Had that knee jerk, aggressive reaction to the possibility of Herman Cain appointment to the Fed.
He hasn't been that vocal in that way from the outset prior to then.
I think we all know why. @Pokeabear has a problem with
Forever Wars and their toll.
- Thread starter Pokeabear
- Start date
Had that knee jerk, aggressive reaction to the possibility of Herman Cain appointment to the Fed.
He hasn't been that vocal in that way from the outset prior to then.
I think we all know why. @Pokeabear has a problem with
Ummmm I always bet on the above.Had that knee jerk, aggressive reaction to the possibility of Herman Cain appointment to the Fed.
He hasn't been that vocal in that way from the outset prior to then.
I think we all know why. @Pokeabear has a problem with
Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. No bad faith here and if I misrepresent you, please correct me cause it will be unintentional. Here is my observation:
You're first post indicated that we should get most of our troops out of the middle east and fill the military role with technology solutions (drones, etc). I agreed, then highlighted a prior post of you forwarding a story that indicated that Trump was naive in his belief that exiting Syria was smart and that he should be listening to his generals (who do not recommend exiting). And noted that this seemed counter to your OP.
Then you posted that we should be there because of the Kurds, which also seemed to counter your first post and then mentioned that we have about 2K troops in Syria, which is a few too many. I countered that 2K would be a reasonable number if we increased our technology presence due to the volume of support staff and defending personnel required to operate drones in the region. And since then we've gone around about what your actual position is. I don't see any 'Fuji water' clear position personally and am simply asking where you stand.
I want most of our troops out of the Middle East. I think between 1500 to 1800 support and maintenance in Syria would be a lot easier for Americans to swallow than 2,000. Its semantics but optics matter. Trump wants no troops on the ground. Our DOD doesn’t agree. Nothing I just said is new to this thread.
I want most of our troops out of the Middle East. I think between 1500 to 1800 support and maintenance in Syria would be a lot easier for Americans to swallow than 2,000. Its semantics but optics matter. Trump wants no troops on the ground. Our DOD doesn’t agree. Nothing I just said is new to this thread.
Thank you. So you want total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think most Americans would note a difference in 1500 troops and 2000 troops. In fact, I suspect most Americans believe we have a lot more than just 2000 troops in Syria (I did, but I believe your numbers). That said, the initial post was about 3 soldiers and a contractor dying in a base in Syria. If we only have 1500 troops there instead of 2K, does that solve or prevent that? Seems like Trump's total exit is the only real way to prevent rogue actors killing off troops inside our foreign base.
What do you not understand about most? You really can’t take being wrong, fascinating. Oh btw,
Kabul is in Syria? Bagram is in Syria? Our Largest most well protected base in Afghanistan is in Syria? You really need to check your ammo before barging into a war of words, Gomer.
I typoed where the base was located, but thanks for grasping the most irrelevant component of my entire post. I assumed that when you said "remove most troops" that you were referring to the 2K left in Syria as the remaining individuals. So in reality, you want slightly less than 2K in Syria plus a drawdown (but not total removal) of most of our troops from the other ME theatres. Is that your position? If so, how does it address the original tweet that started this thread?
You brought up Syria, so you could bring up Trump. You have successfully derailed the thread though.
Congrats Pokeabear,
You've basically said we should pull our troops out to prevent unneeded deaths in the Middle East while maintaining troops in the Middle East because we should support our Kurd allies and to prevent World War 3 (your words). Must be nice to be able to take all sides of a position so you are always right.
You've basically said we should pull our troops out to prevent unneeded deaths in the Middle East while maintaining troops in the Middle East because we should support our Kurd allies and to prevent World War 3 (your words). Must be nice to be able to take all sides of a position so you are always right.
Lol this needs pinned as an example of wingnuts totally incapable of anything beyond a hannity-style binary bumper sticker point. They literally can't process anything that isn't one extreme or the other. The entire Mideast is occupied or it's not- nothing in between, no shades of gray, it's all exactly like that right wing media smear demagog-thought. It taught them exactly how to think.
Edit: consider pulling this string and watching the indignation and demagog-thought: you're for SOME parts of Syria to have a u.s. presence, but not all. And you're against those, but there's so much bang for the buck you kind of wanna do it anyhow. Or something like that. The intellectual honesty, nuance, and asymmetrical nature of that will make the #bornfollowers' head explode.
Last edited:
