can tell us what will happen if Turkey, a NATO ally going to war with Syrian...We are obliged to help Turkey since we are both part of NATO. 

Well, Ronin obviously has strong Neo-Con Views-- and he's entitled to his opinion. But his blind support of "anything Trump" and all the arms sales and additional troop deployments to the Middle east are sure to step up the movement to even more violent "Endless Mid-East wars". 

I wonder-- does he think the way to end war is to support a country like Saudi Arabia by sending in more American kids to fight..and die?

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @8.2    one month ago
Well, Ronin obviously has strong Neo-Con Views

I have strong Neo-Con views? WTF.

Anyone reading my posts would laugh at that. In fact I am copying your post to send to my hard right neo-con friends. They will get a great laugh out of it.

But his blind support of "anything Trump" and all the arms sales and additional troop deployments to the Middle east are sure to step up the movement to even more violent "Endless Mid-East wars".

I was against Bush Jr being dragged into nation building in Afghanistan by NATO with Security Council Resolution after Security Council Resolution. Afghanistan should have been search and destroy all the way. We don't need NATO; and we definitely didn't need them to take care of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Playing wack a terrorist would cost a hell of a lot less resources, lives, and kept us out of a quagmire.

I was against Bush Jr entering Iraq. We could have maintained the no fly zone and embargo set by Bush Sr and Clinton forever. Instead we flipped Iraq to Iran in our failed efforts at nation building.

I was against Obama reentering Iraq in the misguided war on terror. Iraq is loyal to Iran. We stood nothing to gain from keeping the government in charge. Retraining, rearming, and using the US air force to provide cover for Iraqi troops and Iranian militias was the height of stupidity. Iran should have been forced to use their own assets to save an Iraqi government loyal to them.

I was against Obama getting involved in Libya, even if he had NATO and UN Security Council backing. Removing Gadhafi worked out so well. Destabilized the country; and made it a perfect breeding ground for ISIS/ISIL. Made sure Russia and China would never listen to the US again in the UN Security Council. All for the sake of Britain and French oil contracts in Libya.

I was against Obama getting involved in the Syrian civil war under the guise of the war on terror to remove Assad. It was illegal by any stretch of the imagination; and was an abuse of presidential powers- setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents to follow.

In fact, I was against Obama's entire war on terror. Including his extra judicial drone killings all over the world.

I was against Trump expanding US troop presence in Syria. Have I mentioned it enough the US is there illegally? I was against him keeping them there under pressure from the US military, lack of intelligence agencies, and Establishment bullshit. 

I am against Trump sending more troops into Iraq to offset tensions with Iran. With the Iranian militias running all around Iraq; how long before they decide to test US resolve and attack our troops? Iran can always claim they went "rogue".

Read my posts above. While I understand sending troops to Saudi Arabia to protect their oil, and world markets- I think it would be best to sell the Saudis weapons to protect themselves; and use a small US force to train them and provide logistical support. 

I wonder-- does he think the way to end war is to support a country like Saudi Arabia by sending in more American kids to fight..and die?

Let me know when they start dying. They are there to protect Saudi oil supplies (and our bases) from drone and missile attacks; and provide logistical support. They were invited in by Saudi Arabia. They are there legally. If they go beyond that purpose and enter the fight in Yemen I will blast Trump for that. 

Unlike the left and right I will support any president when they do something I agree with; and be against them when they don't.

I want the troops out of Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Trump has us out of Syria, now maybe the damn civil war will finally end. Trump is trying to get us out of Afghanistan but the damn war hawks and chicken hawks are fighting him every step of the way. I will continue to voice my disapproval of until Trump works on getting US troops out of Iraq.  

Whatever happened to countries being able to defend themselves? Not just rely on the US to do all the fighting for them?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.1    one month ago

Yep... you're a neocon through and through Ronin.

You clearly stated that defending the world's supply of oil is more important than defending people that bled and died to eliminate ISIS whereby protecting Americans and Americans on the battlefield.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.1    one month ago

Ignorant people who don't know what the word Neo-con means use it as an insult because they think it makes them sound smart.  It's pretty funny to see.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.2.2    one month ago

Read the whole comment, and then restate your reply. 

Also, please provide one shred of proof that we are in Syria legally. Just one. Should be easy. Except there isn't any. Seems I value the rule of law, including international law, far more than most.

