Details besides your twitter picture?

and yes, I know we have parts of a BCT and more in Syria. If you're keeping score, this is the third oval office occupant we've had them there for. Nothing new.

https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2023/roll136.xml

Agree that it has definitely been a problem for a while.

The military-industrial complex is hungry. Those two are working hard to line their pockets by feeding it.

[removed]

With votes like this, you can really tell it’s not Dems vs Republicans or Left vs Right…it’s us vs them. It’s a big mono party in DC and they don’t care about anyone besides themselves

[deleted]

[deleted]

What did the republicans do? Math isn’t my strongest skill, but I can read. It looks like only 47 of them had the balls to stand up to their party. So maybe instead of trying to make this a democrats bad scenario, you should look at the money that the no votes on both side got to vote that way.

It got more Republican votes genius.

Except most of the party voted no.

Ah fuck I can't read.

You think your reps represent you?

Hahahaha, that’s funny.

True fucking that

Word and true

Looks like a pretty even vote to me . And as far as obeying their master hmmmm I think you don't have to look far for the pitcherof Donald Kool-Aid. I could only wish that Democrats listened to their "masters" and voted as a block. If that were the case we would certainly control the house

Nope

171 republicans voted against leaving Syria and only 150 democrats against it.

47 republicans voted for leaving Syria and 56 democrats voted for leaving.

There is no helping you people, it’s a lost cause. The numbers are right in front of you and you choose to believe whatever you want instead.

It’s definitely left Vs right lol we just don’t have a leftist side to our government.

You are a hypocrite.

Slow clap.

Because Empire.

Are you looking for a good faith argument about US foreign policy or are you a libertarian?

I never understand how people can vote or make judgements on shit they don't know about. No one in this forum has any idea what the hell our troops are doing in Syria. Someone with a lot more info than us made this decision. I think I'll defer to their judgement instead of thinking myself a military strategist.

If your definition of leftist is “good”, then yes, we don’t have a good side to our government.

Lots of anti-war people can tell you exactly what we’re doing in Syria. The idea that you would just trust the decision to go to war to the military apparatus without any congressional oversight or approval is pretty crazy. Keep in mind, Obama held a vote to go to war in Syria, the vote did not pass, and Obama went forward with it anyways.

Yeah it was a joke

And a whole lot of anti war people were extremely outraged about Syrian refugees and assad’s gas attacks. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t want us to help get those peoples homes back and punish Assad while also not having troops there to do it. This isn’t empire, we have less than a BCT of SF and support troops, they are helping the people of Syria not invading the country.

Leaving in 180 days sounds like another Afghanistan withdrawal. Syria also just suffered a devastating earthquake. I would hope they do not leave a void that adversaries would be thrilled to fill. 74% of members of the house voted against this plan.

$$$

The "Jewish Space Laser" lady is voting here. So the appeal to authority is very questionable.

Let's look at our military strategists. They all work for the Pentagon, so they've got nothing but incentive to keep the war machine rolling, despite not winning a war in 75 years.

Who controls the United States Government. Spoiler Alert it isn't you.

Because this is a good thing. But they should vote to authorize it affirmatively.

1. Assad needs to be held in check

2. ISIS needs to be defeated where it can be

3. Any opportunity to stop Russian imperialism is good actually

4. Stopping genocidal regimes is good actually

5. Benefits our relationship with Turkey

As liberals would say, for "democracy"

Because killing Russians and IS is seen as the best use of military $.

It's much different. There isn't much of a threat there. The only reason USA troops were sent there in the first place is because Russia was backing Assad.

How is us occupying Syria somehow “anti-imperialist”.

What are you a Raytheon consultant lol? What conflict have you served in and who are you willing to lose from your family to make this happen?

Bloodthirsty interventionists like you NEVER have skin in the game, outside of stock portfolios that is.

It’s become an Iranian proxy conflict. ISIL has been mostly cleaned up. Operations have become so specific that the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal only applies to certain theatres of Operation Inherent Resolve. Africa is the new primary hotbed for Islamic terror groups.

this answer is the most logical

​

greed corruption fear anxiety

all forms of human nature

this is simply just humans being humans

the humans that are caring,giving, show empathy and overall want all to live happy only react when they need to

this creates a cycle of allowing X humans to do Y and the actual humans that will keep us alive react to do Z

its not an equal or bigger force then humans that are not for humanity but for self preservation

thus the scales remain tipped

>despite not winning a war in 75 years

I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

• Korea (1950-1953)
• Lebanon (1958)
• Dominican Republic (Civil War, 1965-1966)
• Korea DMZ (1967-1969)
• Grenada (1983)
• Libya (1986)
• Tanker War (1987-1988)
• Panama (1989-1990)
• Gulf War (1990-1991)
• Iraqi no-Fly Zone (1991-2003), Prevented Saddam from commiting larger genocide
• Haiti (1994-1995)
• Kosovo (1998-1999)
• Pakistan (2004-2018), Pakistan asked us to intervene against the Taliban
• Somali Pirates (2009-2016)
• Libya (2011)
• Uganda (Lord's Resistance Army, 2011-2017)
• Iraq ISIL (2014-2021)
• Libya (2015-2019)

This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always.

