Jump to content
BANGKOK
snoop1130

Blood on his hands: 2020 Democrats slam Trump over Syria

Recommended Posts

On 10/17/2019 at 6:56 AM, legend49 said:

And Donnys new Trump hotel is safe in Turkey.

Is there a transcript of the phone call with Erdogan just before The D announcing this beautiful decision re Syria ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KKr said:

Is there a transcript of the phone call with Erdogan just before The D announcing this beautiful decision re Syria ?

Of course there is. Trump just needs to be transparent and release it.

 

he did say he was transparent didnt he?

 

i doubt the US allies the kurds who fought isis and lost thousands of lives doing it would agree it was a beautiful decision to withdraw.

 

you do also know the troops from there didnt actually come home, like trump said, but were sent to iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Of course there is. Trump just needs to be transparent and release it.

 

he did say he was transparent didnt he?

 

i doubt the US allies the kurds who fought isis and lost thousands of lives doing it would agree it was a beautiful decision to withdraw.

 

you do also know the troops from there didnt actually come home, like trump said, but were sent to iraq?

"beautiful" as it is unique, albeit in shortsightedness, malfeasance and contempt.

Also, the number of troops was rather small as I understand, yet enough to perform an effective peace keeping role apparently.

Really wonder what was discussed between Messrs Erdogan and Trump.
Don't even want to speculate on that, and rather wait for professional analysts' opinion or facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KKr said:

"beautiful" as it is unique, albeit in shortsightedness, malfeasance and contempt.

Also, the number of troops was rather small as I understand, yet enough to perform an effective peace keeping role apparently.

Really wonder what was discussed between Messrs Erdogan and Trump.
Don't even want to speculate on that, and rather wait for professional analysts' opinion or facts.

The fact is that he did not bring the troops home like he said but moved the out of Turkeys way, Two options remain, he coordinated with Erdogan or he run away .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sirineou said:

The fact is that he did not bring the troops home like he said but moved the out of Turkeys way, Two options remain, he coordinated with Erdogan or he run away .

Well, I guess DT wants to be advertising bringing troops back as heroes, in case he will be eligible to run in the coming election. Running away does not look like a hero's image.
imho that leaves as an option: collusion with Turkey to infringe upon / occupy Syria's territory and to do with the Kurds as they please.
(and maybe sell some more arms and planes to Turkey, build a Golf resort, not have his properties closed or demolished because of a dripping tap in the fire extinguishing system or a comma on the wrong spot in the permit, who knows.)

Edited by KKr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

So it's official: the Democrat party is the party of war.

 

Me? I'm glad our people are out of Syria. It's a regional war of regime change. We should have never been there to start with.

 

Still glad?

U.S. Sends Forces to Protect Syrian Oil Fields

The U.S. military sent fresh forces on Saturday to secure oil fields in eastern Syria, two U.S. officials said, as part of a pivot from a decision earlier this month to pull most American troops out of the country.

The movement of troops back into Syrian positions reflects a desire by Washington to preserve some leverage in the region, as Russian and Syrian forces have also moved in, filling a vacuum in areas once under U.S. influence.

Footage of a U.S. military convoy entering Syria from Iraq was released by the Iraqi Kurdish channel Rudaw.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sends-forces-to-protect-syrian-oil-fields-11572107568

After Betraying the Kurds, the U.S. Isn’t Leaving Syria After All

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitoring organization, has reported and posted photos of at least two convoys of U.S. military forces entering eastern Syria from Iraq, roughly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region. According to the report, at least 500 troops have returned to the area near Tal Tamr, which they withdrew from just a week ago.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/kurds-betrayal-troops-return-syria-oil.html

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Still glad?

U.S. Sends Forces to Protect Syrian Oil Fields

.... ....

After Betraying the Kurds, the U.S. Isn’t Leaving Syria After All

.... ....

US has been in the Gulf to protect oil supply, and chances that they will leave are small.

but it is worrying that the knee-jerk meandering seems to indicate that the left hand does neither know nor understand what the right hand is doing ... and, moreover, that some decisions are not taken after careful consideration and objectively assessing the impact on the overall situation.

about time a real commander in chief is put in charge of strategy, and earns respect for balancing the various parties involved based on a long term view of what is best for the region.
(not on a subjective view, or even worse a personal business interest, that is conflicting with the common interest of bringing peace, an interest that seems to have been neglected for as long as I can remember.)

end of rant.
 

Edited by KKr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KKr said:

US has been in the Gulf to protect oil supply, and chances that they will leave are small.

but it is worrying that the knee-jerk meandering seems to indicate that the left hand does neither know nor understand what the right hand is doing ... and, moreover, that some decisions are not taken after careful consideration and objectively assessing the impact on the overall situation.

about time a real commander in chief is put in charge of strategy, and earns respect for balancing the various parties involved based on a long term view of what is best for the region.
(not on a subjective view, or even worse a personal business interest, that is conflicting with the common interest of bringing peace, an interest that seems to have been neglected for as long as I can remember.)

end of rant.
 

