• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vets, what is your opinion on the Syrian pullout?

Do you agree with the pullout as done?

  • Yes, trump is a genius and we owe our allies nothing.

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • A pullout was needed but not done at this time and method

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • No, we should remain there forever as the world's police.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other, please explain your stand.

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Lord of Planar said:
We should have never been there to begin with.

Pulling out the small handful of people we have is the correct decision.

The bias of your poll responses is noted.
Click to expand...

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, ...the fact is we were there.

It kept Turkey in check and the mission had not been completed. Now not only are the Kurds no longer our allies in the region, thousands of IIIS fighters are free to continue their terror.

If you say so, are you a Vet? If not then the question was not directed to you
 
Casper said:
Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, ...the fact is we were there.

It kept Turkey in check and the mission had not been completed. Now not only are the Kurds no longer our allies in the region, thousands of IIIS fighters are free to continue their terror.

If you say so, are you a Vet? If not then the question was not directed to you
Click to expand...

11 years, last 5 in USEUCOM.
 
Fishking said:
I don't particularly care about what some military spouse wearing her husband's rank has to say.
Click to expand...

Then don't read it. :shrug:
 
Casper said:
Noticed that there is much talk about how many Vets, past and present disagree with how we pulled out of Syria, so l thought it might be interesting to see what the Vets here think.
Thanks
Click to expand...

The poll is terrible, leaving syria was the right thing to do, however giving the first option of trump being a genious already poisons the poll, the reality is trump long wanted to leave syria, being fought in every direction, and the only reason he ordered the exit was because he had no easy way out, it was between fighting turkey to protect the kurds shattering the second most powerful member of nato, or letting the kurds go saving the nato alliance.

However russia and syria were more than eager to fight isis, they had already done so for a long time west of the euphrates, and neither was thrilled to have turkey on syrian soil. So I believe in this case with turkey throwing a wrench in everyones plans trump chose the least worst option, if we wnt to war with turkey we would strengthen russia far more than anything else as it would not only cause nato to lose it;s second biggest power but force turkey to the russian sphere as an ally allowing russia to control the bosphorous strait.
 
VanceMack said:
Phosphorous tends to burn like a mother****er and doesnt stop at clothes lines or even surface tissue. Willie Pete doesnt get dispersed like a spray...its spread like shrapnel. You cant tap it out or smother it. I'm not saying what that is nor am I saying what it isnt...but that certainly doesnt look like any WP burn damage on an individual I have ever seen...except perhaps if someone found a large chunk of it burning and took their shirt off and sat around it to get a tan.

I could be wrong......but I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Willy pete is so nasty that it burns badly, and when burned out can re ignite again when taking off clothing or bandages, so bad that it is forbidden against civilians or even insurgents, the only lawful use is against actual military targets. Ol willy pete makes napalm look humane as with napalm you can atleast shed your clothes with a hope of surviving, willy pete will burn much longer and often stay dormant until re exposed to oxygen.
 
apdst said:
Other: we had no combat mission. U.S. troops were there in an advisery role. The CIC decided that U.S. troops weren't going to be used as human shields. If the Turks decided to attack, there's nothing that our people were going to do to stop it, other than die, creating an all out war with Turkey.
Click to expand...

The number of troops we had there could not stop a turkish invasion, or a syrian army attack or the russians, if any of those three were serious the entire number of troops there would have been eradicated, which means in order to actually stop such they would need to deploy at minimum 100k troops and more realistically 2-300k troops to deal with state actors, I think some wanted a mass deployment and were hoping our small force there were killed in order to justify a mass deployment, however the american people do not back such, infact you can go around asking about the outrage over syria and be lucky to find anyone caring other than some talking heads in the media and congress.

Heck trump won with the idea of ending wars and even now it is pretty clear the american people do not support these wars, rather career politicians and the cia support these wars.
 
beerftw said:
The number of troops we had there could not stop a turkish invasion, or a syrian army attack or the russians, if any of those three were serious the entire number of troops there would have been eradicated, which means in order to actually stop such they would need to deploy at minimum 100k troops and more realistically 2-300k troops to deal with state actors, I think some wanted a mass deployment and were hoping our small force there were killed in order to justify a mass deployment, however the american people do not back such, infact you can go around asking about the outrage over syria and be lucky to find anyone caring other than some talking heads in the media and congress.

Heck trump won with the idea of ending wars and even now it is pretty clear the american people do not support these wars, rather career politicians and the cia support these wars.
Click to expand...

Is that why he has increased the number of troops in the ME?
 
Casper said:
Is that why he has increased the number of troops in the ME?
Click to expand...

He increased them mostly in saudi arabia, which has to do with the fact despite being one of the highest spenders on military on earth saudi arabia is so incompetent the eskimo's in alaska could over run the country with harpoon attacks and beat them on a navy front with kayaks.

