PDA

View Full Version : Trump Commits US to ‘Indefinite’ Military Presence in Syria




charrob
09-06-2018, 11:19 PM
Trump Commits US to ‘Indefinite’ Military Presence in Syria: (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/trump-commits-us-to-indefinite-military-presence-in-syria/)


State Dept officials say Trump signs off on new strategy with more goals.

According to State Department officials, President Trump has recently abandoned his desire to “get out” of Syria and bring US troops home. He has signed a new strategy, which includes new military goals, and eliminates all timelines for removing troops from Syria.

US troops are in several parts of Syria, mostly in the Kurdish-held northeast. An estimated 2,200 US troops are in Syria, though official numbers are being withheld from the public. Special Envoy James Jeffrey said the old plan was to leave Syria by year’s end, but now the troops are committed to an “indefinitely extended” stay.

The new goals are substantial as well, with the US now focusing on forcing Iran out of Syria and “enduring defeat” for ISIS. Jeffrey says the US is “not in a hurry” and that Trump is now on board with this idea.

Pentagon officials have long presented the operation in Syria as more or less permanent, and have resisted all talk of pullout, including from President Trump. This mirrors their policy in Iraq, where US troops are similarly positioned in unknown numbers on a more or less permanent basis.

Trump, interestingly, has not commented on this fairly dramatic change in his position on US troops in Syria. It is unclear why Trump hasn’t spoken on the matter, but there is no sign such comments are coming in the near future.



https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/trump-commits-us-to-indefinite-military-presence-in-syria/

Swordsmyth
09-06-2018, 11:26 PM
According to State Department officials
More anonymous sources.:sleeping:

enhanced_deficit
09-06-2018, 11:32 PM
He wanted to get out of there quickly... unless his largest donor and respected zionist casino owner Adelson wanted otherwise.
But generally, he's pretty anti-swamp.



Related

Donald Trump carried out Syria missile strike ‘after being convinced by daughter Ivanka’ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509520-Donald-Trump-carried-out-Syria-missile-strike-‘after-being-convinced-by-daughter-Ivanka’&)

charrob
09-06-2018, 11:59 PM
More anonymous sources.:sleeping:

Not anonymous:





Trump Commits US to ‘Indefinite’ Military Presence in Syria: (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/trump-commits-us-to-indefinite-military-presence-in-syria/)


State Dept officials say Trump signs off on new strategy with more goals.

According to State Department officials, President Trump has recently abandoned his desire to “get out” of Syria and bring US troops home. He has signed a new strategy, which includes new military goals, and eliminates all timelines for removing troops from Syria.

US troops are in several parts of Syria, mostly in the Kurdish-held northeast. An estimated 2,200 US troops are in Syria, though official numbers are being withheld from the public. Special Envoy James Jeffrey said the old plan was to leave Syria by year’s end, but now the troops are committed to an “indefinitely extended” stay.

The new goals are substantial as well, with the US now focusing on forcing Iran out of Syria and “enduring defeat” for ISIS. Jeffrey says the US is “not in a hurry” and that Trump is now on board with this idea.

Pentagon officials have long presented the operation in Syria as more or less permanent, and have resisted all talk of pullout, including from President Trump. This mirrors their policy in Iraq, where US troops are similarly positioned in unknown numbers on a more or less permanent basis.

Trump, interestingly, has not commented on this fairly dramatic change in his position on US troops in Syria. It is unclear why Trump hasn’t spoken on the matter, but there is no sign such comments are coming in the near future.



https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/trump-commits-us-to-indefinite-military-presence-in-syria/

Swordsmyth
09-07-2018, 12:04 AM
Not anonymous:



https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/trump-commits-us-to-indefinite-military-presence-in-syria/
OK but it still may not be true.

charrob
09-07-2018, 12:31 AM
OK but it still may not be true.

i hope you're right and it's not true. But it doesn't look good. Here's the article that was linked in Jason's article in the original post:




Trump OKs indefinite US presence in Syria: (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/06/trump-oks-indefinite-us-presence-in-syria/)

President Donald Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has approved a new strategy for an indefinitely extended military, diplomatic and economic effort there, according to senior State Department officials.

Although the military campaign against the Islamic State has been nearly completed, the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.

Much of the motivation for the change, officials said, stems from growing doubts about whether Russia, which Trump has said could be a partner, is able and willing to help eject Iran. Russia and Iran have together been Syrian President Bashar Assad’s principal allies in obliterating a years-long effort by domestic rebels to oust the Syrian leader.

“The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” said James Jeffrey, a retired senior Foreign Service officer who last month was named Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “representative for Syria engagement.” About 2,200 U.S. troops are serving in Syria, virtually all of them devoted to the war against the Islamic State in the eastern third of the country.

Jeffrey said U.S. forces are to remain in the country to ensure an Iranian departure and the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State.

“That means we are not in a hurry,” he said. Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.”

Jeffrey declined to describe any new military mission. But he emphasized what he said would be a “major diplomatic initiative” in the United Nations and elsewhere, and the use of economic tools, presumably including more sanctions on Iran and Russia and the stated U.S. refusal to fund reconstruction in Assad-controlled Syria.

But the more activist policies he outlined, and only in vague terms, could increase the likelihood of a direct confrontation with Iran, and potentially with Russia.

Jeffrey’s description of a much broader U.S. role follows years of criticism from lawmakers and analysts that neither Trump nor his predecessor, President Barack Obama, had a coherent strategy for Syria. Trump, like Obama, insisted that U.S. interests were focused on defeating the Islamic State, and he resisted significant involvement in the civil war against Assad raging in the rest of the country, even as both Iran and Russia increased their influence.

Jeffrey and retired U.S. Army Col. Joel Rayburn, who transferred to the State Department from the National Security Council last month to become “special envoy for Syria,” were brought in to try to create a coherent blueprint that would prevent a repeat of what the administration sees as the mistakes of Iraq – where a precipitous U.S. pullout left the field open for Iran, and for a resurgence of Sunni militants that gave birth to the Islamic State.

Pompeo first listed Iran’s withdrawal from Syria as one of 12 U.S. demands of Tehran in a May speech at the Heritage Foundation.

U.S. policy is not that “Assad must go,” Jeffrey said. “Assad has no future, but it’s not our job to get rid of him.” But he said he found it hard to think of Assad as a leader who could “meet the requirements of not just us, but the international community” as someone who “doesn’t threaten his neighbors” or abuse his own citizens, “doesn’t allow chemical weapons or provide a platform for Iran.”

The first test of the administration’s expanded role in Syria may come sooner rather than later in Idlib, in the northwest part of the country.

The province is the last bastion of rebel control after seven years of civil war, during which Assad, with extensive Russian and Iranian assistance, pounded opposition forces into submission.

Idlib has now become a crowded holding pen for up to 70,000 opposition fighters, along with about 2 million Syrian civilians displaced from other battle zones, and activists and aid workers trying to assist them.

