Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bipartisanship at its Best...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bipartisanship at its Best...

    ...And the vote is 354-60...

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp
    In a stinging bipartisan rebuke, the House on Wednesday condemned President Donald Trump's withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria...

    ...

    "What kind of message does this send to the world? How can America be trusted to keep its word when we betray one of our close partners?" House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) asked on the House floor. "Congress must speak out against this disgrace."

    The top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, said he understood Trump's "legitimate concerns" about committing troops overseas, but said the president's Syria pullout had damaged U.S. interests in the region.

    The resolution is non-binding and doesn't condemn Trump by name. It calls on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to halt Turkey's military campaign in Syria and urges humanitarian support to displaced Syrian Kurds and calls on the U.S. to ensure Turkey "acts with restraint and respects existing agreements related to Syria."
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    The issue here is that Trump needs to figure out what his plan in Syria is going to be. Right now, he has not withdrawn forces. I believe it's slightly misleading to use the word withdraw. He has ordered a retreat in order to allow Turkey to attack our ally.

    My question is, if we lost our key ally and we're no longer interested in fighting ISIS, then what are our troops still doing in Syria? What is their objective and how will they achieve that objective after giving away key territory and a key ally?

    At this point, he has to either order a complete withdrawal from Syria, or force Turkey out. Unfortunately, it's too late for the latter.

    But, this is all akin to what we've seen from Trump since the campaign. He's not decisive and he doesn't stand firm in his beliefs. One day he would say he supports a certain policy. The next day he'll say he's against it. By the third day he'll claim he never supported it at all.

    People that waiver and sit on the fence as much as Trump has are cowards and cowards don't have the conviction necessary to properly command military forces.

    Either we are all in or we're all out and Trump needs to grow a backbone and decide which one it's going to be.
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

    Comment


    • #3
      Supposedly, Turkey is one of those "close partners", or has been in the past via NATO. However ...

      U.S. forces say Turkey was deliberately ‘bracketing’ American troops with artillery fire in Syria
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ry-fire-syria/

      US troops believe Turkey deliberately fired artillery at an American commando outpost in Syria
      https://www.militarytimes.com/2019/1...post-in-syria/

      US forces say Turkey deliberately 'bracketing' American troops with artillery fire in Syria
      https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-...13-p5305z.html

      Pentagon says US forces came under Turkish artillery fire in Syria
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/polit...ria/index.html

      U.S. forces say Turkey was deliberately ‘bracketing’ American troops with artillery fire in Syria

      Etc. ....



      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Massena View Post
        ...And the vote is 354-60...
        Nothing like looking out for our troops.

        Do you think we should get bogged down in Syria?

        How many troops have to die before we realize that we shouldn't be interfering in Syria's civil war?

        The last administration made a deal with the devil by siding with a known and recognized by the US as a terrorist group.

        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #5
          Tac, I agree with much of what you've said, but I have to take exception with this one line:

          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
          . . . . People that waiver and sit on the fence as much as Trump has are cowards and cowards don't have the conviction necessary to properly command military forces. . . . .
          You're overlooking another, very valid, reason that might lead a person towards indecision: ignorance. A person may not possess the knowledge of a given situation required to make a sound decision, so he waffles, he vacillates, he might even backtrack, because he's not confident in his base of knowledge. There's no particular reason why Donald Trump should have cultivated any deep knowledge about the Kurdish/Turkish/Syrian situation, its background, its development, its history. Add to that the fact that he's represented himself as a Washington outsider, he's denigrated professional diplomatic and intelligence personnel, and he definitely hasn't cultivated any strong relationships with those kinds of people, so there's nobody he can turn to for sound advice in which he has genuine confidence. Nevertheless, the man is now President, so he's expected to make a decision, only he doubts his knowledge, so you get this kind of fence-sitting that you've described. When viewed like that, perhaps Pres Trump is a victim of his own propaganda.

