Trump to pull U.S. from Middle East

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It was a case of Hillary Clinton's State Department ignoring the strongly expressed concerns of a Senior Diplomat that his life and that of his colleagues was, possibly, in imminent danger as a result of inadequate security.

I'm under the impression that the C.I.A office (which was only a couple of streets away), was struck first killing 2 employees. The C.I.A down played the threat to the state department. Am i wrong?

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

 What ever happened to dependable and stable? I guess those qualities just don't get a rise outta us anymore.   

Well, I have my doubts that he was. Certainly his refusal to accept that people may not have universally adored his Democratic party and may have preferred an alternative, even if he may have an absurd hairpiece, and that therefore it must have been some perfidious foreigners that rigged it, must cast doubts on his maturity and emotional stability, surely. 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Well, I have my doubts that he was. Certainly his refusal to accept that people may not have universally adored his Democratic party and may have preferred an alternative, even if he may have an absurd hairpiece, and that therefore it must have been some perfidious foreigners that rigged it, must cast doubts on his maturity and emotional stability, surely. 

Free speech and all. But there was animosity between Trump and Obama from day one. Even before Trump declared his hand at politics. He called Obama out as a foreigner among other things that bordered on the racial and insane and the rest is history. Trump picked a fight. Trump got one. Trump's a brawler. This much is obvious. I don't see how this is a reflection on Obama. What did you expect him to do? Cop a beating cause he's a nice guy? Stop fighting? So why can't Trump take a punch? Especially since he is very good at giving himself upper cuts with his bromance with Putin. 

 

[Frank Merton]

2 hours ago, and then said:

There is a record of multiple requests by Stevens for beefing up security and no action on her part. Leaving aside any of that, there were forces available to interdict those attacking the compound but they were never sent.  To send them meant to admit publicly that despite Obama's campaign claims that the radicals were "on the run", they had attacked a US facility on 9-11.  Those men were cut loose and allowed to die for Obama's and Hillary's political ambitions.  They both deserve to be tried for treason.

I just don't believe people buy lies so full of holes.  Sometimes I just want to give up on humanity when they can't see through such absurd stories.  How does Mrs. Clinton or Obama gain politically from "cutting lose" those people.  Think for a moment, man, THINK!I

Yes bad things happened, and they were investigated by Republicans, and it went away, except for the lies that continued to be spread.  Have some sense, don't believe every story you hear because it agrees with your politics.  If there had been a shred of real evidence, they would all now be in jail.  Come to your senses man.

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I'm under the impression that the C.I.A office (which was only a couple of streets away), was struck first killing 2 employees. The C.I.A down played the threat to the state department. Am i wrong?

Here's a timeline for the attack.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/index.html           

[+Hammerclaw]

23 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I just don't believe people buy lies so full of holes.  Sometimes I just want to give up on humanity when they can't see through such absurd stories.  How does Mrs. Clinton or Obama gain politically from "cutting lose" those people.  Think for a moment, man, THINK!I

Yes bad things happened, and they were investigated by Republicans, and it went away, except for the lies that continued to be spread.  Have some sense, don't believe every story you hear because it agrees with your politics.  If there had been a shred of real evidence, they would all now be in jail.  Come to your senses man.

A much more complicated piece of work that must be painted with a palette of colors other than merely blacks and whites.   Gross incompetence, not malicious intent.          http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/benghazi-story-hillary-clinton-doesnt-want-you-to-know/  

[Unusual Tournament]

46 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Here's a timeline for the attack.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/index.html           

Cheers. There are so many conflicting accounts that theres no doubt in my mind that the White House is covering up something. I'd rather think it had something to do with the U.S. being in bed with Islamists than the state department or C.I.A killing their own. I read the Ambassador was in Benghazi discussing moving Gadaffi's weapons stock piles to Syria with Turkish help. Something went wrong. If the truth hasn't come out yet i doubt it will ever. 

I guess this counts as damage control. Okay its a scandal.  

[Lilly]

11 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

From what little i have read of the Benghazi incident i must conclude that it wasn't America's finest moment. Correct me if Im wrong (sure there will be at some least someone, lol), but wasn't that a case of bad intel from the C.I.A? 

There's a huge amount of material on Benghazi available. This 'fiasco' was far more than just a case of bad intel from the CIA. AT best one could call it a serious case of 'dropping the ball' at worst it's been called a 'gigantic screw up' that cost American lives. Read up on it a bit.

Also interesting is the account of the survivors of the attack (security force that tried to save Embassy staff)

Here's an interview:

 

[Unusual Tournament]

6 hours ago, Lilly said:

There's a huge amount of material on Benghazi available. This 'fiasco' was far more than just a case of bad intel from the CIA. AT best one could call it a serious case of 'dropping the ball' at worst it's been called a 'gigantic screw up' that cost American lives. Read up on it a bit.