Oh, and name one ISIS/ISIL terrorist from the ME that has attacked the US on our soil. Just one. The ISIL/ISIL that have attack the US have all been home grown; recruited through the internet. Remember when the left was against Trump taking no immigrants from countries with Islamist extremists including Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and Libya. That was one of the biggest arguments used against him.

If I am all for protecting the world supply of oil; then I would have loved the Libyan war to protect France's and Britain's oil contracts/supply.

Your logic doesn't add up.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.4    one month ago

You just don't get it...….We turned our back....again.... on a ally that bled so our troops wouldn't have to.  They fought and killed ISIS/ISIL in place of our troops having to do the same.  This isn't about legality.... it's about morality.

Now we have the protection of nuke weapons to take into account in this mess.

Trump has served up all of Syria to Putin.  Turkey is emboldened for a land grab, and the Kurds are being slaughtered.

Stop trying to defend in indefensible. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.6  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.2.5    one month ago

No, you just don't get it. Being in Syria illegally is immoral. No arguing about it. 

We wouldn't tolerate any of our enemies sending troops into a ally for any reason. Otherwise we would be telling the Saudis to go pound sand instead of backing them in Yemen. Bet the Iranians feel they are right for supporting, arming, and training the Houthi. Yet we expect them to withdraw that support; and wouldn't hesitate to back the Saudis firing on Iranian forces.

Trump served up Syria to Putin? WTF did Obama do? Did he stop Russia and Iran from sending in ground forces; or Russia from giving Syrian government troops air support? Russia took Syrian the second they entered the country; which happened because of Obama, and under his watch.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.6    one month ago
Did he stop Russia and Iran from sending in ground forces; or Russia from giving Syrian government troops air support? 

Gee Ronin, Syria invited Russia so it should be all good, just like the US being invited into Saudi Arabia right? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.8  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @8.2.7    one month ago

Gee Dulay, yah it is all a good according to international law. Show where I ever stated that Russia, China, or Iran were in Syria illegally?

Now, you want to tell us why the Syrian government that had held out for years, and was winning the Civil War- invited those countries in after just a short stint of the US being in the country? Why didn't Syria have them in from the start? Could it be Syria had to give up things in return for their presence? Like a port, military base, and air fields to Russia? Who knows what they promised Iran and China? So if the US stays out of Syria, guess who also would have been kept out?

I know, I know, but Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.8    one month ago
Gee Dulay, yah it is all a good according to international law. Show where I ever stated that Russia, China, or Iran were in Syria illegally?

Then why did you ask why Obama didn't stop Russia? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.3  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago
The Syrian army is moving its troops to the Syrian Turkish border as we speak. The Syrian Kurds have joined forces with the Syrian Army and the Russians to protect their borders. 

About fucking time. Anyone that has read my comments know that I have called on the Kurds to ally themselves with the Syrian government; you know the place that they live! This is now Syria and allies vs Turkey.

Perhaps Ronin can tell us what will happen if Turkey, a NATO ally going to war with Syrian...We are obliged to help Turkey since we are both part of NATO. 

You wanna make a bet? Turkey is attacking a foreign country on it's own. NATO, and the US, isn't going to do jack shit to help them. Turkey has threatened US and French forces in Syria. Turkey might get kicked out of NATO first. Which should have happened a long time ago.

Turkey will be forced to make peace with Syria and remove it's forces.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.1  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @8.3    one month ago
You wanna make a bet? Turkey is attacking a foreign country on it's own. NATO, and the US, isn't going to do jack shit to help them. Turkey has threatened US and French forces in Syria. Turkey might get kicked out of NATO first. Which should have happened a long time ago.

Wow, I didn't know that you were privy to how NATO will operate. It will be more than interesting with Russia involved. 

Why don't you give us your expert opinion on that scenario. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @8.3.1    one month ago
Turkey will be forced to make peace with Syria and remove it's forces.

I already gave it.

I guess I am more of an expert than most. I predicted the Kurds would ally with the Syrian government. 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.3  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @8.3.2    one month ago
I guess I am more of an expert than most.

In your own mind perhaps. My question was what will happen if Russia enters the fray. Since they support Assad and, IMO, the reason that he is still in power they will be involved in this one way or the other. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.3.4  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @8.3.3    one month ago

So what if Russia does. Russia is in Syria legally. Turkey is not. Think NATO is going to start WWIII to protect Turkey in their illegal war.

Especially after Turkey basically chased the US, France, and Britain out of Syria.

Since they support Assad and, IMO, the reason that he is still in power they will be involved in this one way or the other. 