          More deeply, perhaps Donald Trump doesn't understand what a US President's role is. A President does not rule, does not lead, and he certainly does not dictate. A President presides. As envisioned by our Funding Fathers, sovereignty rests with the states, and the national sovereignty is embodied in the House of Representatives. The President is supposed to execute the will of the people, as expressed by their Representatives in Congress, and the states' representatives in the Senate. When viewed like that, the Presidency was not really envisioned to be the primary driver of national policy, but more of an agency of coordination and execution. Yes, the President is also the Commander-in-Chief, but that's of the uniformed services, and only because genuine emergencies require a penultimate decision-maker -- but the day-to-day functions of our Federal Government do not require a commander, merely an officer to preside over its operations, to make them more efficient, more effective. In order to formulate policy, a President must work with the legislative branch, try to set common goals and agendas, and coordinate efforts. It's not reigning that we require from our President; it's presiding.

          As life got faster, especially in the 20th century, the Executive Branch has been extra-constitutionally imbued with more and more policy-making power. In effect, little-by-little, the Presidency has become "imperial"; a phrase that gained currency during the 1960s. Trump, being a novice to national politics and Federal governance, feels intuitively the conflict between the President's role as defined by the Constitution, and the present reality of the office. By nature he seeks to reign, but he lacks both the political chops and the legal authority to pull it off, so he's stuck in a kind of limbo -- as evidenced by the vacillation of which you spoke earlier. Given the historical development of the Presidency and its evolution, one can't fault Trump too awful much for being confused. What Trump can be faulted for is not figuring out how to align his natural inclination to reign with his legal obligation to preside.

          Or for not sufficiently suppressing his desire to reign in favor of his obligation to preside.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            Tac, I agree with much of what you've said, but I have to take exception with this one line:



            You're overlooking another, very valid, reason that might lead a person towards indecision: ignorance. A person may not possess the knowledge of a given situation required to make a sound decision, so he waffles, he vacillates, he might even backtrack, because he's not confident in his base of knowledge. There's no particular reason why Donald Trump should have cultivated any deep knowledge about the Kurdish/Turkish/Syrian situation, its background, its development, its history. Add to that the fact that he's represented himself as a Washington outsider, he's denigrated professional diplomatic and intelligence personnel, and he definitely hasn't cultivated any strong relationships with those kinds of people, so there's nobody he can turn to for sound advice in which he has genuine confidence. Nevertheless, the man is now President, so he's expected to make a decision, only he doubts his knowledge, so you get this kind of fence-sitting that you've described. When viewed like that, perhaps Pres Trump is a victim of his own propaganda.

            More deeply, perhaps Donald Trump doesn't understand what a US President's role is. A President does not rule, does not lead, and he certainly does not dictate. A President presides. As envisioned by our Funding Fathers, sovereignty rests with the states, and the national sovereignty is embodied in the House of Representatives. The President is supposed to execute the will of the people, as expressed by their Representatives in Congress, and the states' representatives in the Senate. When viewed like that, the Presidency was not really envisioned to be the primary driver of national policy, but more of an agency of coordination and execution. Yes, the President is also the Commander-in-Chief, but that's of the uniformed services, and only because genuine emergencies require a penultimate decision-maker -- but the day-to-day functions of our Federal Government do not require a commander, merely an officer to preside over its operations, to make them more efficient, more effective. In order to formulate policy, a President must work with the legislative branch, try to set common goals and agendas, and coordinate efforts. It's not reigning that we require from our President; it's presiding.

            As life got faster, especially in the 20th century, the Executive Branch has been extra-constitutionally imbued with more and more policy-making power. In effect, little-by-little, the Presidency has become "imperial"; a phrase that gained currency during the 1960s. Trump, being a novice to national politics and Federal governance, feels intuitively the conflict between the President's role as defined by the Constitution, and the present reality of the office. By nature he seeks to reign, but he lacks both the political chops and the legal authority to pull it off, so he's stuck in a kind of limbo -- as evidenced by the vacillation of which you spoke earlier. Given the historical development of the Presidency and its evolution, one can't fault Trump too awful much for being confused. What Trump can be faulted for is not figuring out how to align his natural inclination to reign with his legal obligation to preside.