Also interesting is the account of the survivors of the attack (security force that tried to save Embassy staff)

Here's an interview:

 

Well I'll take your word for what happened. You seem very informed. So its a screw up. Okay. 

[Lilly]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Well I'll take your word for what happened. You seem very informed. So its a screw up. Okay. 

No! Don't take my word (or anyone else's for that matter). Look into it yourself and make your own decision. Everyone needs look into things and come to their own conclusions.

[+Hammerclaw]

12 hours ago, Lilly said:

No! Don't take my word (or anyone else's for that matter). Look into it yourself and make your own decision. Everyone needs look into things and come to their own conclusions.

Excellent advice. There's far too many people making erroneous statements off the top of their heads when accurate information is but a few clicks away.

[Aftermath]

On 1/14/2017 at 2:01 PM, Lilly said:

No! Don't take my word (or anyone else's for that matter). Look into it yourself and make your own decision. Everyone needs look into things and come to their own conclusions.

 

On 1/15/2017 at 2:17 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Excellent advice. There's far too many people making erroneous statements off the top of their heads when accurate information is but a few clicks away.

Exactly - both, well said.  

I would advise to read the Benghazi Report, cover to cover.  It's not as bad as you would think and it's well written, with a timeline and actual FACTS about what led up to the attacks and the attacks themselves.

[Aftermath]

On 1/13/2017 at 4:51 PM, bee said:

.

Thanks ---

in the Kerry audio as well ---- I don't know how the US sitting back and doing nothing -
watching and waiting (and aiding?) '''Daesh''' as it got stronger and moved towards taking Damascus
and possibly then forming a government was supposed to help the Syrian people...?

what kind of insane logic is that..!!!

.

 

This insane logic is standard operating procedure, i.e., if you cannot invade and force regime change then arm and fund the opposition.

[bee]

17 hours ago, Aftermath said:

This insane logic is standard operating procedure, i.e., if you cannot invade and force regime change then arm and fund the opposition.

.

I know it is standard and part of the covert strategy but that Kerry had the gall to say in practically the same
breath that the US was there to help the Syrian people and (in so many words) part of that was
watching the Islamic State spread throughout the country and even take over and govern from
Damascus - beggared belief -   
 

See below -I wonder how this will develop and if it could actually become law under a Trump Presidency - ?

I kind of doubt it but how many politicians will dare to openly support arming and training the enemy..?
They would have to wriggle out of it another way --- if the military gets tough with them to curb the bill -

video description -

Published on Jan 13, 2017

Congresswoman, one of the first Democrats to meet with President-elect Trump, explains her bill to stop the government from directly or indirectly arming, funding terror groups who are enemies of US but would help overthrow the Syrian government #Tucker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by bee
to add video :)

[simplybill]

As much as I would like to see a withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East, I don't think it's a wise move. If we don't maintain at least a deterrent force, Putin will strengthen his military influence all the way to the Mediterranean Sea and beyond.  

Here's one viewpoint to consider:

"That said, the real reason behind Putin’s move into Syria is not any sort of values affinity with Assad. Putin is here repeating what he previously did in Crimea and is still trying to do in Eastern Ukraine: take over and secure a territory that holds strategic significance for Russia. Russia has for long maintained a military base in the coastal city of Tartus, one which it updated and modernized shortly before the onset of the Syrian Revolution in March 2011.

This newest venture is not simply about safeguarding this base. Now that the Obama Administration has repeatedly shown how strongly it is committed to minimizing America’s military footprint in the world, Mr. Putin sees an opportunity for expanding and strengthening Russia’s presence along the Mediterranean, and for ensuring that the future of that presence is not dependent on anyone's goodwill but is assured through Russian military might."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-holy-war-syria

Putin sees Syria as a pawn in his expansionist chess game. We, on the other hand, are operating under a weaker strategy of "protecting American interests ".

Edited January 17, 2017 by simplybill

[Space Commander Travis]

16 hours ago, simplybill said:

Russia has for long maintained a military base in the coastal city of Tartus, one which it updated and modernized shortly before the onset of the Syrian Revolution

If the Russkies had long maintained a military base in the coastal city of Tartus, wouldn't that be a very sensible motive for assisting the government that supports you, rather than perhaps it being evidence of imperial ambitions? Similarly, yeah, his ruthless invasion of Ukraine (remember those pictures of the Red Army raising the Red Flag over the smoking ruins of Kiev?).