Wow, Assad is still in power because Russia is keeping him there? Where the hell have I heard that before. I have only stated that a few hundred times on Newstalkers. 

Russia is trying to cut Turkey away from NATO. Turkey is buying Russian made weapons; and wants to continue their joint military venture. Turkey and Russia do not want a war with each other. Russian prestige will increase greatly if they make peace in Syria. I am sure they can make it worth Turkey's while to do so.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.5  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @8.3.4    one month ago
Wow, Assad is still in power because Russia is keeping him there? Where the hell have I heard that before. I have only stated that a few hundred times on Newstalkers. 

Wow, you're really the ''Great Karnac''....

Of course, they will make it worthwhile for Turkey. Remember the Phophras straits the gateway to the Med.

In the meantime, Putin is now in SA (today) schmozing the Prince. Their relationship has been improving over time and they are now completing some joint ventures.

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.3.6  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @8.3.5    one month ago
In the meantime, Putin is now in SA (today) schmozing the Prince. Their relationship has been improving over time and they are now completing some joint ventures.

Could that be another reason we sent troops to defend oil? Nah, it is time to piss the Saudis off.

Think Putin is blasting the Prince for the killed journalist in Turkey? Think he is bringing up the Saudis stance on the LGBT community? Think he is mentioning how they treat their women? Giving them an earful on how they are conducting the war in Yemen? How about bashing him for weapons purchases, or the need for troops on his soil to protect world oil assets? 

Russia is not an ally of the US. The US, Russia, and China are all world competitors. Why should it be a shock to anyone when Russia tries to get cozy with a US ally? 

Oh look the Prince must have liked what Putin had to say.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/dimitri-simes/us-ally-saudi-arabia-signs-deals-worth-2-billion-putins-russia


Moscow (CNSNews.com) – Russia and Saudi Arabia signed a package of deals valued at $2 billion during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the kingdom on Monday – just days after the Trump administration announced it would deploy another 3,000 U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia amid high tensions in the Persian Gulf.

Twenty-one agreements   expand cooperation in areas including trade, energy, agriculture, space, healthcare, aviation, and culture.

At the first ever meeting of the Russian-Saudi Economic Council later in the day, Putin   touted   the growing business ties between the two countries.

“Trade last year increased by 15 percent and in January-July [of this year] it added another 38 percent. Investment cooperation is also growing,” he said. “In general, Saudi Arabia has entered the position of Russia’s leading economic partner in the Arab world.”

Putin’s first visit to Saudi Arabia in 12 years comes at a time when Moscow and Riyadh are experiencing an upswing in relations after years of rivalry. Earlier this decade, the two countries were competitors in the global oil markets and clashed over their support for opposing sides in the Syrian civil war.

Observers say that began to change after Riyadh became disillusioned with the U.S. over the Obama administration’s support for “Arab Spring” protests and especially its nuclear deal with Iran, the kingdom’s archrival in the Middle East.

An  article  in the influential Russian newspaper  Vzglyad  on Monday entitled “Putin is fixing the United States’ mistakes in the Middle East” contended that the Saudi disappointment with the Obama administration, and the success of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, allowed Moscow to revamp its relationship with the kingdom.

Following a 2015 visit to Moscow by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia pledged to invest  $10 billion  in the Russian economy. A quarter of that has been invested to date.

The next year, the two governments reached a deal to cut oil production to keep global prices high amid rising U.S. shale oil production. Moscow and Riyadh periodically extend the agreement, most recently over the summer.

At the Russian Energy Week Forum in Moscow earlier this month, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman   called   the two country’s energy partnership an “alliance” and declared that it would bring “perpetual stability to the oil market.”

“We are in an alliance because there is a lot of rationale in that alliance,” he said. “It did not come because there is emotion in it, but is a result of straight thinking about what we could do together.”

There has also been talk of Russia selling Saudi Arabia its advanced S-400 air defense system. In 2017, the two countries   announced   an agreement on the issue, although nothing has come of it so far.

You are acting like this is something brand new; and is only occurring because Trump is in the White House.

I know, I know, but Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!

 
 
 
Krishna
9  seeder  Krishna    one month ago

Trump and his neo-Con supporters continue their plans to keep the Middle-East in a continuing state of war!

(And why not-- they're getting rich because of these increasing arms sales to Saudi Arabia!)

 
 
 
Ronin2
9.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @9    one month ago

I have absolutely no problem with selling weapons to Suadi Arabia. They are fighting the Iranian backed Houthi fighting Yemen.