The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

• Yemen, (2002 - Present)
• Somali, against Mujahideen, al Shabab, ISIS (2007 - Present)
• Syria, against ISIS, Russia, and Assad Regime (2014 - Present)
• Niger, to stop Boko Haram (2018 - Present)

Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

• Bosnia/Croatia (1992-1995), this war was a stalemate effectively which ended in the Dayton Accords and an akward situation for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Iraq (2003-2011), Saddam and Ba'ath party were gone. Iraq got a democratic government despite it being shaky, and overall less violence, but ISIS and other such groups were formed from this conflict, which forced the US to return in 2014.

For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will, because that is how smaller groups beat larger nations in war. The definite losses:

• Veitnam (1965-1973 US, 1955-1975 Overall), remember we didn't start this war, it was ongoing before we got involved.
• Loatian Civil War (1959-1975)
• Permesta Rebellion Indonesia (1958-1961)
• Bay of Pigs (1961)
• Somali (1992-1995)
• Afghanistan (2001-2021), succeed in initial mission, but couldn't hold the country forever from Taliban as the geography is difficult to control and other geopolitical goals became more pressing.

[deleted]

1. Overthrowing genocidal maniacs is a good thing and we shouldn't apologize for that. This Hitchens piece about Iraq applies all the same to Syria, except with the WMD lie from bush and Russia is using Syria as a puppet state.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/03/so-mr-hitchens-weren-t-you-wrong-about-iraq.html

2. It is bloodthirsty to be an apologist for Assad and his cohort in the name of being anti-war over pro-peace and freedom. What good is avoiding war if only to live under the iron fist of a dictatorship?

3. How many innocent people are you willing to have be slaughtered in the name of preservation of your anti-war stance so you can signal your virtuous high horse?

Yup. These shitheads have far more in common with each other than any of their constituents.

Exactly. This deployment has been there for a DECADE. Pulling it now, weeks after the earthquake, would be profligate.

It’s never been a “good idea” and it shouldn’t have been going on through three Administrations, but today would be exceptionally bad timing to rectify the mistake.

One thing the Service does really well is support Humanitarian missions. Syria is a mess and is literally and figuratively unstable: it’d be a bad look for the US to leave right now.

Lol you never served in the military in your fucking life and its too obvious. Would bet my life youve never even been in a serious physical fight whatsoever.

Please just stop before you embarrass yourself further. Nobody who has skin in the game talks like you, and if you had an ounce of humility you’d’ve recognized that already.

"my appeal to authority is all I need, because who cares about ethics"

Seems like that's something that needs to be taken to the SCOTUS if there is no authorization...

Im not appealing to authority, Im pointing out how obvious it is that youve never served or participated in combat based on your tone and arrogance.

People like you are the definition of a coward, advocate for wars youre too afraid to participate in only to feel like a “good person” on the internet.

You don’t have what it takes, and you lack the humility to ever become the type of person who would ever be useful in a life or death situation. This is why it’s so easy for you to speak so assuredly about things you’ll never experience.

If you even live in NH and have ant contact with military people whatsoever, you would know we are over-represented in combat deaths throughout OIF/OEF, so go talk to one of those families and ask what they think.

You won’t, you can’t, and everyone reading this who served knows exactly why. The OIF generation is getting older now, its best you stop expecting your tough-guy position to go unchallenged.

I really wish I could say that knowledgeable people made a wise decision here, but Iraq and Afghanistan make it hard to trust anymore. We do reactionary things with no plan capable of succeeding and stick with them to save face. Military intervention is messy and has all kinds of unintended side-effects. I hope we are doing good things here and I don't know enough to say we aren't, but I'm not willing to trust that we are simply because congress approves of it.

Not much news on this, but this article was good.

It seems Democrats were more so supportive to an amendment which would have extended the duration of the withdrawal in a different bill:

>In July 2022, the House voted on a proposed amendment to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act introduced by Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) that would have cut all funds for the US presence in Syria within one year if President Biden didn’t get authorization for the war. The amendment failed, but it received support from about 60% of House Democrats.

That bill was introduced by Democrats, so I think this is partially "we want the legislature we write to get passed, not the other side" kind of thing that always happens. E: NH House Reps still voted no on that amendment.

The only defense of this bill I see is from when the top US general visited Syria and essentially said our presence is to deter ISIS. Sounds kind of weak.

Bipartisanship when it benefits the military industrial complex. Deep divided party politics if it helps the rich, the poor, and everyone in the middle. I don't know if qualifies as oligarchy, but it sure as shit ain't representative democracy.

"Democrats for War!"

I think I'll get some of those bumper stickers made up.... throw everyone off.

>You don’t have what it takes

Ah, I see the faux-tough guy position takes are all the you have, because the Geopolitics of the situation don't add up for you so it's all personal attacks.

The only thing that matters are the ethical, strategic, and logistical concerns when determining whether or not intervention, new or continued, is a good idea. Not whether or not I could personally carry out the mission because someone on the internet needs an ego boost.