If that's the evidence you have of expansionist chess games, you ought to get a job with the Democratic Party's Ministry of Truth.

[Space Commander Travis]

16 hours ago, simplybill said:

sees an opportunity for expanding and strengthening Russia’s presence along the Mediterranean,

Along the Mediterranean?? Soon he'll close the Straits of Gibraltar and blockade the Mediterranean unless we stop him! 

[simplybill]

7 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If the Russkies had long maintained a military base in the coastal city of Tartus, wouldn't that be a very sensible motive for assisting the government that supports you, rather than perhaps it being evidence of imperial ambitions? Similarly, yeah, his ruthless invasion of Ukraine (remember those pictures of the Red Army raising the Red Flag over the smoking ruins of Kiev?).

If that's the evidence you have of expansionist chess games, you ought to get a job with the Democratic Party's Ministry of Truth.

Well, it's not like they opened a new Walmart. A military base on the Mediterranean can be used to protect allies or threaten enemies. 

If the US withdraws troops from the Middle East and weakens NATO in Europe, then Russia might see an opportunity to substantially increase their influence.

Just speculating. Trump is still a political unknown. No telling what he'll do after January 20.

Edited January 18, 2017 by simplybill

[simplybill]

Mr.Trump is talking about withdrawing troops from the Middle East, while Mattis appears to have other ideas:

"Mattis, who retired as chief of U.S. Central Command in 2013, has often said that Washington lacks an overall strategy in the Middle East, opting to instead handle issues in an ineffective one-by-one manner."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/2016/12/01/6c6b3b74-aff9-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.0a2996f89ec3

 

[Space Commander Travis]

14 minutes ago, simplybill said:

"Mattis, who retired as chief of U.S. Central Command in 2013, has often said that Washington lacks an overall strategy in the Middle East, opting to instead handle issues in an ineffective one-by-one manner."

Well I don't think he's wrong there. 

[+and-then]

On 1/18/2017 at 2:05 AM, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If the Russkies had long maintained a military base in the coastal city of Tartus, wouldn't that be a very sensible motive for assisting the government that supports you, rather than perhaps it being evidence of imperial ambitions? Similarly, yeah, his ruthless invasion of Ukraine (remember those pictures of the Red Army raising the Red Flag over the smoking ruins of Kiev?).

If that's the evidence you have of expansionist chess games, you ought to get a job with the Democratic Party's Ministry of Truth.

 

Supporting his long-term ally, yes.  His air power and troops accomplished that quite effectively.  After Turkey shot down a single Russian aircraft near the border, he used the occasion to put in several highly advanced anti-air batteries.  One is within range of Ben Gurion.  I believe that somewhat exceeds simply supporting an ally.  Granted, it would be insane for him to strike Israeli aircraft, especially civilian, but accidents and miscalculations have led to conflagrations before now, haven't they?  His goal isn't unusual for any leader of a "great power".  He took what was given to him by a feckless, potentially traitorous US president, IMO.  So long as he does not try to push into other nations in the region, no harm, no foul.  Let's face it, war in that region is definitely on the cards.  Who starts it isn't going to matter much once the missiles start flying.  Hopefully, Trump will make it clear to Vlad that Syria is NOT an American national interest, but Israel is.  I believe that Putin's game will be successful for awhile.  He'll bring a Sunni (Turkey) and Shia (Iran) state into alliance with Russia.  His problem will fall on him when they convince him they can together destroy Israel.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Why would turkey destory Israel and Russia too?

[Thorvir]

3 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Why would turkey destory Israel and Russia too?

They can't do either.

[Unusual Tournament]

On 19 January 2017 at 2:13 AM, simplybill said:

Mr.Trump is talking about withdrawing troops from the Middle East, while Mattis appears to have other ideas:

"Mattis, who retired as chief of U.S. Central Command in 2013, has often said that Washington lacks an overall strategy in the Middle East, opting to instead handle issues in an ineffective one-by-one manner."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/2016/12/01/6c6b3b74-aff9-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.0a2996f89ec3

 

Trump is also talking about building up the American military machine. Now why would he do that unless he see's trouble with China, Russia and the Middle East. 

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/25/05/40/trump-promises-massive-build-up-of-entire-us-military

[+and-then]

On 2/9/2017 at 6:14 AM, Mr.United_Nations said:

Why would turkey destory Israel and Russia too?

If you read what I said more carefully you'll see that is not what was stated.  I said Turkey and Iran would ally themselves with Russia.  I'm not so sure why this is scoffed at today.  Russia is already allied with Iran and Erdog is bending over backward to make nice with Putin.  At some point yet future they WILL come against Israel and they WILL lose their asses in a monumentally big way.