Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

So leaving troops in danger to protect Oil. ?

 

But leaving troops to deter attacks against our allies who fought with us for a common goal. ?

 

Good to know. :thumbsup:

Yes clearly no one on here championed this as the reason what he did was a good thing. They're is absolutely no hypocrisy here at all.?

We assisted the Kurds in keeping ISIS from taking over their lands. Our troops who are protecting the oilfields are there to prevent Iran from taking control and using the money from those oilfields to finance terrorism around the world. That includes killing our troops.

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

We assisted the Kurds in keeping ISIS from taking over their lands. Our troops who are protecting the oilfields are there to prevent Iran from taking control and using the money from those oilfields to finance terrorism around the world. That includes killing our troops.

Yep got to keep that oil money in the hands of safe Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia no way they have a  connection to terrorist groups that attack the U.S.

 

17 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Oh no, not the accusation of hypocrisy 

More an accusation that saying people pointing out more troops are in the middle east is people complaining about both withdrawing and there being too many is just really ***** dumb.

Edited by Warcodered
Posted
10 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Yep got to keep that oil money in the hands of safe Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia no way they have a  connection to terrorist groups that attack the U.S.

 

 

You truly are an idiot. Have you not kept up at all with the real happenings over the last several years in the Middle East? Iran, who we presently have stymied in a little box with our sanctions is desperate to obtain more money for keeping their mullahs in power and financing terrorism. The oilfields in question are ripe for their exploitation and we're not going to let that happen.

Posted
19 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Tomato/Tomatoe

Not really. You suggested it was about protecting the flow of oil to the market, when it's about WHO benefits from the flow. 

Posted
48 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

I'm consistently disappointed that he doesn't troll the left with some sort of "curds and whey" pun.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm consistently disappointed that he doesn't troll the left with some sort of "curds and whey" pun.  

I already did it.

Posted
18 minutes ago, TPS said:

So Trump is taking credit for a deal that Putin brokered?

It sounds like a conspiracy.  You should have someone look into it.  I hear that Russia also got a Facebook page.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It sounds like a conspiracy.  You should have someone look into it.  I hear that Russia also got a Facebook page.

Yeah, yeah, I get it, the people who think Putin controls Trump, of which I'm not one.  

While Trump deserves credit for moving US troops out, which allowed Russia/Syria to broker the deal with Erdogan, the truce was a Putin success.  The more interesting question from my perspective is if the overall plan was coordinated between parties?   Regarding the outcome, I posted this a week or two ago in response to an analysis DR posted:

 

Quote

Don't think that guy has it right at all. Russia controls Assad, and they have also been working more and more with Turkey. This thing will be resolved fairly quick. For Turkey it's about weakening the Kurds, who have now made good with Assad (and Russia), as they have no other choice. Most likely a deal will be struck that satisfies Turkey's need to weaken the Kurds.  Trump gets a political win by pulling troops out. The Neocons lose. 

 

Posted
34 minutes ago, TPS said:

Yeah, yeah, I get it, the people who think Putin controls Trump, of which I'm not one.  

While Trump deserves credit for moving US troops out, which allowed Russia/Syria to broker the deal with Erdogan, the truce was a Putin success.  The more interesting question from my perspective is if the overall plan was coordinated between parties?   Regarding the outcome, I posted this a week or two ago in response to an analysis DR posted:

 

 

Trump showed his cards just the other day and it's a policy I've promoted here for years. We are the strongest country both militarily and economically. He's chosen to first use our economy to force our will on other countries rather than our military. We can crush or help other countries by strategically using our energy abundance for good. We can also sanction theshit out of countries like Iran if we so choose. All of this without spilling blood. It's something that has seemed so clear for the last decade or so but seemed to escape the previous administration. They railed against such things as fracking and building pipelines while weakening our status in the world with those policies. Now I'm fully aware that our energy surplus is still a commodity and the President can't just say ship more natural gas to Germany or France but he certainly can work with the energy sector to bring about desired results.

Posted
5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Is this extortion too?

 

Clearly. Extortion as well as bribery.

 

Someone might want to let the Kurds know they're being both extorted and bribed, though.

×
×
  • Create New...