# Days after US pulls 1,000 troops away from allies in Syria, 3,000 are deployed to protect Saudi oil



## Xzi (Oct 12, 2019)

Yes, unfortunately you read that correctly.  Within hours of US forces withdrawing away from the vicinity of our Kurdish allies, Turkey began bombing them, even resulting in a near miss on US forces themselves.  Despite the White House trying to spin this as "time to bring our troops home," just a few days later 3,000 additional troops are being deployed to Saudi Arabia, three times the number who were serving as a deterrent from a Turkish incursion against our allies.  This brings the deployment increase to Saudi Arabia to 14,000 since May of this year, and the total number of US troops there to 17,000.



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper says he has authorised the deployment of additional forces, including fighter jets and a defence system.  He said it was in response to "threats in the region", amid efforts to protect the kingdom from "Iranian aggression".
> 
> You would be forgiven for feeling confused about President Trump's attitude to US military deployments in the Middle East.  At one point in the past few days he was tweeting about the "trillions of dollars" that America had wasted on "endless wars" in the region and vowing that the US would "back out" of Middle East conflicts.  Yet here we are with a further 3,000 service personnel and a bunch of hardware heading for Saudi Arabia and the region - making a net 17,000 increase in troop numbers since May.  So unquestionably the rhetoric and the reality are in conflict.



From my point of view, a show of force in these kinds of numbers hardly seems "precautionary."  Making matters worse, the only concern the president appears to have amidst all this is how much the Saudis are willing to pay.



So I have to wonder what the dollar value is for the life of each Kurdish fighter and civilian that we've abandoned to the slaughter.  Or each US soldier that will die as soon as we're inevitably ordered to war with Iran by Mohammad Bin Salman.

In case you're wondering, yes, this all makes me quite angry.  The Saudis are not our allies.  They tortured and murdered Jamal Khashoggi, and they funded and trained the 9/11 hijackers.  The idea that we might further destabilize the Middle East and sacrifice more soldiers on their behalf is sickening, and would solidify this as the darkest possible timeline.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 12, 2019)

W...w-witch hunt?
Good thing the Saudis helped us in WWII, amirite?

For reals though this is sickening


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 12, 2019)

So are we defending Saudi's democracy from starving Yemeni children or something? The Syria pullout seemed promising to me, but I should have known there would be a disgusting catch.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 12, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> So are we defending Saudi's democracy from starving Yemeni children or something? The Syria pullout seemed promising to me, but I should have known there would be a disgusting catch.


Perhaps the worst part is that the troops in Syria aren't being pulled out of the region and being brought home, they've just withdrawn to nearby bases and outposts.  Which means the soldiers who fought side by side with the Kurds against ISIS are forced to watch those same allies be slaughtered little by little.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 12, 2019)

"US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper says he has authorised the deployment of additional forces, including fighter jets and a defence system.

He said it was in response to "threats in the region", amid efforts to protect the kingdom from "Iranian aggression".

"The move comes after an attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities in September."
The attack on Saudi oil facilities knocked out 5% of global oil supply and sent oil prices soaring. Both Saudi Arabia and the US blame Iran for the incident.

Mohammed bin Salman said: "If the world does not take a strong and firm action to deter Iran, we will see further escalations that will threaten world interests.""

------------------------------
It seems from the article you posted, this is just another case of the US being called on to "police" the middle East for the rest of the world, while the UK, Canada, Germany, etc sit on their hands doing nothing to very little to protect their own interests while we send our soldiers to battle.
I would say we should be frustrated at the European nation's for allowing these things to happen.  Don't forget that these countries suffer from terrorist attacks as well, but they also suffer when oil prices go skyhigh.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 12, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It seems from the article you posted, this is just another case of the US being called on to "police" the middle East for the rest of the world, while the UK, Canada, Germany, etc sit on their hands doing nothing to very little to protect their own interests while we send our soldiers to battle.
> I would say we should be frustrated at the European nation's for allowing these things to happen.  Don't forget that these countries suffer from terrorist attacks as well, but they also suffer when oil prices go skyhigh.


The bottom line is that the US needs to invest in the future and end its dependence on foreign oil, just as the rest of the world does.  Otherwise we end up beholden to dictators and authoritarians who are just as likely to turn against us at a moment's notice.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Perhaps the worst part is that the troops in Syria aren't being pulled out of the region and being brought home, they've just withdrawn to nearby bases and outposts.  Which means the soldiers who fought side by side with the Kurds against ISIS are forced to watch those same allies be slaughtered little by little.


Nothing against the Kurds, per se, but I suspect there is an ulterior motive behind our alliance with them, namely the borders of the nations shared by their presence. Then you have Netanyahu warning against an ethnic cleansing of "gallant Kurds". Not to say that he's wrong, but that's pretty rich coming from a guy who specializes in it.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 12, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Nothing against the Kurds, per se, but I suspect there is an ulterior motive behind our alliance with them, namely the borders of the nations shared by their presence. Then you have Netanyahu warning against an ethnic cleansing of "gallant Kurds". Not to say that he's wrong, but that's pretty rich coming from a guy who specializes in it.


Well, the ulterior motive to our continued alliance was mostly their willingness fight against ISIS.  Thousands of ISIS prisoners are likely to break free as a result of the US abandoning them in Syria.

However, the alliance can also be traced all the way back to 1971, or even back to reports of some Kurds fighting against the Nazis in WW2.


			
				NPR said:
			
		

> The Kurds don't have a state even today, and they never had an army to participate in World War II. But anecdotally, there were Kurdish soldiers who fought the Nazis in Germany alongside the British army, for example. But there were also Kurdish soldiers fighting the Nazi-supported Iraqi government.
> 
> The Iraqi-Kurdish Peshmerga was instrumental not only in the fight against ISIS but even 2003 - the northern front to the invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was from Kurdistan and was in coordination, cooperation with the Kurdish Peshmerga. But if you're going for the - down to memory lane, in 1990, when President Bush 41 asked the Iraqi people to rise against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the Kurds responded to that. And unfortunately, once Saddam Hussein's tanks rolled into Kurdistan, the U.S. just stood by, and that resulted in a massive exodus of Kurds to the mountain.
> 
> And you can also go all the way back to 1971, 1974, where the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq were fighting Saddam Hussein's regime, and the United States was arming them and supporting them in order to dissuade Saddam Hussein from falling into the Soviet orbit at the time. But of course, when Saddam Hussein finally came through, that support was lifted.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well, the ulterior motive to our continued alliance was mostly their willingness fight against ISIS.  Thousands of ISIS prisoners are likely to break free as a result of the US abandoning them in Syria.
> 
> However, the alliance can also be traced all the way back to 1971, or even back to reports of some Kurds fighting against the Nazis in WW2.


So basically friends-with-benefits, no official relationship?


----------



## morvoran (Oct 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The bottom line is that the US needs to invest in the future and end its dependence on foreign oil, just as the rest of the world does. Otherwise we end up beholden to dictators and authoritarians who are just as likely to turn against us at a moment's notice


 the problem with these "future visions" you believe in is that they do not take into account our present day issues.  We cannot build this utopian perspective you have without fossil fuels to power the factories to build the green energy solutions, a world economy to pay for them, or countries to buy them.

This is why the US sends troops to these "enemy" lands to protect the interests of the world, not just our own.  If we just sat back and did nothing like the rest of the world, we would have more 3rd world countries as well as being one ourselves.
The reason why democrats and even some Republicans are against Trump removing troops from Syria is that they feel like we need to protect everybody else all the time regardless of the benefits.  I personally think we should choose our battles and, in this case, Saudi Arabia is where we need to focus right now.

We were only supposed to stay in Syria for 3 months, but ended up there for years.  We can't protect everybody who won't defend themselves forever.  Besides, we will eventually destroy Turkey's economy through sanctions since they can't seem to not invade Syria.  No other country is going to do anything (except the UN will probably demand we do something while they sit on their thumbs as well).


----------



## Xzi (Oct 12, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> So basically friends-with-benefits, no official relationship?


Unfortunately it's mostly been a one-sided relationship, they've been there to fight on the US' behalf time and again, but we've abandoned them when they needed us most before, and now we're doing it again.  At this rate, who knows how much longer we'll have any true allies left in the Middle East.


----------



## DarkSeele (Oct 12, 2019)

*I'm just going to leave this here:*


----------



## Xzi (Oct 12, 2019)

morvoran said:


> the problem with these "future visions" you believe in is that they do not take into account our present day issues. We cannot build this utopian perspective you have without fossil fuels to power the factories to build the green energy solutions, a world economy to pay for them, or countries to buy them.


Both solar and wind power are soon to become far cheaper per kilowatt hour than power produced from oil/coal.  Regardless, we should be a lot closer to energy independence in 2019 than we actually are, even if that meant using some transitional energy source for a period, such as nuclear.



morvoran said:


> This is why Democrats and even Republicans are against Trump removing troops from Syria. They feel like we need to protect everybody else all the time. I personally think we should choose our battles and, in this case, Saudi Arabia is where we need to focus right now.


Absolute bull.  17,000 troops aren't going to accomplish anything that 14,000 troops couldn't, and there is no "battle" going in SA unless we decide to start one with Iran.  1,000 troops was enough to keep a battle from breaking out in Syria, and now that they've withdrawn, there's no easy fix.  Whatever comes next in that conflict will be a lot harder and a lot more costly for us in the long run, both in terms of lives and money.  The ISIS prisoners who are now freed as a result of that decision aren't going to go retire on a beach somewhere.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The ISIS prisoners who are now freed as a result of that decision aren't going to go retire on a beach somewhere.


"Yay, Isis free from dis prison"


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Both solar and wind power are soon to become far cheaper per kilowatt hour than power produced from oil/coal.  Regardless, we should be a lot closer to energy independence in 2019 than we actually are, even if that meant using some transitional energy source for a period, such as nuclear.


Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 12, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.


Not too mention the displacement of ecosystems where they are located. They block out light and take up room that plants and animals otherwise use.
But I don't think it's fruitless, simply give and take. We should use solar everywhere it doesn't affect ecosystems, for instance on roofs, parking lot overheads, hell why not make the sidewalk solar panels? Disregarding cost, of course.

Concerning nuclear power, my issues are that there is no official disposal method of the toxic waste produced. This and that nuclear meltdowns are extremely hazardous and dangerous. Sure, there are many ways to prevent and contain meltdown, but all of that requires a corporation to not take the easy/cheap route, and firmly ensure the working condition of such systems. Additionally, this is ignoring the possibility of malicious, forced meltdown.

Btw that graph is extremely skewed, in that it's only comparing volume of waste per energy, and neither negative effects nor cost of disposable of the waste itself. Nuclear creates different waste with different negative impacts than solar waste.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 12, 2019)

short term, nuclear is certainly the solution, if we'd finally figure out fusion reaction, we'd be golden mid-term as that has a much better power to waste ratio.

and if we're lucky, we can find something beyond that. just, we're not gonna do any of it without putting money towards it. and before that, money towards education.


----------



## aos10 (Oct 12, 2019)

It's really saddens me what is happening to my country Syria, my family home got hit by a rocket but didn't exploded, however it made big open crack in the ceiling. 
Most my relatives ran away from syria and i am living in Saudi Arabia, and the worst part is i can't travel to any other country except syria. Great.

Syria in wars for several years and no one want to help, yamen in war and every country want to help. 
Yey.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 12, 2019)

oh i cant wait til trumps out maybe we should drop him off in the middle of syria when he becomes ex president see what happens (yes I'm brazen for saying that but this shit has to end i'm not fucking scared of anyone at this point it's time to let loose my true opinion regardless of conciquence i'm sick and tired of hiding my true thoughts and feelins always hiding my true feelings my anger and rage at the current admin


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 13, 2019)

aos10 said:


> It's really saddens me what is happening to my country Syria, my family home got hit by a rocket but didn't exploded, however it made big open crack in the ceiling.
> Most my relatives ran away from syria and i am living in Saudi Arabia, and the worst part is i can't travel to any other country except syria. Great.
> 
> Syria in wars for several years and no one want to help, yamen in war and every country want to help.
> Yey.


Sorry to hear  I hope you are safe and find some comfort


----------



## billapong (Oct 13, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> short term, nuclear is certainly the solution, if we'd finally figure out fusion reaction, we'd be golden mid-term as that has a much better power to waste ratio.
> 
> and if we're lucky, we can find something beyond that. just, we're not gonna do any of it without putting money towards it. and before that, money towards education.



Yeah, that's nice and all, but until we build a system that's not dependent on oil out of oil itself we're still dependent on oil, thus we still have interests in middle eastern oil. If environmentalists would allow us to use the oil on our own lands we could cut out the middle man and speed up the process of making a fossil fuel less society, but the environmentalists are fine with the result, which is us meddling in other countries affairs. The oil has to come from somewhere and you can't magically build a system that powers the country without oil when oil is required to build said system.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It seems from the article you posted, this is just another case of the US being called on to "police" the middle East for the rest of the world, while the UK, Canada, Germany, etc sit on their hands doing nothing to very little to protect their own interests while we send our soldiers to battle.
> I would say we should be frustrated at the European nation's for allowing these things to happen.  Don't forget that these countries suffer from terrorist attacks as well, but they also suffer when oil prices go skyhigh.


It's not in our interest to constantly provoke and put sanctions on Iran. Compared to the US, Iran is a spotless white dove. Even if it's true that Iran supports Hamas, it only affects Israel, not the US. And even then, Saudis (who you are allied with) create far more destruction in the region (plus around the world).
So basically your soldiers aren't soldiers but paid mercenaries protecting Israel and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 13, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yeah, that's nice and all, but until we build a system that's not dependent on oil out of oil itself we're still dependent on oil, thus we still have interests in middle eastern oil.


 Yeah, it's going to be hard to get some of the more vocal people here to understand this since they think "good intentions" can make the world a better place where reality doesn't quite work that way.
To everyone else thinking green energy is going to save the day, we would have to burn up all the world's fossil fuels and have thousands of nuclear reactors to power the facilities that would make enough wind turbines and solar cells to cover the entire world's need for electricity while destroying countless forests to make enough room for all of them. 
While it is a shame that people are being killed by other nations, we need soldiers in places that contain the fossil fuels the first world countries use today to keep the world from becoming a "Mad Max" style apocalyptic world. 
While it seemed that the US could protect the Kurds with only 1000 troops, Turkey was still going to attack Syria regardless if the US was there or not.  We need more troops in Saudi Arabia because that is what people a lot more knowledgeable about battle than all of us decided what was best.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 13, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yeah, that's nice and all, but until we build a system that's not dependent on oil out of oil itself we're still dependent on oil, thus we still have interests in middle eastern oil. If environmentalists would allow us to use the oil on our own lands we could cut out the middle man and speed up the process of making a fossil fuel less society, but the environmentalists are fine with the result, which is us meddling in other countries affairs. The oil has to come from somewhere and you can't magically build a system that powers the country without oil when oil is required to build said system.


you make it sound like we haven't been using oil for the last dozens of decades.

the point is, as long as oil is the cheapest solution, no one is 'wasting' money on developing the long term solution we'd need.

and as long as oil has as much money and influence as they have, they're going to swoop in and fuck with all research and development for such solutions that could hurt their bottom line. wether thats through buying off politicians trying to add co2 or other types of environment taxes (or even so much as regulations meant to prevent people from being poisoned from running water) or by buying patents or researchers. it's not going to happen.

and by the time you're out of oil, you still won't have that alternative, not to mention, all of that really long term environmental damage, extreme weather and souring oceans fucking up our food supplies, desertification because we've used up most of the groundwater and poisoned the rest while fracking for another couple gallons of oil. in addition to rising sea levels and all that other tipping point crap we're only just realizing we're also approaching steadily.





morvoran said:


> While it seemed that the US could protect the Kurds with only 1000 troops, Turkey was still going to attack Syria regardless if the US was there or not.  We need more troops in Saudi Arabia because that is what people a lot more knowledgeable about battle than all of us decided what was best.


yeah, that decision came from one single person who did not even take advise from any of his knowledgeable advisers. then he sold it as bringing the soldiers back when no one comes back and more are being sent. stop bullshitting people.

the us could have protected the kurds with even 100 people because any of those 100 people killed could've caused an actual war with the us which the turks would've never risked.

you need more soldiers in saudi arabia because they've bought your spineless little president and got the rest of the whole spineless nation for free.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 13, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> you make it sound like we haven't been using oil for the last dozens of decades.
> 
> the point is, as long as oil is the cheapest solution, no one is 'wasting' money on developing the long term solution we'd need.
> 
> ...



This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense with no actual proof of a "deep state" trying to hold back research.  I can say all day that wind turbines kill countless numbers of defenseless birds and solar cells eat babies (one of those is true).  That doesn't make people stop researching them.
The reason we don't invest more into these "green energies" is that they are extremely inefficient and expensive while requiring a lot of land to build them on.  Obama tried investing in several green companies (look up Solyndra) during his presidency and every one of them went bankrupt.  I bet you could say that somebody may have posted a blog saying they were forced out by the big oil industry, but that doesn't take away from the fact that green companies cannot sustain long term profits.

If we need to destroy the Amazon rainforest and convert countless acres into solar fields, how is this going to help our "greenhouse gas" issue?  Where will we live, plant our crops, build these factories to make solar cells and wind turbines when all our land is being used to produce enough electricity to power our world?



Clydefrosch said:


> yeah, that decision came from one single person who did not even take advise from any of his knowledgeable advisers. then he sold it as bringing the soldiers back when no one comes back and more are being sent. stop bullshitting people.
> 
> the us could have protected the kurds with even 100 people because any of those 100 people killed could've caused an actual war with the us which the turks would've never risked.
> 
> you need more soldiers in saudi arabia because they've bought your spineless little president and got the rest of the whole spineless nation for free.


  Bringing our soldiers home from a pointless situation is never a bad thing.  Sure, we sent more to Saudi Arabia, but that was a much better use of our soldiers.  I believe protecting the world's economy from being destroyed because Iran destroyed the oil fields is a very good reason to send more troops there. 

If we took our troops out of Syria, why didn't any other country offer to send their soldiers in if they were so needed?   There is no reason for Americans to be the only ones dying to protect others that won't protect themselves.  You may like our soldiers dying for pointless reasons, but I do not and think Trump made a good call.


----------



## billapong (Oct 13, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> you make it sound like we haven't been using oil for the last dozens of decades.
> 
> the point is, as long as oil is the cheapest solution, no one is 'wasting' money on developing the long term solution we'd need.
> 
> ...



When did I ever state we haven't been using oil since the dawn of the industrial revolution? I stated that it takes oil to produce the energy required to create the wind turbines, solar panels and other various tech that produces green energy. In the USA at least a lot of our power comes from non-fossil fuel sources, but until we produce enough technology to completely replace oil we're dependent on said oil.

At least in our country even with the relaxing of laws around coal most of the population wants renewable energy. The free market has spoken and it's for getting rid of oil, but we just can't do it over night. So understand that even with removing laws surrounding fossil fuels (we don't need a law on every single thing in existence, we're not all Liberal) that the USA wants renewable energy, maybe that's different around the globe, but not here.

So, running out of oil? When exactly is that going to happen this time? Back in the 1970's when I first heard the dire predictions I was scared, but then it never happened. People keep saying it's going to happen and every time it never happens they simply change the date. I got tired of being lied to and stopped paying attention, but just like how Miami, Florida is supposed to be under water in 5 years can you provide me with an estimated date when we'll run out of oil? Humor me, because that's all you'l get out of me (a laugh).


----------



## Xzi (Oct 14, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.


That certainly makes sense, a single nuclear plant can supply energy to at least half a state, whereas solar panels are sized to supply power to individual houses/businesses.  The easiest solution is to rely on hydro and wind power as much as possible, with solar and nuclear energy to fill in the gaps where the first two aren't viable for whatever reason.



morvoran said:


> If we took our troops out of Syria, why didn't any other country offer to send their soldiers in if they were so needed? There is no reason for Americans to be the only ones dying to protect others that won't protect themselves. You may like our soldiers dying for pointless reasons, but I do not and think Trump made a good call.


Nobody was dying with a US presence among the Kurds, our forces were serving as a deterrent.  People are dying and ISIS militants are being freed specifically because of the decision to withdraw.  There is no way to justify that as a "good call."  It's only going to extend the seemingly endless "war on terror" further.


----------



## notimp (Oct 14, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.


Issue - atomic waste is highly toxic for a few billion years, we havent found a real 'final storage site' yet, and if one plant breaks, its more than broken glass.  Scaling up on nucular is kind of problematic. (Just put all the reactors at the border to your neighboring countries?  )

Also can you educate me what kinds of waste products we are talking about here? Because the Silicium gets recycled, and the rest is glass and... what?

Is this a smartphones produce 3000x the waste of nuclear, while even costing power!!11!!1! kind of 'issue'?


----------