            Or for not sufficiently suppressing his desire to reign in favor of his obligation to preside.
            Possibly complication more than ignorance may apply here. In Syria we have a mix of "civil war" alongside the decades old campaign of Islamic Jihad, so this is in some ways more than just a "two-sided" conflict. The various players/factions have their own end-games and agendas and "game won" terms are not the same for all.

            Hence the main question for the USA should be what end-game results would we like to see and which of the many factions/players should we support. Unfortunately, for decades now, ever since the post-WWII world situation and "Cold War" the USA has gone for short term expediency and lacked any long-term view of this region of the world. While we(USA~West) were focused on containing Russia/USSR, there was the rising tide of "Islamic Jihad" occurring in this region which has bloomed in the last couple of decades. The situation in Syria is one of a strategic nature due to it's rather local focus, but remains part of a Grand Strategic focus for which the USA & West seem to lack any coherent goal or game plan.

            Hence the issue being whom should we support and why?

            "the Kurds" are not a monolithic ethnic in terms of their political structures and agendas, though for the most part they have been somewhat united in advocating for decades(at least) to have a "Homeland". A chunk of turf that would traditionally be drawn from lands within Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. It should be noted that these "nations" have boundaries largely set by the European powers in the post-WWI era, so may not be hard and dried ones, i.e. could be subject to some adjustment, if enough of the parties involved could agree &/or comply.

            The USA just got rid of an eight year "reign" of POTUS and Admin. that couldn't officially use the term "Islamic Jihad" in describing whom and what we are fighting; and this has "infected" the upper leadership of State and DoD in their views, planning and policy, down to the level of relevant "manuals" for "the troops" involved on the front lines. If you can't clearly and accurately describe your enemy, or their agendas and goals, how then can you effectively fight them or have clear agendas and goals of your own ???

            So, a couple questions remaining to be answered would be:
            1) Why are we(USA) militarily involved in the conflict in Syria?
            2) What are the USA short-term(5-10 year) goals with regard to the Syrian conflict/"civil war"?
            3) What are the USA long-term (20-50 year) goals for the region about Syria(Middle East)?
            4) Which parties/factions involved in the Syrian Conflict should the USA work with and support to meet 2) & 3) ?

            Another consideration would be that ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever, is just another head on the Hydra of Islamic Jihad which for 1400 years has been at war with the rest of the World, we infidels, as part of their Grand Strategy to convert all of humanity to Islam, per directives of Allah via Muhammad. That is, when the major factions of Sunni and Shia within Islam aren't fighting each other. This provides a further complication to the non-Islamic world as to if we should be involved in this "family feud" or not?

            And then, which side?

            End of Part One.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              ...And the vote is 354-60...

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp
              In a stinging bipartisan rebuke, the House on Wednesday condemned President Donald Trump's withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria...

              ...

              "What kind of message does this send to the world? How can America be trusted to keep its word when we betray one of our close partners?" House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) asked on the House floor. "Congress must speak out against this disgrace."

              The top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, said he understood Trump's "legitimate concerns" about committing troops overseas, but said the president's Syria pullout had damaged U.S. interests in the region.
              The resolution is non-binding and doesn't condemn Trump by name. It calls on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to halt Turkey's military campaign in Syria and urges humanitarian support to displaced Syrian Kurds and calls on the U.S. to ensure Turkey "acts with restraint and respects existing agreements related to Syria."

              The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan though and had the backing of Turkey to do that. So as Americans we have to realize the world is looking at us and how we react to these types of situations. As we do not want to appear to the world as hypocrites where our country the USA invades other countries but then complains when fellow good civilized countries such as Turkey take a military action. Now the USA went into Iraq and Afghanistan with the stated purpose of eliminating the enemy and making those areas a better place thats probably what Turkey wants in Syria.

              We need to look at this situation carefully. There is so much misinformation in the media and internet today. And knowing in Turkey it is illegal to dress as a Muslim outwardly in some places...well I will never agree that Turkey is some kind of Muslim supremacist state. Turkey is one of the only Muslim majority countries with societal laws similar to that of the USA.