Turkish military forces are also in Idlib, where they have pushed back Syrian Kurds from the Syria-Turkey border. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who fears a new exodus of Syrian refugees, is due to attend a summit in Tehran on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Assad has said he is preparing a final offensive in Idlib, and Russian warplanes this week began bombing the region. Humanitarian organizations have warned of an unprecedented level of civilian bloodshed, and Trump himself has threatened U.S. retaliation if an all-out offensive is launched, especially with the use of chemical weapons.

“If it’s a slaughter, the world is going to get very, very angry. And the United States is going to get very angry, too,” Trump said Wednesday. Pompeo, Jeffrey said, has delivered the same message by telephone to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, as did White House national security adviser John Bolton in a recent meeting with his Russian counterpart.

Russia, which has beefed up its naval and other forces in the region in recent weeks, has charged that the United States is preparing to manufacture a chemical weapons attack to justify military intervention. It says its operations in Idlib are aimed at up to 14,000 fighters linked to al-Qaida.

The United States agrees that those forces must be wiped out, but it rejects “this idea that we have to go in there and clean out the terrorists” when “most of the people there are not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator” as well as millions of civilians,” Jeffrey said. Instead, the United States has called for a cooperative approach with other outside actors.

“We’ve started using new language,” Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons. Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate “an attack. Period.”

“Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless escalation” he said. “You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,” and “the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we’ll have to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians.”

Trump has twice authorized U.S. air and missile attacks on Syrian government targets as punishment for previous chemical weapons use.

Asked whether potential U.S. retaliation for any offensive in Idlib, with our without chemical weapons, would include airstrikes, Jeffrey said, “We have asked repeatedly for permission to operate,” and “that would be one way” to respond.

“In some respects, we are potentially entering a new phase, where you have forces from the different countries facing each other,” rather than pursuing their separate goals, he said, listing Russia, the United States, Iran, Turkey and Israel, which has conducted its own airstrikes against Iran-linked forces inside Syria.

“Now all of them have accomplished their primary jobs” there. “But nobody is happy with the situation in Syria.”

Swordsmyth
09-07-2018, 12:42 AM
Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.”
That answer doesn't inspire confidence in me.

RonZeplin
09-07-2018, 07:35 AM
i hope you're right and it's not true. But it doesn't look good. Here's the article that was linked in Jason's article in the original post:


establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community

There will never be a government acceptable to everyone, so this translates into - forever. Won't happen in the USA, Syria, or anywhere else because it's impossible.

tod evans
09-07-2018, 07:43 AM
Driving out militants from Idlib now top priority in Syria – Putin

https://www.rt.com/news/437877-putin-idlib-syria-summit/

Driving the extremists out of Syria’s Idlib province should be the primary goal at this stage of the Syrian peace process, Russian President Vladimir Putin said following a meeting with his Turkish and Iranian counterparts.
The Russian leader once again said that Moscow has “irrefutable” evidence that terrorist groups entrenched in the militant-controlled province are seeking to stage false flag attacks using chemical weapons.

“Our common absolute priority lies in the total elimination of terrorists in Syria,” Putin said, adding that Russian forces had recently helped to liberate the southwestern part of the war-torn country and confirming that Idlib province has become the primary target now. “The presence [of militants] poses a direct threat to the … civilians in the whole region,” the president warned.

The president also expressed his hope that the militants “would have the wisdom” to lay down their arms and back down.

AuH20
09-07-2018, 07:55 AM
Now the game is afoot. The spooks are pushing him to war. [Whispering into his ear] We are the only ones that can protect you.

specsaregood
09-07-2018, 07:59 AM
That answer doesn't inspire confidence in me.

well shit, if just anybody can go in and steal paperwork off his desk, how can we know he is the one actually signing anything he doesn't do on live tv?

juleswin
09-07-2018, 08:20 AM
Deep fake anti establishment candidate doing exactly what u expect an establishment, neocon, "deep" state controlled president is expected to be doing.

Who knew a long time Clinton friend candidate would act in this manner :rolleyes:

You see zionist Sheldon Adelson, Bolton, Kissinger all being in some way or another allied with this president and the full pic starts to become clearer and clearer.

EBounding
09-07-2018, 08:29 AM
Eventually the enemy will surrender--just like the tariffs.

CCTelander
09-07-2018, 08:45 AM
Who could have possibly predicted this? Oh, that's right. Just all of us who refused to drink the Trump Kool-Aid.

Anti- Establishment? Riiiight.

Taking down the deep state? ROTFL!

And the Trump supporters will continue to make excuses and tell us he's the greatest president since Coolidge. Nothing Trump could do would cause them to lose their unshakable faith in their Dear Leader.

Origanalist
09-07-2018, 09:43 AM
Who could have possibly predicted this? Oh, that's right. Just all of us who refused to drink the Trump Kool-Aid.

Anti- Establishment? Riiiight.

Taking down the deep state? ROTFL!

And the Trump supporters will continue to make excuses and tell us he's the greatest president since Coolidge. Nothing Trump could do would cause them to lose their unshakable faith in their Dear Leader.

Trump: "I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"
..

pcosmar
09-07-2018, 09:48 AM
More anonymous sources.:sleeping:

and seemingly ignorant of current events.

CCTelander
09-07-2018, 09:56 AM
Trump: "I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"
..


And he's absolutely right. Pathetic.

juleswin
09-07-2018, 09:58 AM
Driving out militants from Idlib now top priority in Syria – Putin

https://www.rt.com/news/437877-putin-idlib-syria-summit/

Driving the extremists out of Syria’s Idlib province should be the primary goal at this stage of the Syrian peace process, Russian President Vladimir Putin said following a meeting with his Turkish and Iranian counterparts.
The Russian leader once again said that Moscow has “irrefutable” evidence that terrorist groups entrenched in the militant-controlled province are seeking to stage false flag attacks using chemical weapons.

“Our common absolute priority lies in the total elimination of terrorists in Syria,” Putin said, adding that Russian forces had recently helped to liberate the southwestern part of the war-torn country and confirming that Idlib province has become the primary target now. “The presence [of militants] poses a direct threat to the … civilians in the whole region,” the president warned.

The president also expressed his hope that the militants “would have the wisdom” to lay down their arms and back down.

Why this emphasis on extremists like a moderate rebels allied with foreign power still militarily challenging the govt is acceptable. If you a rebel want to militarily overthrow a govt, you should expect nothing short of a military response from said govt. This focus on extremists would be used against them.

Also, what if the extremists rebels decided to be moderate now, does it mean the offensive will be stopped? The goal should be to end the civil war and stop all armed opposition to the govt, full stop. Moderate, extreme should make no difference.

tod evans
09-07-2018, 10:04 AM
Why this emphasis on extremists like a moderate rebels allied with foreign power still militarily challenging the govt is acceptable. If you a rebel want to militarily overthrow a govt, you should expect nothing short of a military response from said govt. This focus on extremists would be used against them.

Also, what if the extremists rebels decided to be moderate now, does it mean the offensive will be stopped? The goal should be to end the civil war and stop all armed opposition to the govt, full stop. Moderate, extreme should make no difference.

My interest in this matter starts and stops with US interests going up against Russian interests.

