This was explained to you by another one of your commenters in another post but there is no way that Turkey was going to attack and kill our soldiers. The soldiers were there expressly for this reason and were removed because Trump and Erdogan reached an agreement on the Kurds. Trump hung the Kurds, our allies in the fight against ISIS, out to dry. It has damaged America's reputation, resulted in the escape of ISIS fighters and has caused massive instability in the region.
It was a HUGE mistake and has been recognized by such by a bipartisan agreement.
This is an important issue and it doesn't help to have people spreading false information.
The big question is why Trump did it. We'll find out in the future but for now it's just important to understand what is actually happening.
Since it's difficult for the average citizen to make informed decisions on matters of strategic importance, we have to pick someone we trust and go with their informed opinion. In matters of War and Peace, I have always trusted Rand Paul. He thinks like I do, and he is against global interventionism and regime change. He thinks the President made the right decision, and as such, I will defer to his professional opinion.
@6:51--just now saw your comment. So, you are now the expert on the middle-East? 28 troops were there and you believe that was some deterrent to Turkey invading Syria? Really? The President has told us his reasoning. We don't know what Erdogan said to Trump in that phone call but whatever it was, Trump moved those soldiers out of harm's way. So if there is more to the story, you and I don't know what it is. Perhaps if Congress wants to declare war on someone...but besides ISIS, who the hell is our enemy?
Yes, really, Lynn. Do you know what happens to Turkey if they kill American troops? Turkey knows. And they would never attack U.S. troops. I'll repeat: that's exactly why they were there in the first place.
Turkey is a NATO ally. NATO allies do not attack and kill each other's troops.
I'm not an expert. But I have commonsense.
And, again, if you really think that Turkey would knowingly and egregiously slaughter American troops, you must think very little of the power and the respect that Trump says he has.
anonymous @ 7:29- Your opinion. No one knows what the hell Turkey would have done if we had left our soldiers there. But he obviously told the President that he was invading the next day. Your mistake is 2nd guessing the President. There are casualties of war and the Untied States is NOT in a war and therefore our soldiers were ordered to get out of harm's way. We were there to contain ISIS. Turkey knew we were not in a "war" with them or anyone else over there...they made the move. So,l don't give me your crap about what I must think.
"No one knows what the hell Turkey would have done if we had left our soldiers there."
Well, actually YOU said they would be "slaughtered" so I guess there is one person who knows.
Look, I'm trying, in the face of your insults and meanness to explain why it wasn't a foregone conclusion that US troops would have been attacked. You obviously reject it and that's fine. We all have our opinions.
But you really don't have to be so nasty about me having a different opinion than yours.
I'd like to know who..in this flood of anonymous posters, thinks they actually KNOW enough about what has been going on between the Kurds, the Turks and America - for these anonymous posters to believe they have a RIGHT to an opinion.... If you don't know anything -- you do not have the right to voice an opinion..................... Ignorant people used to know enough to keep their mouths shut. Today with anonymity, there is no such fear of justified embarrassment.......So how about you try Googling what bad things the Kurds have done to the US and to Turkey. Google what value the Kurds have to the US versus the value Turkey has to the US. Google the threat the Kurds represent to our ALLIES the Turks.................. Even though I spent about 100 times more time researching this than 99% of the people reading this blog did-- I will be the first to admit I don't know what I don't know in this...that you would need to be directly involved at the highest level of military intelligence or the President himself, to really know the "threat balances" that needed to be considered for this issue. None of you anonymous mouthers know these "threat balances", and I'd still like to find out if even one of you researched the bad things the Kurds did.
Dan, calm down. I said wasn't an expert and I was expressing an opinion, which, actually, you're doing, too.
You have no idea what I've done in my research or what my background is but I'm glad you're armed with great amounts of Google to attack me for having an opinion.
Is it a requirement of being a Trump supporter to be mean & cranky all the time?
@10:33--Trump supporters are not "mean." Look to your own party for "nasty" that might make some of us "cranky." And Dan, this anonymous poster is one person, not a sea of liberals going after our President and his decision.
An "anonymous" poster, has no rights....as a known American poster, the "real person" would have all constitutional rights...but not the right to post fake news or blatant lies caused by pure ignorance, or rigid faith in CNN propaganda. " Anonymous" should try acknowledging that without being in the top chain of command, he/she/it could not possibly know the critical "threat balance"...