              The fact that I can go to Turkey and enjoy a triple Jack Daniels means alot, Turkey is home to freedom loving people and Turkey is liberal. But that does not mean the current Turkish Gov is in the wrong, they might be but even the USA has been accused of mistakes such as its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan of which the goals were good but was it worth it?
              Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
              Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

              George S Patton

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                Tac, I agree with much of what you've said, but I have to take exception with this one line:



                You're overlooking another, very valid, reason that might lead a person towards indecision: ignorance. A person may not possess the knowledge of a given situation required to make a sound decision, so he waffles, he vacillates, he might even backtrack, because he's not confident in his base of knowledge. There's no particular reason why Donald Trump should have cultivated any deep knowledge about the Kurdish/Turkish/Syrian situation, its background, its development, its history. Add to that the fact that he's represented himself as a Washington outsider, he's denigrated professional diplomatic and intelligence personnel, and he definitely hasn't cultivated any strong relationships with those kinds of people, so there's nobody he can turn to for sound advice in which he has genuine confidence. Nevertheless, the man is now President, so he's expected to make a decision, only he doubts his knowledge, so you get this kind of fence-sitting that you've described. When viewed like that, perhaps Pres Trump is a victim of his own propaganda.

                More deeply, perhaps Donald Trump doesn't understand what a US President's role is. A President does not rule, does not lead, and he certainly does not dictate. A President presides. As envisioned by our Funding Fathers, sovereignty rests with the states, and the national sovereignty is embodied in the House of Representatives. The President is supposed to execute the will of the people, as expressed by their Representatives in Congress, and the states' representatives in the Senate. When viewed like that, the Presidency was not really envisioned to be the primary driver of national policy, but more of an agency of coordination and execution. Yes, the President is also the Commander-in-Chief, but that's of the uniformed services, and only because genuine emergencies require a penultimate decision-maker -- but the day-to-day functions of our Federal Government do not require a commander, merely an officer to preside over its operations, to make them more efficient, more effective. In order to formulate policy, a President must work with the legislative branch, try to set common goals and agendas, and coordinate efforts. It's not reigning that we require from our President; it's presiding.

                As life got faster, especially in the 20th century, the Executive Branch has been extra-constitutionally imbued with more and more policy-making power. In effect, little-by-little, the Presidency has become "imperial"; a phrase that gained currency during the 1960s. Trump, being a novice to national politics and Federal governance, feels intuitively the conflict between the President's role as defined by the Constitution, and the present reality of the office. By nature he seeks to reign, but he lacks both the political chops and the legal authority to pull it off, so he's stuck in a kind of limbo -- as evidenced by the vacillation of which you spoke earlier. Given the historical development of the Presidency and its evolution, one can't fault Trump too awful much for being confused. What Trump can be faulted for is not figuring out how to align his natural inclination to reign with his legal obligation to preside.

                Or for not sufficiently suppressing his desire to reign in favor of his obligation to preside.
                Now for the other part ...

                Regards the change of POTUS power and influence, think we may need to look back about a century and a half to the 1860's and Lincoln rather than the 1960's. The American Civil War had a bit of influence in growing the power and separation of the Executive from and above the other two Branches of Federal Government, it would seem. Topic perhaps for another post/thread and another time.

                In more recent context I'm thinking that the 1930's and FDR are more to our use and focus here. "The Great Depression" wasn't just an USA only event and it's global impact would shape the changes of POTUS directions during the 1930s. FDR came in seeking to fix the USA economy and as things developed in the rest of the world, to keep the USA out of "their wars". This fit with the isolationist sentiments of the USA during the 1930s but seems FDR was a great double-speak POTUS in saying one thing and doing the opposite, far more than Trump or any other POTUS in-between.

                WPA, CCC, etc. helped to expand and enhance the powers and controls of the Executive Branch and as the world came closer to the 1940s, the "Arsenal of Democracy" further developed the domination of the office of POTUS. Granted, in hindsight this seems a fortuitous course, but it also was prophetic of significant change that would be hard to undo in future years. FDR definitely took the office of POTUS into a "firm lead" and "Policy Direction" beyond what had been seen in most prior administrations.