The US has no cause to be there and neither does Russia, there is no upside.

juleswin
09-07-2018, 10:13 AM
My interest in this matter starts and stops with US interests going up against Russian interests.

The US has no cause to be there and neither does Russia, there is no upside.

I understand but if the Syrians and Russians can stop with the silly line of fighting extremists then it would close the opening of US coming in. Also Russia has a port in Syria, they are also allies with the Syrian govt and that is why they are there.

Lastly, if the west can connect their gas pipeline from the Gulf to Europe, Russia would be finished and believe me, this is all downside for Russia and Syria.

milgram
09-07-2018, 10:28 AM
This sounds bad. Trump has been very stupid to slip into a reactive situation on Syria with such high military stakes. He could throw away his presidency over it. Maybe he still thinks the last CW event was legit.
I suppose we have to hope that Mattis pumps the brakes? I don't know who else would be a voice of sanity. Trump is not going to win a debate with Bolton.

devil21
09-07-2018, 10:48 AM
well shit, if just anybody can go in and steal paperwork off his desk, how can we know he is the one actually signing anything he doesn't do on live tv?

Look up the Presidential autopen. Every Pres in recent times has one.

On topic: Interesting timing of this article considering the reports of another "gas attack" on Syrian civilians coming.

bunklocoempire
09-07-2018, 12:33 PM
Are we still in Syria?

Is there still a central bank called The Federal Reserve?

Ye$.

I predict U.$. presence in Syria tomorrow. Empire won't stop empireing as long as the funny money flows.

jllundqu
09-07-2018, 12:44 PM
Rand has Trump's ear. Perhaps he can school him on a few things... perhaps not.

AuH20
09-07-2018, 01:07 PM
Rand has Trump's ear. Perhaps he can school him on a few things... perhaps not.

Trump is caught in a dangerous balancing act. He needs to keep the Israeli firsters off his back, but at the same time avoid war.

pcosmar
09-07-2018, 01:34 PM
Look up the Presidential autopen. Every Pres in recent times has one.

On topic: Interesting timing of this article considering the reports of another "gas attack" on Syrian civilians coming.

I have been hearing reports for 2 weeks that the rebels intend to use gas again,,, with the intent of blaming Damascus .

The Rebels have the Gas and they have Hostages (shields) they have been abducting for weeks.

The Rebels are supported by Israel and the US,, and are about to have asses kicked.

pcosmar
09-07-2018, 01:35 PM
Trump is caught in a dangerous balancing act. He needs to keep the Israeli firsters off his back, but at the same time avoid war.

Israel is supplying the War.

TheCount
09-07-2018, 02:03 PM
Trump is caught in a dangerous balancing act. He needs to keep the Israeli firsters off his back, but at the same time avoid war.
Avoid war by not avoiding war?

Anti Globalist
09-07-2018, 04:36 PM
Don't worry guys. Alpha male president Donald Trump won't overthrow Assad. He'll get us out of Syria eventually. It may take until the end of his 2nd term but I assure you we'll leave Syria if its the last thing he does.

juleswin
09-07-2018, 04:55 PM
Don't worry guys. Alpha male president Donald Trump won't overthrow Assad. He'll get us out of Syria eventually. It may take until the end of his 2nd term but I assure you we'll leave Syria if its the last thing he does.

Dannno said he only wants to fight ISIS and atm, he just needs to attack the people attacking ISIS and give cover to the ppl causing all the immigration crisis to Europe in order to fool the deep state.

If he doesn't like Obama do just about everything the deep state wanted of him, they would kill him :(

Swordsmyth
09-07-2018, 06:55 PM
Eventually the enemy will surrender--just like the tariffs.

Except that the tariffs are defensive and if the leeches don't agree to play fair we will still be better off than when we didn't fight back.

AZJoe
09-07-2018, 07:22 PM
False-Flag Failure… US Cuts to the Chase to Defend Its Terrorists in Syria (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/09/no_author/false-flag-failure-us-cuts-to-the-chase-to-defend-its-terrorists-in-syria/)

Last week the US warned of military strikes on Syria “if” government forces use chemical weapons (CW). This week, Trump comes clean by dropping any mention of a CW pretext – simply warning Syria not to attack terrorists.

Trump tweeted his warning to Syria … Russian and Iranian forces, to not launch a military offensive to retake control of the northwest province of Idlib. The area is the last remaining stronghold of illegally armed militant groups in Syria. It’s potentially the endgame to the nearly eight-year war. …

So, alleged chemical weapons are no longer part of the US rationale. It’s basically: don’t make any military move. …

Clearing Syria’s last bastion of terrorist groups in Idlib is crucial to restoring peace for the entire country. Why are Washington and its allies trying to obstruct that end result?

Trump’s dire-sounding reproach of a final military offensive in Idlib marked a significant shift from earlier warnings issued by the US and its NATO allies, Britain and France. All three powers had last week vowed to take military action if chemical weapons were used …

AZJoe
09-07-2018, 08:40 PM
MOA: Syria - U.S. Reveals Underpants Plan For Indefinite Occupation (http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/09/syria-us-reveals-underpants-plan-for-a-permanent-occupation.html#more)

The new U.S. plan (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-a-shift-trump-approves-an-indefinite-military-and-diplomatic-effort-in-syria-us-officials-say/2018/09/06/0351ab54-b20f-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html) is to:
1. keep north-east Syria indefinitely occupied,
2. ???,
3. Iran leaves Syria and the 'regime' in Damascus falls.

President Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there … the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening [US proxy puppet] government …

The first major step … is to prevent the imminent Syrian army operation against al-Qaeda aligned groups in Idleb province … “We’ve started using new language,” [James] Jeffrey said, … Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate “an attack. Period.” …

The U.S. is bluffing. It has no realistic means to prevent the operation. Any U.S. attack on Syrian and Russian forces involved in it would likely escalate … a risk the U.S. military is unwilling to take. It knows that the forces it planted into Syria are vulnerable to attacks.

The U.S. is (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/chemical-weapons-being-prepared-in-syria-us-envoy/1248359) now (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-chemical/u-s-has-seen-evidence-of-syria-preparing-chemical-weapons-in-idlib-envoy-idUSKCN1LM365) screaming (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/psychic-nikki-haley-if-there-is-a-future-chemical-weapons-attack-assad-did-it-909394df2bc0) of imminent chemical attacks …

If a chemical incident occurs the U.S. will know who did it because it provided the chemicals to the terrorist. The Syrian army will of course not use any such weapons. Sun Tzu never gave this advice:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/images6/suntzuchemical-s.jpg

Chemical warfare is ineffective. That is why everyone agreed to ban it. Like in east-Ghouta the U.S. obviously plans to again fake such a "chemical attack on civilians" to have a propaganda pretext to attack Syrian forces. …

The Russian President Putin … said (https://twitter.com/EHSANI22/status/1038058164908904448):
"we consider it unacceptable when, under pretext of protecting the civilian population, they want to withdraw terrorists from being under attack, as well as inflict damage on Syrian government troops."