While I understand the need to send troops to protect the Saudi oil, and our bases; as I have said repeatedly I am against it. Countries need to learn to protect themselves. We can't be fighting for everyone on the planet.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
10  Thrawn 31    one month ago

So we do have 3,000 personnel to deploy to protect those shit bags in ISIS Arabia, but we can't possibly protect the only useful allies we have in the region the Kurds? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10    one month ago

Fuck Saudi Arabia and the Kurds. I'm not interested in sending anyone's kid to protect that dump or any other dump.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
10.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1    one month ago

It was ISIS....

You know, the international terrorist organization that gained a significant amount of power and influence from having and actual "state"?  The power and influence the used to coordinate and inspire terrorist attacks around the planet?

Their followers had committed acts of terror at home, we had no choice but to chase their leaders down and kill them. 

The Kurds were a vital part of that effort, a vital part of keeping Americans safe,. We supplied the equipment and weapons, they supplied the blood (11000 dead at least). You may not, but I feel that we have an obligation to our allies. 

 
 
 
Krishna
10.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1    one month ago
Fuck Saudi Arabia

Our neo-con president would strongly disagree with you:

Defying Congress, Trump sets $8 billion-plus in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, UAE

The Trump administration informed congressional committees that it will go ahead with 22 military sales to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates and Jordan, infuriating lawmakers by circumventing a long-standing precedent for congressional review of major weapons sales.

Members of Congress had been blocking sales of offensive military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for months, angry about the huge civilian toll from their air campaign in Yemen, as well as human rights abuses such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

 
 
 
Krishna
10.1.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1    one month ago
I'm not interested in sending anyone's kid to protect that dump or any other dump.

Well on that score, our Neo-Con President would strongly disagree with you:

US To Send 3,000 Additional Troops To Saudi Arabia

The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region. 

Sending Americans kids overseas to die-- all to line his pocket! ...typical Neo!

(As an ardent trump supporter, I assume you approve of Trump's actions in this regard?)

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10.1.4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Krishna @10.1.3    one month ago

It's simple, if you are an interventionist, you are a Neo-con. You don't get to pick your favorite conflict and claim hippie anti-war status.

I disprove of any deployment not directly related to the defense of our US borders and soil and any president that deploys in the Middle East.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
10.1.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1.4    one month ago

Oliver Cromwell said it best:   A Man-o-War is the best Ambassador.

What you continually miss fish is that our entire economy and way of life within our borders is dependent on access to raw materials and commodities from outside our borders.  It is impossible to continue what we enjoy in our country from the standpoint of our quality of life, or the ability to defend that way of life through isolationism.

Think that laptop or PC that you play the NT class clown on would exist without critical materials from China, or Africa?  Think Sprint, AT&T or Verizon could have built the 4G network with the raw materials found with within our borders?  How would we defend ourselves and our way of life without rare earth magnets that come from China? What if all international shipping was able to be held for ransom by some really well armed and trained Somali like Pirates at different parts of the world?  

What we have participated in since WWI in screwing other countries and people of the world is nothing short of monstrous.  What is clear that you don't want to grasp that if we don't fight for our way of living in the backyard of those that want to do us harm (or get even with us for the shitty things we've done to them in history) then surely we will end up fighting in our backyard. World trade exists largely because the US military guarantees it.  Others benefit from America putting it's interests first.

Where I do agree with you Fish is when we put the interests of the wealthy, and corporations AHEAD of what is in the best interest of the American people.  

Take care. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
10.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @10.1.5    one month ago

Well said.

So then you support sending troops to Saudi Arabia to protect world oil assets; because the world oil supply is threatened; and protect our way of life we have to fight the enemy abroad rather in our own backyard.

Because having oil to run those massive international shipping freighters that keep the world economy running is just too important to risk.

Of course you don't support our sending troops there.

You support feel good causes. We have to fight ISIS/ISIL because we damn well will not let anyone else do it. And because we were trying to deprive Russia of another ally. (hey that was just a side benefit) Of course it backfired! Our stuck on stupid foreign policy usually does.

Since you want to keep US troops in Syria. Tell us all what is the end game. What will it take for the US to declare victory and withdraw?  What is the exit strategy?