                I'd suggest the die for Executive/POTUS "excess" was set back during the years of FDR's "reign" and have carried on since, subject to the discretions of the office occupant.

                Getting back to the matter of the Syria Conflict, part of the issue is whom should set USA Foreign Policy?

                We have both a Congress and Executive that changes frequently every few years or so and with it the focus and direction. Meanwhile the so-called "professionals" of State and DoD too often are focused more on career tracks and retirements than the better needs of the nation once they are no longer employed. So the USA tends to play "whack a mole" so often in our dealings with the world and ever shifting "leadership" gets their hands on the triggers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                  The issue here is that Trump needs to figure out what his plan in Syria is going to be. Right now, he has not withdrawn forces. I believe it's slightly misleading to use the word withdraw. He has ordered a retreat in order to allow Turkey to attack our ally.

                  My question is, if we lost our key ally and we're no longer interested in fighting ISIS, then what are our troops still doing in Syria? What is their objective and how will they achieve that objective after giving away key territory and a key ally?

                  At this point, he has to either order a complete withdrawal from Syria, or force Turkey out. Unfortunately, it's too late for the latter.

                  But, this is all akin to what we've seen from Trump since the campaign. He's not decisive and he doesn't stand firm in his beliefs. One day he would say he supports a certain policy. The next day he'll say he's against it. By the third day he'll claim he never supported it at all.

                  People that waiver and sit on the fence as much as Trump has are cowards and cowards don't have the conviction necessary to properly command military forces.

                  Either we are all in or we're all out and Trump needs to grow a backbone and decide which one it's going to be.
                  Turkey is not our "key ally"; quite the opposite whenever they feel like it.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                    The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan though and had the backing of Turkey to do that. So as Americans we have to realize the world is looking at us and how we react to these types of situations. As we do not want to appear to the world as hypocrites where our country the USA invades other countries but then complains when fellow good civilized countries such as Turkey take a military action. Now the USA went into Iraq and Afghanistan with the stated purpose of eliminating the enemy and making those areas a better place thats probably what Turkey wants in Syria.

                    We need to look at this situation carefully. There is so much misinformation in the media and internet today. And knowing in Turkey it is illegal to dress as a Muslim outwardly in some places...well I will never agree that Turkey is some kind of Muslim supremacist state. Turkey is one of the only Muslim majority countries with societal laws similar to that of the USA.


                    The fact that I can go to Turkey and enjoy a triple Jack Daniels means alot, Turkey is home to freedom loving people and Turkey is liberal. But that does not mean the current Turkish Gov is in the wrong, they might be but even the USA has been accused of mistakes such as its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan of which the goals were good but was it worth it?
                    Would seem that Reasons why "The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan" didn't quite match with what would have been the more effective means and methods of such "invasions" and that the goals/end-games also didn't match well. Good intentions met bad efforts and worse objectives, IMO.

                    As one with Armenian ancestry, I've no great fondness for "the Turks".

                    Were it my call, along with a pull-back of USA in Syria I'd start to withdraw and close our bases in Turkey. Leave that nation ASAP. Sanctions will be more effective if we have no invested presence there.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      Turkey is not our "key ally"; quite the opposite whenever they feel like it.
                      We haven't exactly lost Turkey as an ally. I was referring to the Kurds and what they meant in our fight against ISIS.
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Some points some people are ''forgetting ''
                        1Turkey is more important than the Kurds for US : militarily, economically,politically
                        2 While the Syrian Kurds were allies in the war against ISIS,Turkey was an ally in the First Gulf War .
                        3 There are a few hundred US soldiers in Northern Syria, and 5000 with nuclear weapons in Turkey
                        4 While Turkey supported ISIS against Assad and the Kurds, the Syrian Kurds supported the PKK against Turkey .
                        5 The crisis has been caused by the Kurdish advance to the border,although the Kurds were warned by US and Turkey not to do it .
                        6 The predecessors of Trump also refused to support the Syrian Kurds against Turkey, thus there is no reason to blame Trump when he is doing as young Bush and Obama .
                        7 US was selling for $ billions on weapons to Turkey before 2017,although Turkey invaded Syria and Iraq ,thus why should Trump now impose sanctions .
                        8 Two years ago, US opposed a referendum from the Iraqi Kurds about independence ,thus why should they now support a virtual Kurdish invasion of Turkey ?
                        9 Refusing to risk the lifes of American soldiers is not a betrayal of the Kurds,while supporting the political and military aims of the Syrian Kurds will be interpreted in Turkey as treason .
                        10 The only thing Turkey asks from the US is neutrality,while the Kurds are demanding a US involvement in their ''attack '' against Turkey .
                        11 When 2 million of Kurds are provoking a war against 100 million of Turks, the logical attitude is not to support the 2 million Kurds .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                          Would seem that Reasons why "The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan" didn't quite match with what would have been the more effective means and methods of such "invasions" and that the goals/end-games also didn't match well. Good intentions met bad efforts and worse objectives, IMO.