Russia is not in the mood to compromise. It warned (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/syria-russia-attack-warning-pentagon/index.html) the U.S. military that it would soon launch an operation against ISIS forces under protection of the small U.S. garrison in al-Tanf. Those forces recently launched another attempt to recapture Palmyra but were caught and defeated … with an imminent Russian-backed assault by Syrian regime forces in the Idlib area in the north, there is concern Moscow could see this as an optimum time to conduct multiple offensive operations. …

there is the problem of the new U.S. strategy in Syria. The position in al-Tanf is untenable. The U.S could put a full brigade there, including anti-air assets, and it would still be too vulnerable. That is why today the U.S. launched a rescue and exfiltration exercise (http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1623358/oir-coalition-conducts-defeat-isis-exercise-in-eastern-syria/) in al-Tanf. …

In the north-east of Syria the U.S. positions are likewise endangered. Since early August 1,900 trucks (http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=101874) brought in weapons and equipment for its Kurdish proxy forces … The Saudis have committed to pay some money for reconstruction and the U.S. surely hopes to use the oil fields there to finance a future occupation. It will soon start to announce some 'independent' regional government that will be under its complete control. But Turkey is against such empowerment of Kurds. The supply lines through Iraq are vulnerable. The population is diverse with many Syrian Arab tribes unwilling to live under Kurdish/U.S. control. They will resist the sectarian and ethnic cleansing (https://acnuk.org/news/syria-plan-to-oust-christians-from-the-region-says-archbishop/) … That makes it easy to instigate a guerilla war against the U.S. occupiers and their proxy forces. What happens when the U.S. forces start to take serious casualties?

The U.S. presence in Syria is costly heap of underpants with no chance to ever turn it into a profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zc4bGkU05o

AZJoe
09-08-2018, 10:42 AM
Trump to the Rescue of Al Qaeda (https://www.globalresearch.ca/donald-trump-to-the-rescue-of-the-same-al-qaeda-freedom-fighters-who-attacked-america-on-911/5653386)

President Donald Trump is coming to the rescue of Al Qaeda freedom fighters in Northern Syria (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1036740691211284480):

“President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province, The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake …Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed,… Don’t let that happen!” (Donald Trump)
“Humanitarian mistake”? Since when has Trump expressed concern for saving lives? …

The unspoken truth is that the Syrian government is intent upon liberating a region of the country where civilians are being held hostage by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists supported by the US and its allies. Trump’s special envoy, Brett McGurk, admits that Idlib has become “the largest al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” Until recently we called them “moderate rebels”. Idlib is Al Qaeda’s de facto capital in Syria. According to Tony Cartalucci (https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/07/idlib-al-qaedas-last-stand/), “Idlib remains one of the last remaining strongholds of Al Qaeda in Syria”.

The Al Qaeda rebels are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance (with US and allied special forces, weapons and logistics experts within their ranks). With an estimated 50,000 rebels, the number of embedded (covert) Western paramilitary mercenary forces … would be significant. (Unconfirmed reports from Russian sources have pointed to the presence of 300 British forces in Idlib). This terrorist stronghold is therefore of strategic importance to the US. It constitutes a means to maintaining US and allied military presence in Northern Syria.

While many Al Qaeda fighters have surrendered and have left Syria via the “humanitarian corridors”, the remaining jihadist fighters have been unduly threatened not to abandon combat: …

What is at stake is an intricate and complex counterterrorism operation directed against Al Qaeda fighters, which just so happen to be supported by Donald Trump. “The Americans are on Our side”, says rebel Al Nusra commander in an interview with the Koelner Stadt Anzeiger … Jabhat al-Nusra unit commander Abu Al Ezz confirmed that the US is sending weapons to Al Nusrah through “third countries”. “Yes, the US supports the opposition [in Syria], but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support,” … weapons deliveries by America’s allies including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey. …

There is a vast literature which documents covert support to Al Qaeda not to mention the shipment of weapons and ammo (https://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-military-aid-to-al-qaeda-routine-shipments-of-weapons-to-syrian-freedom-fighters/5548960) to Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Syria. … documents released by the U.S. Government’s Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), (https://www.fbo.gov/) the US –as part of its “counterterrorism campaign”– has provided Syrian rebels [aka moderate Al Qaeda] with large amounts of weapons and ammunition.

US military aid to the rebels channeled (unofficially) through the illicit market, is routine and ongoing. In December 2015, a major US sponsored shipment of a staggering 995 tons of weapons was conducted in blatant violation of the ceasefire. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the U.S. “is providing [the weapons] to Syrian rebel groups as part of a program that continues despite the widely respected ceasefire in that country [in December 2015].” …

According to a (https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/07/idlib-al-qaedas-last-stand/) study by the Century Foundation (https://tcf.org/content/report/keeping-lights-rebel-idlib/?session=1&agreed=1) … Al Qaeda has established a network of services and local institutions which are funded by the US, UK, and European Union…

The Trump administration’s (unofficial) objective is ultimately to protect Al Qaeda and sabotage the Syrian government’s anti-terrorism campaign …

In a bitter irony and unknown to the broader public, the Trump Administration is supporting in Syria the same network of Al Qaeda fighters which allegedly attacked America on September 11, 2001. … You cannot wage “a war on terrorism” and at the same time “come to the rescue of the terrorists”. … that is what the US has being doing since the onslaught of the Soviet-Afgan war in 1979. …

President Bush … ““make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”. How does that relate to Donald Trump and Washington’s role in Syria? Al Qaeda in Syria has been “harbored” by the US government (and its allies) since the outset of the war in March 2011.

AZJoe
09-08-2018, 10:47 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQbYCY9Cr7o

enhanced_deficit
09-08-2018, 11:08 AM
AJ had lost his temper last time GOP-Jarvanak wing bombed Syria.. but that before he was banned by youtube, socials.

So Alex Jones FINALLY has enough of Trump? "He just crapped all over us!" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521316-So-Alex-Jones-FINALLY-has-enough-of-Trump-quot-He-just-crapped-all-over-us!-quot&)

bunklocoempire
09-08-2018, 01:40 PM
Still in Syria.

Origanalist
09-08-2018, 03:27 PM
Still in Syria.

And Hillary is still not in jail, and.............

CCTelander
09-08-2018, 03:30 PM
And Hillary is still not in jail, and.............


One bomb every 12 minutes, and.....

pcosmar
09-08-2018, 03:58 PM
British planning fake chemical attack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-state-senator-who-met-with-assad-says-british-planning-fake-chemical-attack/2018/09/08/6c5b76b6-b363-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?utm_term=.3316c9fc7c53


“Around four weeks ago, we knew that British intelligence was working toward a chemical attack in order to blame the Syrian government, to hold Syria responsible,” Black said on Al Mayadeen, an Arab news channel based in Beirut.

Black (R-Loudoun) said later that he meant the British were planning not to carry out an attack themselves, but to either direct rebels to do so or stage a phony attack, with actors posing as victims.