In my opinion trump should not be protecting the saudi's either, if they are so bad that barefoot rebels can wipe out entire brigades of theirs, then saudi arabia should simply collapse, maybe if they stopped using slaves and mercenaries and actually cared about their own defense other than throwing money at it people might actually show more sympathy to them.
 
beerftw said:
He increased them mostly in saudi arabia, which has to do with the fact despite being one of the highest spenders on military on earth saudi arabia is so incompetent the eskimo's in alaska could over run the country with harpoon attacks and beat them on a navy front with kayaks.

In my opinion trump should not be protecting the saudi's either, if they are so bad that barefoot rebels can wipe out entire brigades of theirs, then saudi arabia should simply collapse, maybe if they stopped using slaves and mercenaries and actually cared about their own defense other than throwing money at it people might actually show more sympathy to them.
Click to expand...

Nope he has increased the numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq starting at around 18,000 to current of around 26,000, does not sound like pulling out
 
Moot said:
Unfortunately, I think they're still using chemical weapons...only this time it's Turkey using them on Kurd civilians.

Turkey may have used chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians - Business Insider
Click to expand...

"Business Insider"?

Oh please, nobody takes them seriously. They are a strongly left-leaning propaganda rag, which hides itself as a "Business Source".

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Click to expand...
Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check

The thing is that they are in fact often factual, but the way they word their headlines and articles is misleading.

Notice, nowhere does this say what chemicals were used, or anything like that. This is outright garbage, nothing but speculation and misdirection, with no real actual facts. It is not like they said "Phosgene is suspected", or "a nerve agent is suspected". It is nonsense speculation intended to influence with zero facts.

And as an FYI, many are claiming that Turkey has been using White Phosphorous. Yes, it is a chemical, but no it is not a "chemical weapon". And while Willie Pete is indeed a chemical, it's use is not banned. Although many countries (like the US) choose to not use it against civilians and troops in the open (but use against say vehicles that have troops in it is allowed under US ROE).

An article accusing use of chemical weapons. But not even naming what the weapon might be or anything else? Yea, right.
 
Casper said:
It kept Turkey in check and the mission had not been completed. Now not only are the Kurds no longer our allies in the region, thousands of IIIS fighters are free to continue their terror.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are.

We simply stopped supplying and protecting the PKK. A known terrorist organization that for some reason our last President decided should be supported and given weapons.

We are still supporting other Kurdish groups, and the other groups not aligned with the PKK are not being attacked.
 
beerftw said:
Willy pete is so nasty that it burns badly, and when burned out can re ignite again when taking off clothing or bandages, so bad that it is forbidden against civilians or even insurgents, the only lawful use is against actual military targets. Ol willy pete makes napalm look humane as with napalm you can atleast shed your clothes with a hope of surviving, willy pete will burn much longer and often stay dormant until re exposed to oxygen.
Click to expand...

Not true.

WP is not recognized as either a chemical weapon, nor as an incendiary weapon. It's use is in no way restricted under the laws of land warfare.

Now saying that, many countries (including the US) have made the choice to limit how it is used. But it is not illegal to use, nor is it restricted in how it can be used. Other than under the other laws of land warfare.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Not true.

WP is not recognized as either a chemical weapon, nor as an incendiary weapon. It's use is in no way restricted under the laws of land warfare.

Now saying that, many countries (including the US) have made the choice to limit how it is used. But it is not illegal to use, nor is it restricted in how it can be used. Other than under the other laws of land warfare.
Click to expand...
What is true is that it doesnt spread out like a chemical agent, doesnt stop at clothing lines, and is highly unlikely to have cause the damage in the image shown.
 
Casper said:
Is that why he has increased the number of troops in the ME?
Click to expand...

In KSA you mean. To protect oil production and to combat future Iran-backed attacks.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Turkey is suspected of using white phosphorus against Kurdish civilians in Syria

The Organization for the Prohibition Against Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is on the way to northern Syria. Just like the Russians, Erdogan is employing white phosphorus on civilian populations.
Click to expand...

Wow, major fail.

White Phosphorous is not a "Chemical Weapon". Heck, it's use is not even a war crime unless purposefully directed at purely unarmed civilians where there are no enemy combatants.

It is not a "Chemical Weapon". It is not prohibited by a single treaty. It is only restricted as is any other weapon.

You can not fire a mortar round into a school. You can fire a mortar round into a school that is being occupied by enemy combatants. This is Geneva Convention 101 stuff here. By the same measure, you can not fire White Phosphorous into a school. But you can fire it into a school that is being used by enemy combatants.

So your entire claim is absolutely meaningless.
 
Oozlefinch said:
"Business Insider"?

Oh please, nobody takes them seriously. They are a strongly left-leaning propaganda rag, which hides itself as a "Business Source".

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check
Click to expand...

he thing is that they are in fact often factual, but the way they word their headlines and articles is misleading.
Click to expand...

They all do that, so whatta ya going do?

Notice, nowhere does this say what chemicals were used, or anything like that. This is outright garbage, nothing but speculation and misdirection, with no real actual facts. It is not like they said "Phosgene is suspected", or "a nerve agent is suspected". It is nonsense speculation intended to influence with zero facts.