 
 
 
Krishna
11  seeder  Krishna    one month ago

Members of Congress had been blocking sales of offensive military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for months,  angry about the huge civilian toll from their air campaign in Yemen,  as well as human rights abuses such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Trump is a typical Neo-Con-- his  efforts to continue and escalate the never-ending Middle Eastern wars are continuing- - even escalating:

S ince  Saudi Arabia  and its allies intervened in Yemen’s civil war in March 2015, the United States gave its full support to a relentless air campaign where Saudi warplanes and bombs hit thousands of targets, including civilian sites and infrastructure, with impunity. From the beginning, US officials insisted that American weapons, training and intelligence assistance would help the Saudis avoid causing even more civilian casualties.

But this was a lie meant to obscure one of the least understood aspects of US support for Saudi Arabia and its allies in Yemen: it’s not that Saudi-led forces don’t know how to use American-made weapons or need help in choosing targets. They have  deliberately targeted civilians  and Yemen’s infrastructure since the war’s early days – and US officials have recognized this since at least 2016 and done little to stop it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
11.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @11    one month ago

Welcome to war in the Middle East. You don't think the Iranian backed Houthi they are fighting are every bit as despicable as the Saudis?

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/yemen

Houthi forces have used banned antipersonnel landmines, recruited children, and fired artillery indiscriminately into cities such as Taizz and Aden, killing and wounding civilians, and launched indiscriminate rockets into Saudi Arabia.

Both sides have harassed, threatened, and attacked Yemeni activists and journalists. Houthi forces, government-affiliated forces, and the UAE and UAE-backed Yemeni forces have arbitrarily detained or forcibly disappeared scores. Houthi forces have taken hostages. Forces in Aden beat, raped, and tortured detained migrants.

Despite mounting evidence of violations of international law by the parties to the conflict, efforts toward accountability have been woefully inadequate.

Landmines have killed and maimed civilians, disrupted civilian life in affected areas, and will pose a threat to civilians long after the conflict ends. Houthi forces  have used landmines  in governorates across Yemen, killing and wounding civilians and preventing their return home. Yemen is a party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.

Houthi forces, the Yemeni government, and the UAE and UAE-backed Yemeni forces have arbitrarily detained people, including children, abused detainees and held them in poor conditions, and forcibly disappeared people perceived to be political opponents or security threats. Yemeni human rights groups and lawyers have documented hundreds of cases of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance.

Since late 2014, Human Rights Watch has documented dozens of  cases of the Houthis  and forces loyal to the late president Saleh  carrying out arbitrary  and  abusive detention , as well as forced disappearances and torture. Houthi officials have used torture and other ill-treatment. Former detainees described Houthi officers beating them with iron rods and rifles, and being hung from walls with their arms shackled behind them.

The Houthis have also taken hostages , which is a war crime. Human Rights Watch documented 16 cases in which Houthi authorities held people unlawfully primarily to extort money from relatives or to exchange for people held by opposing forces. The Houthis have released only some of those held.

One cost of Yemen’s war has been the closing of space for civil society. Yemeni activists, journalists, lawyers, and rights defenders worry about arrest, harassment, targeted violence, and joining the list of Yemen’s “disappeared.” The risk is greatest when the target of criticism is a party to the conflict, who often retaliate.

The Houthis have detained students, human rights defenders, journalists, perceived political opponents, and members of the Baha’i religious community . A group of local journalists have been detained in Sanaa for more than three years. In January, a Sanaa court sentenced a Baha’i man to death on charges related to his religious beliefs. After Houthis killed former president Saleh, Houthi authorities cracked down further on dissent in areas under their control.

Houthi forces have  blocked and confiscated food and medical supplies  and denied access to populations in need. They have imposed onerous restrictions on aid workers and interfered with aid delivery.

Houthi forces, government and pro-government forces, and other armed groups have used child soldiers. In 2017, the UN verified 842 cases of recruitment and use of boys as young as 11, nearly two-thirds of which were attributable to Houthi forces. Under Yemeni and international law, 18 is the minimum age for military service.

In June, the UN secretary-general released his annual “list of shame” for violations against children in armed conflict. This list included many of Yemen’s warring parties—the Houthis, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, pro-government militias, and UAE-backed Yemeni forces, but the Saudi-led coalition was treated differently.

Yes the Saudis match the Houthi for war crimes. You should be used to it by now after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Civil War sucks. People in these countries don't seem to care about the lives of those that are not their own.

What I find funny is the left seems to have no problem with Iran expanding their influence into Yemen; and could care less they basically own Iraq; but Iran in Syria is the end of the planet as we know it!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
12  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    one month ago

Saudi Arabia bankrolled the 9/11 attack. We should of sent them a 3,000lb Bomb instead of 3,000 troops.

This is a mistake.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
13  FLYNAVY1    one month ago

SA already purchased an shitload of bombs from us.  The troops are their to protect Saudi Oil assets, and thus oil profits and dividends to investors.

I don't know that Trump is going to be anything but confused by you Fish.  You praise him as let you let him take all of America up the ass, then bitch about not getting kissed.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @13    one month ago

That comment reads like a disaster. Always good to proof read to ensure sentence structure conveys a coherent message.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
13.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.1    one month ago

Drink more coffee.... the clarity of content will dawn on you.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.1    one month ago

That comment reads like a disaster. Always good to proof read to ensure sentence structure conveys a coherent message.

i have no proof i read anything i've ever commented on

 
 
 
Krishna
13.1.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @13.1.1    one month ago

Drink more coffee.... the clarity of content will dawn on you.

Here's the problem:

BF is a supporter of trump. And so he parrots Trump's lies about how he wants to end the endless wars in the Middle east. 

But then Trump keep escalating the tension, both by his words as well as his actions. 

For example, he refuses to exit Afganistan. he keeps sending more and more weapons to the Saudis.

And he keeps sending more combat troops into the area:

US To Send 3,000 Additional Troops To Saudi Arabia

The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region. 

So the fact is, Trump is a con artist. he is trying to have it both ways-- pretend he wants to de-escalate, yet keeps sending in more troops, and more weapons, When confronted, he lies, lies, lies!

veteran trump watchers have him figured out-- watch what he does, not what her says!

He a true neo-Con pretending to be pursuing peace-- and those that worship him, such as BF, are amongst the biggest neo-Cons on NT!

 
 
 
Krishna
13.1.4  seeder  Krishna  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @13.1.1    one month ago

Flynavy1:

Recently you requested that I post some of the information that I know that is not widely known re: the Middle East conflicts. I just posted this-- if anyone is interested, please check it out:

When Saddam Hussein Used His WMDs

(If anyone has any question or would like to comment, please post your comments in the discussion on that seeded article, not here. 

Thanks :-)

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
13.1.5  Larry Hampton  replied to  Krishna @13.1.3    one month ago

There may be another reason to cheer on Trump and his failures, it gives anarchists a reason to celebrate the oncoming chaos. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Larry Hampton @13.1.5    one month ago

What kind of anarchists are you talking about?

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
13.1.7  Larry Hampton  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.6    one month ago

Generally speaking, anarchy of most stripes reject authority, and embrace the ensuing chaos that results from the breakdown of government/hierarchy. I can think of no more sure method to see those goals accomplished, than by furthering the Trump presidency. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Larry Hampton @13.1.7    one month ago

That does sound logical. But there are very normal people who support Trump... I know them... At first, I thought how much damage could he do so I wasn't worried, but now I find him to be a cult of personality, and that I find unnerving since there are some very smart people who think he is the devil we need. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
13.1.9  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.8    one month ago

I find unnerving since there are some very smart people who think he is the devil we need. 

I have a sister with a law degree that is there with that thinking.  It just goes to show it's not what's on your wall, but what's in your head that counts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @13.1.9    one month ago

I don't think there is any doubt that some smart successful people support Trump. He has been the voice of pushback against what many people have seen as over reach by "social justice" warriors,  and political correctness in general, and he has been the voice of returning America to a pre trannies -in-the-bathroom, black lives matter, kneeling during the national anthem, etc nation.  Trump represented an IDEALIZED force against what in their view was going wrong with their country. 

Where these smart people went off the rails though was in not realizing that Trump was and is completely unqualified and unfit to lead the nation. 

He was the head birther for gods sake. He led a racist conspiracy to delegitimize the nations first non white president. In and of itself that should have disqualified Trump for consideration to be president.  He was a business fraud, scamming hundreds of people out of their life savings with his "Trump University". In and of itself that should have been disqualifying. He was a known serial liar. He was a known belittler and sexual predator of women. All this was known, and much more,  before election day 2016. 

The all pervasiveness of constant news and social media has created an atmosphere where disqualifications such as these appear to some to be trivial, just more "stuff" to consider along with other tons of "stuff". 

Trump is now and has always been a psychologically damaged person. He is a crook, a liar , a bigot and a moron, and not remotely qualified to be president of the United States. Shame on those who try and say otherwise. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Kavika
Kathleen
Jack_TX
CB
cjcold
GregTx
KatPen


38 visitors