Actually, in this case the oil issue was a scam perpetrated by the military and others to convince Trump to go back into Syria. The amounts of oil are small and its quality is poor. And no western oil company is going to illegally start extracting from Syria. But it does feed into Trump's ignorant fantasies about keeping the oil.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Still glad?

U.S. Sends Forces to Protect Syrian Oil Fields

The U.S. military sent fresh forces on Saturday to secure oil fields in eastern Syria, two U.S. officials said, as part of a pivot from a decision earlier this month to pull most American troops out of the country.

The movement of troops back into Syrian positions reflects a desire by Washington to preserve some leverage in the region, as Russian and Syrian forces have also moved in, filling a vacuum in areas once under U.S. influence.

Footage of a U.S. military convoy entering Syria from Iraq was released by the Iraqi Kurdish channel Rudaw.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sends-forces-to-protect-syrian-oil-fields-11572107568

After Betraying the Kurds, the U.S. Isn’t Leaving Syria After All

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitoring organization, has reported and posted photos of at least two convoys of U.S. military forces entering eastern Syria from Iraq, roughly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region. According to the report, at least 500 troops have returned to the area near Tal Tamr, which they withdrew from just a week ago.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/kurds-betrayal-troops-return-syria-oil.html

No, I'm disappointed. We should have gotten out of Syria on day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess the identity of a certain ignoramus who said the following to justify American troops return to Syria: 

 

"Some troops, he announced last week, would be returning to the country. But not to support those Kurdish allies, so vital in the US-led coalition's battle against Isis, but to "secure the oil," he repeated on Monday... 

“What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly,” Trump said on Sunday."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-syria-oil-us-companies-middle-east-war-resources-a9175266.html

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

No, I'm disappointed. We should have gotten out of Syria on day one.

Russia, Assad and ISIL agree with you. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Guess the identity of a certain ignoramus who said the following to justify American troops return to Syria: 

 

"Some troops, he announced last week, would be returning to the country. But not to support those Kurdish allies, so vital in the US-led coalition's battle against Isis, but to "secure the oil," he repeated on Monday... 

“What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly,” Trump said on Sunday."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-syria-oil-us-companies-middle-east-war-resources-a9175266.html

for as long as I remember, US has been working on ensuring stable oil supply.
For themselves, and we have to admit others benefitted as well, and did not object at all.

from the time of discovery of oil in the sandy deserts, in my perspective, a divide and rule policy has been in place.
Then, with the first oil crisis (was that about 50 years ago already?) the tide started turning, and instead of pre-empting the fragmentation, to me it seems the policies were directed at keeping the oil producing countries divided.
Goal: access to (cheaper than domestically produced) crude oil.

But as you pointed out already, currently Syria does not have a big crude production, some 30.000 bpd. which is between 5 and 10 % of pre-war output of 380.000 what in current listings would be about 30th place. Instead, Syria is now ranked 59 in list of producers. (alongside Ivory Coast, almost as much as Ukraine or New Zealand)

As for Syrian oil, India and China were and are invested, and as far as I know Anglo-Dutch Shell and French Total left about 8 years ago as did Exxon even earlier.

Apparently, there is an agreement that states:
In accordance with an energy cooperation framework agreement signed in late January (2018), Russia will have exclusive rights to produce oil and gas in Syria.https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Is-Taking-Over-Syrias-Oil-And-Gas.html )

So why Exxon-Mobil would now want to come back to Syria?
(as Mr. T, let me rephrase that I don't want to insult anyone)
While as usual not talking about what other people agreed and expecting others to turn on their allies just as the Great-USofA under the present leadership seems to be doing, the present Prez said:
""
“What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly,” Trump said on Sunday."  
""
In other words, the great President d DT suggests they could make a deal with him (sic.)
In doing so, he seems to be assuming to be above the Law and above Assad and Russia, India and China.
I Say, DT makes an agreement with Exxon concerning, in and for another country! 
Well that must be all right then, if he says so. What will we do there:

Repairing the huge damage (as it happens by great ordinance from various great suppliers) done to the oil infrastructure, and
then claim a great feat of creating a great oil production of tenfold the historical during the war time 
(yet much lower then the peak of 677.000 bpd ? ) ! 
This of course with a proviso that the repairs and replacements do not get blown up after the work.

Any Great company with some 50 billion plus USD cash at hand can do that, provided they get the future cash flow.
to achieve this, one needs to be Great, but not necessarily American or a Great tweeter.

If not for oil, then why control Syria?
(which Russia effectively is achieving, the earlier mentioned agreement supports that theory ) 
to have a foothold in the center of the area, a bigger say in the Eastern Mediterranean, 
next to Iraq, not too far from Iran, control pipelines into Europe, 

and possibly for buffering other friendly territories (which, depending on the party gaining most influence) as well.

In that context, to give up control over Northern Syria in exchange for military bases is something I could understand.
(but to let Kurdish Allies walk the plank, I don't.)

Then, is USA a net Energy Exporter as headlines tried to tell ?  
No, it is not. As before, as an importer they benefit from lower prices.
An analysis of the factual situation here:.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/12/09/no-the-u-s-is-not-a-net-exporter-of-crude-oil/#7fbdfeb44ac1 

Edited by KKr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...