The reasons to stay on Syria are quite clear. Finish off the last of ISIL, pressure the genocidal Assad Regime, help stability for Kurdish people, undermine our geopolitical enemies in Iran and Russia. Russia being the key player here because that is a global impact with Ukraine, and with Russia and China's alliance growing, we need to undercut them everywhere we can. In addition, the United States has the obligation to help every single refugee we possibly can and if we can help Syria establish a democratic government despite the hardship recently faced that would also be miraculous.

>I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

Korea was a tie. This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war. Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

>This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always. The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

>Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

>For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will

You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?You think the US could've conducted an unprovoked military conquest of Cuba at the height of the Cold War without nuclear exchange?

Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

$$$$$$$$

[deleted]

When did that become our job to protect them?

This statement is really sad to me... in that you're including conscripted fighters in the mess of a volunteer "army" (IS). It's not YOU, it's the fact that so many are so... "okay" with this.

BAE and Raytheon donations to give two reasons.

The best antidote to trusting the government is having any knowledge whatsoever of history or current events.

Have to keep the spice flowing.

Yes. Please let’s not have independence thoughts people. Just shut up and go back to your jobs.

Ewwww.. What a cest fest!!

>Korea was a tie.

By no means can you claim that winning half of the peninsula when it was completely occupied a tie.

>Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

And? They are still separate wars with distinct missions.

>This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war.

The list really isn't as simple as you make it sound. Only in one of these Wars did the United States seek to install a dictatorship where a democratic regime was in place, the Dominican Civil War, and in others like in Indonesia, Veitnam, and Libya, it wasn't really a set of good choices, just useful or not.

In far more conflicts, the United States overthrew dictatorship to restore/set up democracy: Panama, Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia/Croatia, Somali (attempted), Afghanistan (while we were there), Korea.

>Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

Did I say every War was moral? Fuck no. And the Military can win an immoral conflict. Also that is ongoing so it has no determination.

>We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

Some of them asked us to leave, but many asked us to stay. It isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it is.

>You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?

With Afghanistan unquestionably yes, that was the status quo. Veitnam and Laos are more questionable, but like all guerrilla fighters against superior forces their goal was to make us not want to fight more than to beat us militarily. That is the Total Defense Strategy, making the occupying forces quit before they can gain total control.

>Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

Sure, but we were talking about Wars, not coups. They aren't the same thing.

For the most part, when speaking generally, I absolutely agree. With this particular issue, there are a lot of moving parts that date back decades. Some we don't know about. Others, we do. Too much to get into atm but I will simply say, at this point it has to do with the timing. Bad form to be pulling troops from an earthquake devastated country that we've been stationed in for years.

And of course, the hatred of Gaetz who presented this bill, is all encompassing. lol. Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone shutting him down.

Gotta keep Sig/Sauer happy, they have the military contract!

yeah why give up pwning the political opposition just because a few worthless lives are on the line

So glad someone said this. Often these personel are there in an advisory or other non combat roles. I am not saying that is the case here but people love to spout off about complicated shit like they know what they are talking about. The world is a complicated place but apparently it can be distilled down to a one or two sentence headline for all the prescient Einsteins out there to analyze. I'm not saying people in government are geniuses or fucking us over but give them at least a little credit and have a little humility when it comes to what you know or don't know ffs.

We could vote these chucklefucks out…

BAE, United Technologies, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Three “constituencies” that Kuster and Pappas protect. Even-if none are in Syria, it’s a quid pro quo for later support from other representatives.

“Hey, remember when I… … I need your support for submarine contract.”

The answer to all your questions is money 💰

I mean what outcome do we hope to affect there? Assad won, as it was clear he would several years ago. Let’s pull the fuck out already, it’s not our country, it’s not our war, it’s barely even a matter of projecting force, it’s not like anyone is unaware we have aircraft carriers and ICBMs at this point.

This is a joke, right? We have maintained the sanctions which hinder aid to people afflicted by the earthquakes. We just marched in, we can just march home. This guy probably thinks we needed to stay another 10 years in afghanistan

>"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist"
>
>- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

This may be a hot take for some, but I consider Eisenhower one of our most visionary presidents our country has ever elected into office.

[deleted]

Quid Pappas Quo

You, my friend, would like the good work of Tim Dillon

So expand American imperialism essentially

Thanks for pointing yourself out as someone who doesn’t read and then creates straw men to argue with. Bye.

Not at all. If another country isn't a vassal state then it isn't imperialism

I think he was last president of those who have been elected that history will consider “good.”

I am normally not a fan of military action but this is definitely not the time to relax pressure on a country that is arguably within Russian sphere of influence.

It's due to a strong local military industrial complex. They create the jobs, choose what your reps vote on, and you keep quiet, okay?

Just bring all our military home and stop being everyone’s babysitter or protector and doing the heavy lifting for nato !! Let Ukraine get monetary help from the uk If Russia hasn’t been able to take that country over since 2014 they are no threat to us

I had always been hesitant of former high-ranking military officers serving as president until I read more about Eisenhower

So did the Republicans, what's the problem? Seems pretty bipartisan to me.

"The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin

Our government has been bought out by corporate interests