                          As one with Armenian ancestry, I've no great fondness for "the Turks".

                          Were it my call, along with a pull-back of USA in Syria I'd start to withdraw and close our bases in Turkey. Leave that nation ASAP. Sanctions will be more effective if we have no invested presence there.
                          Well the USA did have support from Iraqis that were against Saddam. In fact Americans recived huge amounts of gifts,beers and tons of ciggerate cartons from Iraqis that were happy with the US invasion. We both know that Saddam had the support of good Iraqis, but Saddam and GWB had it out for each other. In the end the USA should have considered making Iraq our 51st state. You can see in the video below Americans very happy to get a ton of cigs and beers from Iraqis. We are talking about carton upon carton of cigs from Iraqis to Americans, not single packs but cartons and lots of beer. Its proof that many in Iraq want USA style freedom. Even in the Saddam era Iraqis and Americans had a ton in common. The video below shows the proof Iraqis gave many gifts to Americans after invading Iraq in 2003.

                          https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...on_of_Iraq.ogv

                          Lots of Greeks and Armenians respect Ataturk. Of course Turkey is perhaps the most liberal Muslim country around. And as an Irishmen I dont hate England, thats not the way forward. This modern day rivalry some Indians and Pakistanis have, some Turks and Arabs have, some Irishmen and Englishmen have and so on and so forth is not the way forward. All groups have there good and bad, not one religious or ethnic group is free of criminals but there is also good everywhere.
                          Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                          Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                          George S Patton

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have more to add. Its always been a terrible myth that middle eastern Muslims and Americans Christians are not friends. We are. We have the same goals and we stand together. As President GWB pointed out.

                            the citizens of Iraq are coming to know what kind of people we have sent to liberate them. American forces and our allies are treating innocent civilians with kindness, and showing proper respect to soldiers who surrender. Many Americans have seen the picture of Marine Lance Corporal Marcco Ware carrying a wounded Iraqi soldier on his shoulders to safety, for medical treatment. That's the picture of the strength and goodness of the U.S. Marines.

                            https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...0030403-3.html

                            Amid the death and destruction of cannon, tank and machine gun fire, humanity doesn't just vanish in the dust of war.

                            Through the despair and darkness, there are glimmers of compassion, kindness and hope that emerge, even crossing over battle lines.

                            An American nurse mends the wounds of Iraqi soldiers aboard a U.S. hospital ship after overcoming her distrust. "Then you see the pain and the agony of the people, and that whole mind-set is erased," said Kimberlee Flannery, 23, of Chillicothe, Ohio.

                            Or flash back almost 140 years. A Confederate sergeant in the Civil War dodges bullets from Union soldiers while crossing over a wall with canteens full of water to give to the North's own wounded.

                            In World War I, German and British soldiers emerge from their respective trenches, a truce spreading up and down the line as they belt out carols on Christmas Eve 1914. The soldiers talk, trade food, organize soccer games and help each other bury the dead of both sides.


                            https://theworldlink.com/news/local/...f48b84721.html


                            Thats why the USA needs to work with Turkey. Turkey is one of the good guys because Turkey has similar civil laws to the USA. And I think most Americans GOP and Democrat alike realize Turkey is a liberal country.





                            Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                            Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                            George S Patton

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X