I made it very clear that I wasn't an expert and that it was my opinion. Something, actually, that Lynn hasn't done in voicing her opinion that our servicemen and women would have been slaughtered.
Are you saying anonymous commenters aren't allowed to have opinions. Holy mackeral!
All of these countries didn't just appear on the map. Some of these countries weren't even on a map until after the WWI. WWII further confused the issue, and the crumbling of the Soviet Bloc countries clinched the deal.
Unless you are grounded in the intricacies of these countries histories, and have studied them at a graduate level, or have a genetic background that lends itself to favor one over the other, we are all just novices.
Arm Chair Generals abound these days, but what the President did most recently, was the right thing to do for this time and place in this chapter of American History.
How do you know the names being used are real? Anyone can create an account under any name and post under that name. Unless you've actually met the person IRL, they could be anyone.
Under your reasoning I could use the name "Stan Hollingsworth" and immediately become "credible," right?
That makes zero sense to anyone who understands the internet...and maybe THAT'S the problem.
@5:40--have an account that can be verified, that is not brand new, etc. Have some history about you. Have a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram page. You know the process. And you, of course, are anonymous attempting to make a point that failed.
What's the point? If I want to use my name, I might just as well write an editorial in the newspaper.
A blog of this type has no credibility period. We're not journalists; we're not getting paid. It's just a place to air your opinion.
I've got news for you: The entire Economist has no authors listed for their articles. Sometimes they are pages long. Opinion pieces read by the business leaders world wide.
And you're worried about a 2 sentence blog post being anonymous.
@7:21...an editorial in a newspaper? Good one. One thing about this blog is that I can delete your post...poof--you are gone. And I'm not the least bit worried about 2 sentences. It is what you say in those 2 sentences. This is not a blog for pushing a liberal agenda of any kind. If you believe in what you say, use your name. Why not?
Funny, I thought this was a NEIGHBORHOOD BLOG where you can discuss issues important to people that live in Lake Worth --- with your neighbors.
And so you are suggesting that you and some others need a safe place to make comments anonymously, so that you won't be embarrassed to have people in the town know what YOU actually think? If you are worried about consequences, I'd suggest you make sensible comments, in which case there could be no reason to be embarrassed. Good people do not need to hide behind fake names. Bad people with fake names destroyed USENET in the late 1990's...all the anonymous trolls....and anonymous posting has only negative value among actual neighbors in a town blog like Lynn's.
Dan, There's an old saying that I would think still holds true: "You can pick your friends" If you want to meet people and discuss things with them, I suggest that you go to Dunkin Donuts, or another coffee shop. There are usually people there who enjoy a good conversation. The purpose of a blog, is more adversarial, and that is what makes the anonymous aspect of it intriguing. These days, you have to tread carefully sharing your opinions in public. Kind of like bumper stickers. You really don't want your windows broken. (or your nose)
I disagree that the purpose of a blog is for adversarial or confrontational posting. If you want a blog for that, go make your own blog. I would ask lynn to DROP the anonymous posters....make each person use a real name, and authenticate with Facebook ID's and emails.
If enough of Lynn's audience asked for this, it could make the Blog a much better community.
It just occurred to me that with the many thousands of people in Lynn's audience, most will not comment, and of those that do, they need to be very motivated to do so...Along the same lines, conceptually, the Palm Beach Post has about 88,000 in their circulation, and in most articles, relatively speaking--only a handful of people will comment. If the Post ended commenting all together, it would mean NOTHING to their circulation. If Lynn kills anonymous posting, it will have no negative effect on her audience size...and maybe a large increase, as many of us do not like having to see the drooling lunacy of the left pushed in front of us. Without the drooling leftist nonsense, the site would have it's overall value increased.
29 comments:
354 House members voted today to condemn Trump's retreat. Over 100 Republicans joined them.
Even Lindsey Graham has criticized him harshly.
It's not just Democrats, Lynn. Please, please stop spreading false information.
Yeah, everyone wants to condemn and have our troops in harm's way.
This was explained to you by another one of your commenters in another post but there is no way that Turkey was going to attack and kill our soldiers. The soldiers were there expressly for this reason and were removed because Trump and Erdogan reached an agreement on the Kurds. Trump hung the Kurds, our allies in the fight against ISIS, out to dry. It has damaged America's reputation, resulted in the escape of ISIS fighters and has caused massive instability in the region.
It was a HUGE mistake and has been recognized by such by a bipartisan agreement.
This is an important issue and it doesn't help to have people spreading false information.
The big question is why Trump did it. We'll find out in the future but for now it's just important to understand what is actually happening.
Are the 354 members going to put on a uniform and join the force in the never ending Middle East conflict?
They want to expose young Americans to dangers that President Trump has taken them away from.
Since it's difficult for the average citizen to make informed decisions on matters of strategic importance, we have to pick someone we trust and go with their informed opinion. In matters of War and Peace, I have always trusted Rand Paul. He thinks like I do, and he is against global interventionism and regime change. He thinks the President made the right decision, and as such, I will defer to his professional opinion.
Every single Democrat voted against the President's decision.
I can't help that.
@6:51--just now saw your comment.
So, you are now the expert on the middle-East?
28 troops were there and you believe that was some deterrent to Turkey invading Syria? Really?
The President has told us his reasoning. We don't know what Erdogan said to Trump in that phone call but whatever it was, Trump moved those soldiers out of harm's way. So if there is more to the story, you and I don't know what it is.
Perhaps if Congress wants to declare war on someone...but besides ISIS, who the hell is our enemy?
Yes, really, Lynn. Do you know what happens to Turkey if they kill American troops? Turkey knows. And they would never attack U.S. troops. I'll repeat: that's exactly why they were there in the first place.
Turkey is a NATO ally. NATO allies do not attack and kill each other's troops.
I'm not an expert. But I have commonsense.
And, again, if you really think that Turkey would knowingly and egregiously slaughter American troops, you must think very little of the power and the respect that Trump says he has.
anonymous @ 7:29-
Your opinion.
No one knows what the hell Turkey would have done if we had left our soldiers there. But he obviously told the President that he was invading the next day. Your mistake is 2nd guessing the President.
There are casualties of war and the Untied States is NOT in a war and therefore our soldiers were ordered to get out of harm's way. We were there to contain ISIS. Turkey knew we were not in a "war" with them or anyone else over there...they made the move.
So,l don't give me your crap about what I must think.
"No one knows what the hell Turkey would have done if we had left our soldiers there."
Well, actually YOU said they would be "slaughtered" so I guess there is one person who knows.
Look, I'm trying, in the face of your insults and meanness to explain why it wasn't a foregone conclusion that US troops would have been attacked. You obviously reject it and that's fine. We all have our opinions.
But you really don't have to be so nasty about me having a different opinion than yours.
Have a good day. Seriously.
I plan on having a very good day...and your personal attacks towards me or our President are rejected.
And one more thing--start posting under your real name. You might find a different "tone" from me. Maybe.
I'd like to know who..in this flood of anonymous posters, thinks they actually KNOW enough about what has been going on between the Kurds, the Turks and America - for these anonymous posters to believe they have a RIGHT to an opinion.... If you don't know anything -- you do not have the right to voice an opinion..................... Ignorant people used to know enough to keep their mouths shut. Today with anonymity, there is no such fear of justified embarrassment.......So how about you try Googling what bad things the Kurds have done to the US and to Turkey. Google what value the Kurds have to the US versus the value Turkey has to the US. Google the threat the Kurds represent to our ALLIES the Turks.................. Even though I spent about 100 times more time researching this than 99% of the people reading this blog did-- I will be the first to admit I don't know what I don't know in this...that you would need to be directly involved at the highest level of military intelligence or the President himself, to really know the "threat balances" that needed to be considered for this issue. None of you anonymous mouthers know these "threat balances", and I'd still like to find out if even one of you researched the bad things the Kurds did.
As President Trump said, "Kurds are no angels. In some ways they are worse than ISIS."
Dan, calm down. I said wasn't an expert and I was expressing an opinion, which, actually, you're doing, too.
You have no idea what I've done in my research or what my background is but I'm glad you're armed with great amounts of Google to attack me for having an opinion.
Is it a requirement of being a Trump supporter to be mean & cranky all the time?
@10:33--Trump supporters are not "mean." Look to your own party for "nasty" that might make some of us "cranky."
And Dan, this anonymous poster is one person, not a sea of liberals going after our President and his decision.
An "anonymous" poster, has no rights....as a known American poster, the "real person" would have all constitutional rights...but not the right to post fake news or blatant lies caused by pure ignorance, or rigid faith in CNN propaganda. "
Anonymous" should try acknowledging that without being in the top chain of command, he/she/it could not possibly know the critical "threat balance"...
Dan...I'll say it slowly.
I made it very clear that I wasn't an expert and that it was my opinion. Something, actually, that Lynn hasn't done in voicing her opinion that our servicemen and women would have been slaughtered.
Are you saying anonymous commenters aren't allowed to have opinions. Holy mackeral!
Go do a dive or something, Dan. Y'all are wacky.
Anonymous posters have ZERO credibility. That’s all... easy to understand. And keep your name calling in check. Thank you. :)😇
All of these countries didn't just appear on the map. Some of these countries weren't even on a map until after the WWI. WWII further confused the issue, and the crumbling of the Soviet Bloc countries clinched the deal.
Unless you are grounded in the intricacies of these countries histories, and have studied them at a graduate level, or have a genetic background that lends itself to favor one over the other, we are all just novices.
Arm Chair Generals abound these days, but what the President did most recently, was the right thing to do for this time and place in this chapter of American History.
"Anonymous posters have ZERO credibility."
How do you know the names being used are real? Anyone can create an account under any name and post under that name. Unless you've actually met the person IRL, they could be anyone.
Under your reasoning I could use the name "Stan Hollingsworth" and immediately become "credible," right?
That makes zero sense to anyone who understands the internet...and maybe THAT'S the problem.
@5:40--have an account that can be verified, that is not brand new, etc. Have some history about you. Have a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram page. You know the process. And you, of course, are anonymous attempting to make a point that failed.
What's the point? If I want to use my name, I might just as well write an editorial in the newspaper.
A blog of this type has no credibility period. We're not journalists; we're not getting paid. It's just a place to air your opinion.
I've got news for you: The entire Economist has no authors listed for their articles. Sometimes they are pages long. Opinion pieces read by the business leaders world wide.
And you're worried about a 2 sentence blog post being anonymous.
@7:21...an editorial in a newspaper? Good one.
One thing about this blog is that I can delete your post...poof--you are gone.
And I'm not the least bit worried about 2 sentences. It is what you say in those 2 sentences. This is not a blog for pushing a liberal agenda of any kind. If you believe in what you say, use your name. Why not?
A @ 7:21
Funny, I thought this was a NEIGHBORHOOD BLOG where you can discuss issues important to people that live in Lake Worth --- with your neighbors.
And so you are suggesting that you and some others need a safe place to make comments anonymously, so that you won't be embarrassed to have people in the town know what YOU actually think? If you are worried about consequences, I'd suggest you make sensible comments, in which case there could be no reason to be embarrassed. Good people do not need to hide behind fake names. Bad people with fake names destroyed USENET in the late 1990's...all the anonymous trolls....and anonymous posting has only negative value among actual neighbors in a town blog like Lynn's.
Dan, There's an old saying that I would think still holds true: "You can pick your friends" If you want to meet people and discuss things with them, I suggest that you go to Dunkin Donuts, or another coffee shop. There are usually people there who enjoy a good conversation. The purpose of a blog, is more adversarial, and that is what makes the anonymous aspect of it intriguing. These days, you have to tread carefully sharing your opinions in public. Kind of like bumper stickers. You really don't want your windows broken. (or your nose)
I disagree that the purpose of a blog is for adversarial or confrontational posting. If you want a blog for that, go make your own blog. I would ask lynn to DROP the anonymous posters....make each person use a real name, and authenticate with Facebook ID's and emails.
If enough of Lynn's audience asked for this, it could make the Blog a much better community.
It just occurred to me that with the many thousands of people in Lynn's audience, most will not comment, and of those that do, they need to be very motivated to do so...Along the same lines, conceptually, the Palm Beach Post has about 88,000 in their circulation, and in most articles, relatively speaking--only a handful of people will comment. If the Post ended commenting all together, it would mean NOTHING to their circulation. If Lynn kills anonymous posting, it will have no negative effect on her audience size...and maybe a large increase, as many of us do not like having to see the drooling lunacy of the left pushed in front of us. Without the drooling leftist nonsense, the site would have it's overall value increased.
Post a Comment