Black also said some chemical attacks previously reported to have occurred in Syria were British fakes, pulled off with help from volunteer first responders known as White Helmets.

pcosmar
09-08-2018, 04:04 PM
https://www.rt.com/news/437953-idlib-syria-attack-terrorists/

Terrorists & White Helmets met in Idlib to prep for final stage false flag chem attack


The statement comes after earlier warnings from Moscow’s that militants are preparing to stage a chemical attack in the Syrian province to give the Western coalition a pretext to strike Syria. In August, the Defense Ministry said that eight canisters of chlorine had been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and that a foreign-trained group of militants had also arrived in the area to simulate a rescue operation after the staged attack.

CCTelander
09-08-2018, 04:22 PM
One bomb every 12 minutes, and.....


Ever greater militariztion of the police including more military hardware for local police forces, and....

Origanalist
09-08-2018, 05:59 PM
Ever greater militariztion of the police including more military hardware for local police forces, and....

Out of rep, this could be a thread all to itself.

Marenco
09-08-2018, 06:34 PM
Out of rep, this could be a thread all to itself.

Covered.

charrob
09-08-2018, 08:06 PM
Russia Warns US That Syria Offensives Are Planned Near US Positions: (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/russia-warns-us-that-syria-offensives-are-planned-near-us-positions/)


US 'postured to respond' militarily to any 'challenge'.

While most of the Syrian War is centered at this point around the Idlib Province, the last major rebel bastion, there is also interest in mopping up some of the smaller rebel positions along the Jordan border, especially where ISIS and al-Qaeda are concerned.

This is a raising a dangerous risk of a confrontation between the US and Russia, because Russia and Syria are very keen to chase some of the Islamists off the border in the near future, and Russia has informed them some of these Islamists are relatively close to US military positions in the area.

The US has long been fine with Islamists on the Jordan border, and is warning Russia against taking any action against them, saying the US would view it as a “challenge” and that they would not hesitate to respond militarily if there is any move into the area.

This is all near the US base at al-Tanf, on the corner between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. The US has long demanded everyone stay away from this base, except rebels of course. The Pentagon is insisting they have the “right of self-defense” to keep their troops in this part of Syria, despite Syria never having allowed them to enter in the first place, and the offensive being aimed at al-Qaeda forces nearby, not the US troops.

The US has long taken this bellicose posture regarding Tanf and other bases around Syria, and in the past has attacked Syrian troops and Russian military contractors for getting too close. With Russia’s military directly involved and giving the US advanced warning, clearly a US attack won’t be taken the same way as those past incidents.

This is likely to be a long-term source of tensions in southeastern Syria, as the US shows no sign of leaving Tanf, and has no real military goals for the troops there, beyond being there to pick fights with other troops that happen by.



https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/russia-warns-us-that-syria-offensives-are-planned-near-us-positions/






US Marines Conduct Live-Fire Exercise in South Syria in Warning to Russia: (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/07/us-marines-conduct-live-fire-exercise-in-south-syria-in-warning-to-russia/)


Centcom: US will not hesitate to use force.

Following Thursday’s report that Russia had recently informed the US of planned military operations against terrorist groups on the Syria-Jordan border, a company of US Marines conducted a live-fire exercise in the same area. Officials say it was intended to be a “warning” to Russia.

The exercise took place near the US base at al-Tanf, at the corner of Syria’s border with Iraq and Jordan. Though the US no longer really has any rebel allies in the area, which was initially the point of the Tanf base, the US does regularly attack any pro-Syrian forces who get too close.

The proximity of Islamists, especially al-Qaeda-linked groups on the Jordan border, has pretty much been ignored by the US. The possibility that Russian and Syrian forces might take care of those groups has infuriated the US, and led to threats of force.

Centcom officials continue to talk up the idea that they “will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force” if Russian, Syrian, or other pro-Syrian groups get too close to the Tanf base.

In the past, US forces have attacked pro-government militias for getting near Tanf, and have also attacked and killed hundreds of Russian military contractors on one occasion, an incident followed up by US bragging (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html).

Though Pentagon officials are presenting this as standard operating procedure, it is anything but, particularly since Syria never authorized US troops to be there in the first place. Attacks on Russian troops would be a much bigger deal, and not something casually passed off as “self defense.”



https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/07/us-marines-conduct-live-fire-exercise-in-south-syria-in-warning-to-russia/

AuH20
09-08-2018, 09:30 PM
The US is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. That's the irony in all this.

1038497290820841472

CCTelander
09-08-2018, 10:51 PM
Out of rep, this could be a thread all to itself.


Not a bad idea. I think I have something in mind but need to get some sleep right now. Hopefully tomorrow.

Origanalist
09-09-2018, 01:35 PM
US using phosphorus bombs in Syria?

US jets strike Syrian town with banned white phosphorus bombs – Russian Defense Ministry
Published time: 9 Sep, 2018 17:06

https://img.rt.com/files/2018.09/article/5b955d78dda4c87b798b45f5.jpg


US jets strike Syrian town with banned white phosphorus bombs – Russian Defense Ministry
Published time: 9 Sep, 2018 17:06
FILE PHOTO. © Scott Nelson
FIL

Two US jets have bombed a town in the Syrian Deir Ez-Zor province with white phosphorus munitions, causing massive fires, Russian military has said.
Two F-15 jets on Saturday bombed the town of Hajin with white phosphorus incendiary munitions, banned under the Geneva Convention, according to the Russian Center for Reconciliation in Syria.

https://www.rt.com/news/438008-us-strikes-syria-white-phosphorus/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

RonZeplin
09-09-2018, 03:23 PM
How will Britain and France punish the perpetrator of this evil deed?


US, UK, France vow to punish Syria for chemical attacks (https://www.dw.com/en/us-uk-france-vow-to-punish-syria-for-chemical-attacks/a-45170611)

bunklocoempire
09-10-2018, 11:12 AM
Monday, September 10, 2018. Still in Syria.

shakey1
09-10-2018, 12:16 PM
Ever greater militariztion of the police including more military hardware for local police forces, and....

nothing was learned.

CCTelander
09-10-2018, 01:16 PM
nothing was learned.


It seldom is.

bunklocoempire
09-12-2018, 05:46 PM
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/a-third-attack-on-syria-would-be-just-as-illegal-as-the-last-two/
Excerpt

A Third Attack on Syria Would Be Just as Illegal as the Last Two
By Daniel Larison • September 11, 2018, 1:06 AM

It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to police the Syrian civil war. Our military has no business operating inside Syria or keeping American forces on Syrian territory. Attacking the Syrian government exposes U.S. forces in Syria to potential reprisals, and it serves no American security interests. The Trump administration doesn’t have a legal justification for what it has done in the past, and that is why it has refused to tell Congress how it thinks its previous attacks on Syria are justified.

Swordsmyth
09-12-2018, 09:17 PM
The way out of Syria for the U.S. with its face-saved is to thunder and bluster, threaten fire and brimstone just like Trump did with Kim Jong-un and use that to explain why Assad showed restraint and didn’t use chemical weapons this time.
I can even see Trump tweeting something about three strikes and he would be out.
Once Idlib is liberated Mattis will happily begin pulling vulnerable troops out of al-Tanf and Afghanistan. That’s why I believe he went there to the surprise of the CIA house-organ Washington Post last week.
And then the neocon and Israeli muddying of the waters will move to the Geneva talks, but we’ll cross that Rubicon when it approaches.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-12/washingtons-choice-wwiii-or-saving-face-syria

jmdrake
09-12-2018, 10:06 PM
OK but it still may not be true.

Have you seen anything change on the ground in Syria that might cause Trump to pull troops out before he leaves office? Because I haven't.

CCTelander
09-12-2018, 10:17 PM
Have you seen anything change on the ground in Syria that might cause Trump to pull troops out before he leaves office? Because I haven't.


Nothing much has changed including the unshakable faith of Trump supporters in their orange messiah.

nikcers
09-12-2018, 10:29 PM
Have you seen anything change on the ground in Syria that might cause Trump to pull troops out before he leaves office? Because I haven't.

Change on the ground? Nope! There is definitely change in the "air". You thought the world police was too big, just wait for the space force. Just look a this graphic from 6 years ago and the "pessimistic" comment.


http://i.imgur.com/YXN88.jpg



AstronautCharmer (https://www.reddit.com/user/AstronautCharmer)
31 points · 6 years ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/sv0d3/the_future_space_economy/c4hb7gb/)

So here's what I've looked at. Let's be optimistic and say a mining probe could return 1 ton of platinum. 1 ton is a lot for a return mission.
32,000 ounces in a ton, and platinum is worth ~$1,500 an ounce. That's a $48 million revenue for a single mission. Considering the cost of the probe, the rocket launch, and R&D, I honestly doubt this will be feasible for a while. That is, unless SpaceX makes good on that fully reusable rocket. That's far in the future though, so let's not hold our breath too much on this being feasible within 20 years.

My theory? It's a bunch of billionaires who want to launch rockets and promote progress for the good of mankind; not for the good of their wallets. Look at James Cameron and Larry Page. They're two guys who have spent lots of money on ventures that might not turn profits at all (X-Prize and Challenger Deep Dive), only for the sake of science.
Profitable or not; Planetary Resources will be great for humanity. The economic feasibility of it remains in question.

AZJoe
09-13-2018, 08:11 PM
Tulsi Gabbard comments on House floor today 2018-09-13:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=B7A8VuRFGmQ

“Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.”

“This is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 … ”

Origanalist
09-13-2018, 08:24 PM
^^^^^^


“This is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 … ”

Same old same old, nothings really changed but the rhetoric.

AZJoe
09-13-2018, 08:29 PM
https://original.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/trump-tweet-th.jpg

bunklocoempire
09-13-2018, 08:51 PM
Nothing much has changed including the unshakable faith of Trump supporters in their orange messiah.

Indeed.

New World not Hillary knows what he is doing, the not Hillary supporters, not so much. It's what vague MAGA type crap gets you.


This was an interesting listen - what supporting nothing for fear, gets you.

Why The China World Order Is Here On Purpose
https://www.bitchute.com/video/koq2OQIALQc/
In this video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange gives you the latest breaking news on the China World Order and why it is here on purpose. We talk about the real news while exposing fake news media censorship on the topic of China with James Corbett of the Corbett report.

Make China Great Again

No doubt about it, Trump is an excellent navigator of empire.

AZJoe
09-13-2018, 08:56 PM
1039481477774434305

Origanalist
09-14-2018, 11:48 AM
339818069641801728

devil21
09-14-2018, 12:31 PM
339818069641801728

Ya need both a private position and a public position on certain issues.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z6DR2IBurQ

CCTelander
09-14-2018, 12:44 PM
339818069641801728


I'm shocked, shocked to see Trump taking both sides of an issue at different points in time.

jmdrake
09-14-2018, 02:29 PM
Tulsi Gabbard comments on House floor today 2018-09-13:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=B7A8VuRFGmQ

“Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.”

“This is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 … ”

Good for her! I didn't know Ron Paul had a daughter.

bunklocoempire
09-14-2018, 02:40 PM
Good for her! I didn't know Ron Paul had a daughter.

Now if we can just get her on steroids...

:toady:

I am very thankful for the exposure of bad ideas.

I do understand the idea of an anti-war coalition.

I am extremely wary of HI politicians who have risen to the "top" of this U.S. military outpost/government plantation.

Swordsmyth
09-14-2018, 03:59 PM
Good for her! I didn't know Ron Paul had a daughter.
Don't be fooled:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571) - 31%





H RES 397: NATO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres397)


Vote Date: June 27, 2017
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.







H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/330)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll330.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”








H R 4909: Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/210)


Vote Date: May 18, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll210.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”




H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres162)


Vote Date: March 23, 2015
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll131.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.




H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2014/h/328)


Vote Date: June 19, 2014
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels
















H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4152)


Vote Date: April 1, 2014
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll149.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.

devil21
09-15-2018, 02:30 AM
^^^^^
Gabbard is CFR. That's really all that needs to be known about her. She's not terrible but she's kinda like Elizabeth Warren and her love (private position) and hate (public position) relationship with the bankers.

AZJoe
09-15-2018, 04:46 PM
​Russia Warns US That Syria Offensives Are Planned Near US Positions: (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/russia-warns-us-that-syria-offensives-are-planned-near-us-positions/)

US 'postured to respond' militarily to any 'challenge'.

While most of the Syrian War is centered at this point around the Idlib Province, the last major rebel bastion, there is also interest in mopping up some of the smaller rebel positions along the Jordan border, especially where ISIS and al-Qaeda are concerned.

This is a raising a dangerous risk of a confrontation between the US and Russia, because Russia and Syria are very keen to chase some of the Islamists off the border in the near future, and Russia has informed them some of these Islamists are relatively close to US military positions in the area.

The US has long been fine with Islamists on the Jordan border, and is warning Russia against taking any action against them, saying the US would view it as a “challenge” and that they would not hesitate to respond militarily if there is any move into the area.

This is all near the US base at al-Tanf, on the corner between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. The US has long demanded everyone stay away from this base, except rebels of course. The Pentagon is insisting they have the “right of self-defense” to keep their troops in this part of Syria, despite Syria never having allowed them to enter in the first place, and the offensive being aimed at al-Qaeda forces nearby, not the US troops.

The US has long taken this bellicose posture regarding Tanf and other bases around Syria, and in the past has attacked Syrian troops and Russian military contractors for getting too close. With Russia’s military directly involved and giving the US advanced warning, clearly a US attack won’t be taken the same way as those past incidents.

This is likely to be a long-term source of tensions in southeastern Syria, as the US shows no sign of leaving Tanf, and has no real military goals for the troops there, beyond being there to pick fights with other troops that happen by.

https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/...-us-positions/ (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/06/russia-warns-us-that-syria-offensives-are-planned-near-us-positions/)



US Marines Conduct Live-Fire Exercise in South Syria in Warning to Russia: (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/07/us-marines-conduct-live-fire-exercise-in-south-syria-in-warning-to-russia/)


Centcom: US will not hesitate to use force.

Following Thursday’s report that Russia had recently informed the US of planned military operations against terrorist groups on the Syria-Jordan border, a company of US Marines conducted a live-fire exercise in the same area. Officials say it was intended to be a “warning” to Russia.

The exercise took place near the US base at al-Tanf, at the corner of Syria’s border with Iraq and Jordan. Though the US no longer really has any rebel allies in the area, which was initially the point of the Tanf base, the US does regularly attack any pro-Syrian forces who get too close.

The proximity of Islamists, especially al-Qaeda-linked groups on the Jordan border, has pretty much been ignored by the US. The possibility that Russian and Syrian forces might take care of those groups has infuriated the US, and led to threats of force.

Centcom officials continue to talk up the idea that they “will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force” if Russian, Syrian, or other pro-Syrian groups get too close to the Tanf base.

In the past, US forces have attacked pro-government militias for getting near Tanf, and have also attacked and killed hundreds of Russian military contractors on one occasion, an incident followed up by US bragging (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html).

Though Pentagon officials are presenting this as standard operating procedure, it is anything but, particularly since Syria never authorized US troops to be there in the first place. Attacks on Russian troops would be a much bigger deal, and not something casually passed off as “self defense.”
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/07/us-marines-conduct-live-fire-exercise-in-south-syria-in-warning-to-russia/

US Places its Soldiers as Human Shields for Al Qaeda/ISIS and Risks Major Escalation on Behalf of Jihadists (https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/major-russia-promised-to-attack-us-forces-in-syria-u-s-escalation-likely-after-hurricane-florence/)

Russia has warned the US that the SAA and Russian Air Force are ready and prepared to attack US backed terrorist forces at Tanf just last week (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/syria-russia-attack-warning-pentagon/index.html), even if US forces are present. The US responded in recent days by increasing the number of US forces there from dozens up to several hundred.

Russia has not backed off its warning, and it is acting within international law at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is occupying a relatively small area within Syria from which it protects the remaining Al Qaeda and ISIS groups in southern Syria. …

In an attempt to derail a political solution to Idlib, US marines have held eight days of unprecedented military exercises with Al Qaeda allied ‘FSA’ forces known also as Maghawir al Thawra, in southern Syria. … It should also be noted that this ‘area of operations’ is an illegal occupation, created in 2016 in response to the invitation by the Syrian government for Russia to begin an aerial campaign. … the US created a base at Tanf, or al-Tanf. From here, the story goes, the US has been training FSA forces, which are long linked to Al Qaeda as an affiliate group. …

the better known Al Qaeda off-shoot, ISIS, is known to have its operations based from and its forces protected by the illegal occupational US base at Tanf. …

Colonel Muhanad al Talaa, the commander of the US-backed militant group, Maghawir al Thawra … claimed the drills were meant to send … “a strong message to Russia and Iran” that the Americans and the militants intended to stay and confront any threats to their presence. He told Reuters the war games were the first such exercises with live-fire air and ground assault, involving hundreds of US troops and militants … The new[U.S.] forces have reportedly joined “special operations troops already based in the garrison” …

Russia has warned the Pentagon twice in the past weeks that its forces, together with Syrian troops, were prepared to wage an attack on terrorists in the area where dozens of US troops are stationed – including those in Tanf garrison. … US military officials “bluntly warned Russia and Syria not to go forward with an attack within a 35-mile-wide security zone that the US maintains around Tanf,” …

The US illegally built the military outpost in early 2016 under the pretext of fighting Daesh terrorists, but it has declared a 55 km-radius ... a safe haven for at least 50,000 militants and their families … This includes safe haven for the very same ISIS (Daesh) terrorists which it falsely claims to fight. …

RonZeplin
09-15-2018, 07:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YWkEas6w_8

https://yt3.ggpht.com/a-/AN66SAzEXqau0J67YcY71hUNRpjJbq76KgZ5Wp3mzw=s48-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no (https://www.youtube.com/user/deutschewelleenglish)DW English (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCknLrEdhRCp1aegoMqRaCZg)
Published on Sep 14, 2018

Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad and his allies are getting ready for a final assault on the last rebel stronghold in the country, Idlib. The city is home to an estimated three million people and many observers fear a slaughter of civilians.

Guests: Maissun Melhem (DW), Michael Lüders (Middle East Expert), Alan Posener (Die Welt)

Syria blames Israel for 'attack on Damascus airport' (https://www.dw.com/en/syria-blames-israel-for-attack-on-damascus-airport/a-45504188)

AZJoe
09-16-2018, 10:12 AM
https://ahtribune.com/images/DnEJadCW4Ac0oxn_8fe65.jpg

enhanced_deficit
09-16-2018, 10:02 PM
https://ahtribune.com/images/DnEJadCW4Ac0oxn_8fe65.jpg

Generally speaking, leaders should not be stupid.

AZJoe
09-18-2018, 11:36 AM
1041792753439580162

bunklocoempire
10-01-2018, 03:36 PM
Still in Syria.

Iran has also noticed...

homahr
10-01-2018, 03:53 PM
Still in Syria.

Iran has also noticed...

Trump’s Iran Obsession and the Forever War in Syria (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-iran-obsession-and-the-forever-war-in-syria/)

The U.S. special representative for Syria confirmed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-syria-us-takes-on-new-goal-iranian-retreat/2018/09/30/625c182a-c27f-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.cdef7587d6a2) [1] that the administration’s policy is one of forever war in Syria (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-forever-war-in-syria/) [2]:


James Jeffrey, the State Department’s special representative for Syria, said the United States would maintain a presence in the country, possibly including an extended military mission, until Iran withdraws the soldiers and militia forces it commands. U.S. officials expect that possible outcome only after world powers broker a deal ending the war.



It is tempting to refer to this as mission creep, but this is really a case of beginning a completely new, different, and unrelated mission as an excuse to keep U.S. forces in Syria indefinitely. Keeping U.S. troops in Syria until Iran “retreats” gives Iran an easy way to dictate our policy for us. They have no reason to withdraw, and our illegal presence in Syria puts no pressure on them to leave. On the contrary, a continued, illegal U.S. presence in Syria is not going to make Iran more inclined to withdraw its forces. It gives them added incentive to do what they were already going to do. Because withdrawal is something that this administration is demanding of Iran, it is the last thing that Iran’s government is going to want to do.

Besides the sheer illegality of the mission that the administration is proposing, the most striking thing is that it has absolutely no connection to U.S. or allied security. Iran’s military presence in Syria may not be desirable, but their evacuation from Syria isn’t necessary for the security of the United States or any treaty allies. Iran and Syria have been allies for decades, and Iran’s support for the Syrian government has only strengthened that relationship. Unless and until the Syrian government no longer wants them there, Iran has no reason to leave, and both governments have no reason to pay attention to Washington’s preferences.

The administration’s bankrupt Iran policy and its illegal war in Syria have joined together to create a truly dangerous and reckless commitment that could bog the U.S. down in part of Syria for a long time to come. Keeping U.S. forces in Syria until Iran withdraws all its troops and proxies would be a multi-decade undertaking:


According to one Western diplomat, Iran has spent tens of billions of dollars in Syria and lost thousands of fighters in support of the Assad regime. If the United States keeps a military presence in Syria for as long as the Iranians, that would mean “decades at the very least,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss American policy.



