User Controls
Military pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria. kikes on suicide watch
-
2018-12-27 at 11:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra https://www.rt.com/op-ed/447534-trump-iraq-syria-troops/
Interesting, if depressing, perspective.
Perhaps he's just trying to cut costs, rather than actually pursue a less destructive foreign policy.
That article reads dishonest, and is full of rhetoric and short on facts. It's full of anger too. It's kind of refreshing to hear that sort of dishonesty coming from someone who isn't a jedi.
Yes, he is cutting costs, but pulling troops back is good, the US only keeps small amounts of troops in all these places as trip-wire forces, they're not even supposed to defend themselves, just die to win sympathy. Like how US troops in Korea weren't even expected to stop Kim's troops, just get killed in such huge numbers that the US would have an excuse for war. Dangerous policy.
But America right now is like a parent, and all these different interests are like spoiled children pulling at it for money and favours, even as America goes deeper and deeper into debt. What happens when America gives up and either goes bankrupt, dies, or locks the kids out of the house?
I watched a lecture by some soi disant self declared foreign policy whizz bemoaning how Americans keep voting for the most unknowledgeable presidents when it comes to international affairs, as if that was due to some weird accident or lack of information. Well it's not. Americans don't want some whizz kid to get them into wars, they want to close down the empire and work on their homes.
Besides the truly far gone. -
2018-12-28 at 3:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth I watched a lecture by some soi disant self declared foreign policy whizz bemoaning how Americans keep voting for the most unknowledgeable presidents when it comes to international affairs, as if that was due to some weird accident or lack of information. Well it's not. Americans don't want some whizz kid to get them into wars, they want to close down the empire and work on their homes.
It's true that Americans don't really care about having a president with any kind of expertise in foreign policy, but I don't think it's so much that they particularly want non-interventionist policy, even if they should. It was easy enough get the public onboard when ISIS was the scary Muslim group of the month, vaguely politically aware Americans were pretty gung ho to take a hand in the arab spring adventure. As long as we get jobs and cars and an endless flood of consumer goods we pretty much want the foreign policy our party wants, and in situations like Syria where both parties want war Americans don't really care who's dying and for what reason. Our military is well funded but as a fraction of our population it's tiny, most people don't know anyone involved in it, being at war or not is pretty inconsequential to the vast majority of voters.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-28 at 3:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth I watched a lecture by some soi disant self declared foreign policy whizz bemoaning how Americans keep voting for the most unknowledgeable presidents when it comes to international affairs, as if that was due to some weird accident or lack of information. Well it's not. Americans don't want some whizz kid to get them into wars, they want to close down the empire and work on their homes.
Besides the truly far gone.
most americans dont have a concept of foreign.
to them foreign is a someone or a something that came to them from another places and america proper is their universe ; theres no where else other than america.
when aliens of the extra-terrestrial kind came to earth in peace or in anger, they came to the USA.
when intelligent talking robots that can turn themselves into vehicles came to earth, they came to the USA.
when superior beings with super powers like superman came to earth, they came to the USA.
when mega disasters and assteroids are on their ways towards earth, they are going straight into / near .... USA. -
2018-12-28 at 3:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It's true that Americans don't really care about having a president with any kind of expertise in foreign policy, but I don't think it's so much that they particularly want non-interventionist policy, even if they should. It was easy enough get the public onboard when ISIS was the scary Muslim group of the month, vaguely politically aware Americans were pretty gung ho to take a hand in the arab spring adventure. As long as we get jobs and cars and an endless flood of consumer goods we pretty much want the foreign policy our party wants, and in situations like Syria where both parties want war Americans don't really care who's dying and for what reason. Our military is well funded but as a fraction of our population it's tiny, most people don't know anyone involved in it, being at war or not is pretty inconsequential to the vast majority of voters.
How long did it take for you to type this up, nigger? -
2018-12-28 at 3:59 AM UTC
-
2018-12-29 at 12:43 PM UTCLooks like the US' days in Iraq may be numbered too.
Trump has specifically said he has no intention of ending the 'operation' in Iraq, but anti-US sentiment is surging in the country's political system. Hezbullah Iraq has responded to Trump's claims that operations could be continued in Syria from airbases in Iraq with a simple 'it will not be allowed' and that they would 'cut the hand that attacks Syria', and Trump's (mis)treatment of the country's Prime Minister.
When Trump meant to visit US troops in Iraq, it was organised that he would meet the Prime Minister on Iraqi soil, either in Baghdad or on the Ayn al-Assad military base. Hours prior to his landing, Trump communicated that he would not be visiting either, and invited the PM to the US military base where he made his speech.
The PM declined the invitation on the basis that he would have to be granted clearance from the US, and that it was explicitly insulting for the country's PM to need foreign approval to visit his own country, especially after agreements and plans had already been made.
The obvious insult, as well as the appearance of the PM's 'strength' to stand against it, has seen anti-US sentiment rise sharply in the last few days.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-29 at 1:41 PM UTC
-
2018-12-29 at 2:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Looks like the US' days in Iraq may be numbered too.
Trump has specifically said he has no intention of ending the 'operation' in Iraq, but anti-US sentiment is surging in the country's political system. Hezbullah Iraq has responded to Trump's claims that operations could be continued in Syria from airbases in Iraq with a simple 'it will not be allowed' and that they would 'cut the hand that attacks Syria', and Trump's (mis)treatment of the country's Prime Minister.
When Trump meant to visit US troops in Iraq, it was organised that he would meet the Prime Minister on Iraqi soil, either in Baghdad or on the Ayn al-Assad military base. Hours prior to his landing, Trump communicated that he would not be visiting either, and invited the PM to the US military base where he made his speech.
The PM declined the invitation on the basis that he would have to be granted clearance from the US, and that it was explicitly insulting for the country's PM to need foreign approval to visit his own country, especially after agreements and plans had already been made.
The obvious insult, as well as the appearance of the PM's 'strength' to stand against it, has seen anti-US sentiment rise sharply in the last few days.
i think this is a clever ploy if it was intentional.
if the iraqis themselves wanted the US out, what are trump detractors are going to say if trump agrees to also pull out of iraq ? -
2018-12-29 at 2:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Number13 So we've got another false flag coming you think? Something to shift their sentiment back to the us?
Doubt it, it wouldn't do much good in this case. Much of Iraq still sees them as invaders; there's no 'threat' that the US claims to protect them from.
On the topic of false flags though, I suspect we'll see a few in the Manbij region of Syria to try to force a wedge between the local Kurds and the SAA - https://niggasin.space/post/622304 -
2018-12-29 at 2:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Doubt it, it wouldn't do much good in this case. Much of Iraq still sees them as invaders; there's no 'threat' that the US claims to protect them from.
On the topic of false flags though, I suspect we'll see a few in the Manbij region of Syria to try to force a wedge between the local Kurds and the SAA - https://niggasin.space/post/622304
i doubt it. without the US support none is going to give them anything, they can fight and lose, or they can just give up and become civilian refugees. -
2018-12-29 at 2:53 PM UTCThe US needs to end jedi wars and spend all that money on making video games and anime great again
-
2018-12-29 at 3:12 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-12-29 at 4:05 PM UTC