And as an FYI, many are claiming that Turkey has been using White Phosphorous. Yes, it is a chemical, but no it is not a "chemical weapon". And while Willie Pete is indeed a chemical, it's use is not banned. Although many countries (like the US) choose to not use it against civilians and troops in the open (but use against say vehicles that have troops in it is allowed under US ROE).

An article accusing use of chemical weapons. But not even naming what the weapon might be or anything else? Yea, right.
Click to expand...

Here's a video from CBS Canada that mentions white phosphorus and when used against humans is considered a chemical weapon.



Notice at the end of the video it says Turkey gave a substantial donation to a chemical company.

In Turkey's defense, they say "the Kerds used chemical weapons on themselves."
 
VanceMack said:
What is true is that it doesnt spread out like a chemical agent, doesnt stop at clothing lines, and is highly unlikely to have cause the damage in the image shown.
Click to expand...

In that I fully agree.

However, that really does not matter for the issue of discussion, as it is not a "Chemical Weapon" in the first place.

And if their claim is somehow true, then they had better start screaming at the US and Russia also. And Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mozambique, Columbia, Congo, Angola, etc, etc, etc.

You know a position is an absolute fail when they try to pain a weapon that is 100% legal in all Laws of War requirements. And try to paint it as something it is not.

As I have been stating. Sadly lacking in any kinds of facts, only lashing out with their feelings and beliefs. Something I really could not care less about from either side.
 
Moot said:
Here's a video from CBS Canada that mentions white phosphorus and when used against humans is considered a chemical weapon.
Click to expand...

Fine. Then name me a single International Laws of War body that recognizes it as such.

Hague Protocols? Geneva Convention? UN? NATO? Warsaw Pact (when it existed)? Any?

Please, oh please tell me what legal reason you have to make this statement.

Technically, an aircraft dropping chemical retardant or even water is a "Chemical Weapon delivery system".

Give me one reason why your claim should be taken seriously, and as a violation of any international law.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Wow, major fail.

White Phosphorous is not a "Chemical Weapon". Heck, it's use is not even a war crime unless purposefully directed at purely unarmed civilians where there are no enemy combatants.

It is not a "Chemical Weapon". It is not prohibited by a single treaty. It is only restricted as is any other weapon.

You can not fire a mortar round into a school. You can fire a mortar round into a school that is being occupied by enemy combatants. This is Geneva Convention 101 stuff here. By the same measure, you can not fire White Phosphorous into a school. But you can fire it into a school that is being used by enemy combatants.

So your entire claim is absolutely meaningless.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. White phosphorus, when used as an incendiary weapon, rather than to generate smoke, is prohibited by the Geneva convention of 1980 when used against civilians or in civilian areas, including schools. It can still be used against purely military targets, however.
 
And here is a bit more.

The US was screamed at by some for the use of White Phosphorous in 2016 in Syria.

Therefore if it is so horrible and wrong, then the same people screaming about Turkey using it had better start screaming that President Obama had better be brought up on War Crimes charges.

Funny, but I bet nobody screaming about the use of Willy Pete will say this is a good idea.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Fine. Then name me a single International Laws of War body that recognizes it as such.

Hague Protocols? Geneva Convention? UN? NATO? Warsaw Pact (when it existed)? Any?

Please, oh please tell me what legal reason you have to make this statement.

Technically, an aircraft dropping chemical retardant or even water is a "Chemical Weapon delivery system".

Give me one reason why your claim should be taken seriously, and as a violation of any international law.
Click to expand...
I hope this is sufficient to satisfy your skepticism...


The use of white phosphorus is not banned under international convention when it is used as an obscurant – to make a smokescreen or to illuminate a target (white phosphorus glows green when exposed to oxygen). To use it for incendiary weapons in civilian areas is banned under the Geneva convention...."

What is white phosphorus and did Turkey use it against the Kurds? | WSB-TV​
 
Irredentist said:
That's not entirely true. White phosphorus, when used as an incendiary weapon, rather than to generate smoke, is prohibited by the Geneva convention of 1980 when used against civilians or in civilian areas, including schools. It can still be used against purely military targets, however.
Click to expand...

That is what I just said!

Thank you for agreeing with me, and stating I am wrong at the same time.

You can not fire a mortar round into a school. You can fire a mortar round into a school that is being occupied by enemy combatants. This is Geneva Convention 101 stuff here. By the same measure, you can not fire White Phosphorous into a school. But you can fire it into a school that is being used by enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

And BTW, white phosphorous is not an "Incendiary Weapon".

I present to you the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, UN addition to the Geneva Convention of 10 October 1980. Article 1, Protocol III:

I. Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
II. Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.[/quiote]

The above are weapons that are specifically not considered to be "incendiary weapons".

So please, give me the Laws of Land Warfare source that prohibits the use of WP.

And yea, I admit I have a big advantage here. I had my first class in the Laws of Land Warfare in 1983, and actually taught one just 2 days ago.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom