Topper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:00 pm
US also maintains control of Syrian oil fields.
Controlling the oil or guarding it for Syria's benefit?
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:09 am
by ukcanuck
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:01 pm
I'm expecting UK to show up and claim the killing of Al-Baghdadi proves Lord Trump is a racist.
I’m still trying to find time to read the links you sent how democrats are actually closet KKK supporters.
But if I were to comment on the US getting Baghdadi to answer for his crimes. One has to give ones respect, I don’t know how much trump had to do with it. But it is the presidents right to take credit it as Obama did with bin laden at the time.
I’m not sure how much I appreciated trump floating over the win though.
Not much walk softly and carry a big stick there.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:37 am
by Per
So, I suppose you’ve all read up on how come the US could get to al-Baghdadi?
Just to appease the Trumpist fanboys, I will let Faux News do the honours:
[NORTHERN SYRIA – The U.S. raid that killed Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was months in the making and involved significant intelligence from Kurdish allies in Syria – including a rare informant at the heart of ISIS who was in the compound at the time of the raid, Fox News has learned.
Gen. Mazloum Abdi, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) commander, told Fox News how they tracked al-Baghdadi after the caliphate fell.
The general said the informant “told us that he moved west to Idlib, and to a specific house. We told American intelligence on May 15, and together set up a secret cell, which had three Americans in it.”
The SDF informant told them about the tunnels under the compound, how many people were with al-Baghdadi, and that he was planning to move, having been at that location for months. That’s when the U.S. carried out the attack at the compound Saturday, and brought out the informant safely.
Informants within ISIS are extremely rare. To have one so close to the leader is unheard of, and a remarkable achievement for Kurdish forces.
Mazloum said the raid could not have been possible without Kurdish intelligence.
Separately, a senior U.S. defense official described the SDF as a “key player” in the operation but noted the SDF and Kurds did not fly in with U.S. forces. The official said 11 children who were in the al-Baghdadi compound were “physically turned over to a trusted individual in the area.”
Mazloum also talked about the aftermath of President Trump's recent decision to pull troops from northeastern Syria -- a move critics say left Kurds who'd faithfully helped the U.S. contain ISIS vulnerable to a Turkish invasion.
“After the Americans pulled out, the Turks invaded, and we had no choice but to do a deal with the Syrian government and Russians. They were able to protect us. So, the Syrians moved to the border in place of the Americans.”
Fox News saw this, along with numerous cease-fire violations at the northern Syria front on Sunday. Syrian government forces took up their positions right opposite Turkish forces, which were just over half a mile away.
The Kurds said in the long run, they just couldn’t push back the Turkish Army themselves.
Gun battles raged, and Turkish drone strikes and gunfire were regularly observed.
Mazloum also opened up about the future in Syria, saying it wasn’t too late for the U.S. to come back and protect the Kurds. “Our relationship with President Trump depends on him fulfilling his promise of protecting us.”/quote] https://www.foxnews.com/world/al-baghda ... df-general
So, basically, the Kurds infiltrated ISIS and served up al-Baghdadi on a platter for the US. To which Trump says ”Thank you, now please bend over so I can screw you royally and hand you over to your worst enemy, who I happen to have a man-crush on. Come on, Erdogan, they’re all yours!”
The Brown Wizard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:37 am
Bitter about Baghdadi getting Bagged in Baghdad?
And here they were all up in arms about how Donny's moves were going to allow ISIS to rise up!
Well Per was up in arms... UK, not so much.
Well, from what I understand, pulling the troops out of Syria threatened to compromise this whole operation.
Kurdish intelligence had had a source at al-Baghdadi’s side since May, and conveying his reports to the US military. Apparently the US didn’t want to strike at once, but use the information they could get to map the entire organisation. I guess after the troops were pulled out it became more urgent, especially after Kurdish intelligence reported that al-Baghdadi was planning to regroup.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:50 am
Well Per was up in arms... UK, not so much.
That's the thing with the Swedes...they claim absolute neutrality in every conflict but have no issues being one of the top arms and military suppliers in Europe...possibly the world.
Bofors, SAAB Aerospace, Kockums....there's more but Per would be the one to ask about all that.
Actually the things are connected. Because Sweden opted for neutrality in the two world wars and the period thereafter, it was decided we needed our own domestic weapons industry. Since Sweden is a rather small country and the costs of being at the forefront of research and development in this area are high, the only way this could be done was if we could sell our weapons to other countries and through this accomplish economies of scale that would bring down the cost per product.
We do have huge issues with it though. Our laws basically say we are not allowed to sell to countries involved in an armed conflict. Thus we have now stopped deliveries to Turkey. But this is kind of hypocritical, and some political parties, mainly the Green Party and the Left Party want a complete ban on weapon exports. That would be very damaging to our economy though, since as Uncle Wiz pointed out, the weapons industry in Sweden is pretty huge and employs a lot of people.
Also, it would mean we’d have to start buying our weapons from abroad, which would create ties that might compromise our neutrality...
The neutrality argument rings rather hollow nowadays though, because we are a close partner to Nato (albeit still not a member) and part of several EU defence related organisations. So... more a remnant of the cold war.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:29 am
by Mickey107
Per wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:09 am
Sweden opted for neutrality in the two world wars and the period thereafter,
Guess that may have cost as many lives as it saved, huh?
Per wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:09 am
Sweden opted for neutrality in the two world wars and the period thereafter,
Guess that may have cost as many lives as it saved, huh?
Sorry, had to.
Probably not. In WW2 the Germans needed one month to conquer Norway, 18 days for Belgium, 4 days for the Netherlands and just 6 hours for Denmark. I doubt Sweden could have put up more of a fight, so probably, based on size, more closely to Norway than the other three, but let’s say somewhere between two and four weeks. Us entering the war against Germany would not have made any difference, realistically.
But by staying out, we could provide a safe haven for the Danish Jews, the Norwegian resistance and some 70,000 Finnish children. Not to mention the 20-30,000 Hungarian Jews that were saved by getting Swedish protective passports by Raoul Wallenberg and others at the Swedish embassy in Budapest. So, yeah, I think staying out saved lives.
Per wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:09 am
Sweden opted for neutrality in the two world wars and the period thereafter,
Guess that may have cost as many lives as it saved, huh?
Sorry, had to.
Probably not. In WW2 the Germans needed one month to conquer Norway, 18 days for Belgium, 4 days for the Netherlands and just 6 hours for Denmark. I doubt Sweden could have put up more of a fight, so probably, based on size, more closely to Norway than the other three, but let’s say somewhere between two and four weeks. Us entering the war against Germany would not have made any difference, realistically.
But by staying out, we could provide a safe haven for the Danish Jews, the Norwegian resistance and some 70,000 Finnish children. Not to mention the 20-30,000 Hungarian Jews that were saved by getting Swedish protective passports by Raoul Wallenberg and others at the Swedish embassy in Budapest. So, yeah, I think staying out saved lives.
Seriously?! That was hardly a concern.
Russia (or more correctly, the Soviet Union) was at war with Finland!
Sweden’s top priorities in WW2 were basically:
1) Try to keep Sweden out of it
2) Help Finland
3) Help Norway and Denmark
The reasoning behind allowing German soldiers stationed in Norway pass through Sweden on their way to leave in Germany and on their return to Norway was mainly the first. But if it incidently helped the Finns in their fight for survival, all the better.
I’ve said this before; if Sweden had joined the war on the allied side, we would have become allied with The Soviet Union, and they were at war with Finland. At the same time we had nearly 10,000 Swedish volunteers fighting for Finland and we had ”lent them” one third of our fighter aircraft and four bomb planes. Russia’s attempts to swallow Finland pretty much ensured we couldn’t join the allied side. We did not want Finland to become part of the Soviet Union.
Thus Russian casualties were the least of our concerns.