The U.S. is very bad at ending its open-ended military missions around the world. If Trump is allowed to get away with maintaining an illegal military presence in Syria, it is quite possible that the mission could last long after he leaves office. The time for stopping it and bringing U.S. forces out of Syria is now, because in another few years the blatantly illegal policy will have become accepted as just one more in a string of illegal presidential wars.

It can’t be emphasized strongly enough that U.S. forces have no authorization to be in Syria for any reason, and every day that Trump keeps them there he is violating the Constitution.

enhanced_deficit
12-12-2018, 10:06 PM
Our Israeli/Saudi allies will pay for that stay or US taxpayers?

Origanalist
12-13-2018, 06:48 AM
Trump’s Iran Obsession and the Forever War in Syria (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-iran-obsession-and-the-forever-war-in-syria/)

The U.S. special representative for Syria confirmed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-syria-us-takes-on-new-goal-iranian-retreat/2018/09/30/625c182a-c27f-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.cdef7587d6a2) [1] that the administration’s policy is one of forever war in Syria (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-forever-war-in-syria/) [2]:


James Jeffrey, the State Department’s special representative for Syria, said the United States would maintain a presence in the country, possibly including an extended military mission, until Iran withdraws the soldiers and militia forces it commands. U.S. officials expect that possible outcome only after world powers broker a deal ending the war.



It is tempting to refer to this as mission creep, but this is really a case of beginning a completely new, different, and unrelated mission as an excuse to keep U.S. forces in Syria indefinitely. Keeping U.S. troops in Syria until Iran “retreats” gives Iran an easy way to dictate our policy for us. They have no reason to withdraw, and our illegal presence in Syria puts no pressure on them to leave. On the contrary, a continued, illegal U.S. presence in Syria is not going to make Iran more inclined to withdraw its forces. It gives them added incentive to do what they were already going to do. Because withdrawal is something that this administration is demanding of Iran, it is the last thing that Iran’s government is going to want to do.

Besides the sheer illegality of the mission that the administration is proposing, the most striking thing is that it has absolutely no connection to U.S. or allied security. Iran’s military presence in Syria may not be desirable, but their evacuation from Syria isn’t necessary for the security of the United States or any treaty allies. Iran and Syria have been allies for decades, and Iran’s support for the Syrian government has only strengthened that relationship. Unless and until the Syrian government no longer wants them there, Iran has no reason to leave, and both governments have no reason to pay attention to Washington’s preferences.

The administration’s bankrupt Iran policy and its illegal war in Syria have joined together to create a truly dangerous and reckless commitment that could bog the U.S. down in part of Syria for a long time to come. Keeping U.S. forces in Syria until Iran withdraws all its troops and proxies would be a multi-decade undertaking:


According to one Western diplomat, Iran has spent tens of billions of dollars in Syria and lost thousands of fighters in support of the Assad regime. If the United States keeps a military presence in Syria for as long as the Iranians, that would mean “decades at the very least,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss American policy.



The U.S. is very bad at ending its open-ended military missions around the world. If Trump is allowed to get away with maintaining an illegal military presence in Syria, it is quite possible that the mission could last long after he leaves office. The time for stopping it and bringing U.S. forces out of Syria is now, because in another few years the blatantly illegal policy will have become accepted as just one more in a string of illegal presidential wars.

It can’t be emphasized strongly enough that U.S. forces have no authorization to be in Syria for any reason, and every day that Trump keeps them there he is violating the Constitution.

Can't give a + rep to a banned person.

shakey1
12-13-2018, 07:33 AM
http://www.entertheshell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/get-out.jpg

devil21
12-13-2018, 09:25 AM
http://www.entertheshell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/get-out.jpg

Apparently Assad doesn't have to go, after all. Especially since the huge land grabs have been completed and military bases built there. As long as Syrian .mil doesn't attack the new bases, mission accomplished I guess.

Swordsmyth
12-14-2018, 09:23 PM
US President Donald Trump this week predicted the jihadist group would be fully defeated within a month.

“We’ve done a very, very major job on ISIS,” he said on Tuesday, using another acronym for IS.

“There are very few of them left in that area of the world. And within another 30 days, there won’t be any of them left,” he vowed.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/syria-kurdish-led-forces-retake-town-from-islamic-state-group/

Origanalist
12-14-2018, 09:40 PM
US President Donald Trump this week predicted the jihadist group would be fully defeated within a month.

“We’ve done a very, very major job on ISIS,” he said on Tuesday, using another acronym for IS.

“There are very few of them left in that area of the world. And within another 30 days, there won’t be any of them left,” he vowed.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/syria-kurdish-led-forces-retake-town-from-islamic-state-group/

Snort, "we" haven't done shit but fund terrorists.

TheCount
12-16-2018, 10:27 AM
“There are very few of them left in that area of the world. And within another 30 days, there won’t be any of them left,” he vowed.

Because they're all in the Sinai now.

Swordsmyth
12-18-2018, 11:56 PM
The United States said Monday it was no longer seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but renewed warnings it would not fund reconstruction unless the regime is "fundamentally different." James Jeffrey, the US special representative in Syria, said that Assad needed to compromise as he had not yet won the brutal seven-year civil war, estimating that some 100,000 armed opposition fighters remained in Syria.
"We want to see a regime that is fundamentally different. It's not regime change -- we're not trying to get rid of Assad," Jeffrey said at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.
Estimating that Syria would need $300-400 billion to rebuild, Jeffrey warned that Western powers and international financial institutions would not commit funds without a change of course.
"There is a strong readiness on the part of Western nations not to ante up money for that disaster unless we have some kind of idea that the government is ready to compromise and thus not create yet another horror in the years ahead," he said.


Jeffrey also called for the ouster of Iranian forces, whose presence is strongly opposed by neighboring Israel, although he said the United States accepted that Tehran would maintain some diplomatic role in the country.
Jeffrey also said that the United States wanted a Syria that does not wage chemical weapons attacks or torture its own citizens.
He acknowledged, however, that the United States may not find an ally anytime soon in Syria, saying: "It doesn't have to be a regime that we Americans would embrace as, say, qualifying to join the European Union if the European Union would take Middle Eastern countries."

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-accept...210504947.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-accepts-assad-staying-syria-wont-aid-210504947.html)

r3volution 3.0
12-19-2018, 12:06 AM
I wonder which D this is.

TheCount
12-19-2018, 05:09 AM
I wonder which D this is.
The short toadstool-looking one with a huge mushroom head.

spudea
12-19-2018, 06:42 PM
OP is the fakest of news we've seen in a while. Can it win the fake news of the year award?

enhanced_deficit
02-03-2019, 03:03 PM
Could this hurt GOP-Adelson wing's chances for 2020?

Trump: ‘We have to protect Israel,’ shifting again on Syria withdrawal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531107-Trump-‘We-have-to-protect-Israel-’-shifting-again-on-Syria-withdrawal&)