Fact Checking The Democratic Debate on The Syria/Turkey Question

I’m not sure why it has me so fired up the last couple of days, but when I saw Joe Biden’s face on the television tonight being asked a question about President Erdogan’s new initiative in Syria and Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from the country I flicked off the TV and said “Fuck You. Fuck You. You know how many people died because of you?” Then I just kind of walked away for a second to calm down. When I walked back I proceeded to watch the rest of the debate surrounding Syria and I just shook my head the whole time.

I just couldn’t believe how perverted the Democrats logic was on this issue, which was easy to press forward given that there was no opposition to any of their points of view – so they all just piled on. So, for the purposes of this “article” I just want to fact check some of the so called information the international public was subjected to tonight.

What I think angered me most was the fact the nearly all the Democrats, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, essentially vowed to create a new permanent and more official War in Syria if they ever became President in 2020. But it’s almost as if they have no understanding why the USA “lost” the War in Syria in the first place? It was because Russia literally went all in to back/save Bashir al-Assad, for a number of reasons I am not going to talk about today. Meanwhile, the USA merely has 1,000 troops forced to operate under the rules of engagement, which esentially doesn’t allow them to fire a shot without permission. Russia on the other hand will blow anything and anyone up anytime, and they don’t give a f*ck about it either. Point being, for the USA to ever logistically “win” in Syria it would have had to dramatically stepped up military presence and directly taken on Russian forces already stationed on the ground there – id est the USA would literally have to go to War with Russia to win in Syria. Is that what the Democrats want? All out War with Russia? To bad there wasn’t anyone around to challenge their strong positions on this subject.

But that brings me to my second point. Why did Russia beat us to the punch in Syria? This was because of Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s decision to not invest more heavily in the country than we did, instead choosing to ship weapons and munitions to forces already on the ground in Syria, rather than have US forces do it directly for themselves. Such as was the case with arming the Kurds, whom were gifted more arms and munitions than you can shake a big stick at, which is now why Turkey has to target them militarily today, because the US armed them so heavily they became their own rogue militant threat in the region – which happens to border Turkey. Keeping up yet?

Point being, the decision to not invest in Syria more heavily, sooner, was Obama/Biden’s decision or indecision. Moreover, the decision to overthrow the the Assad regime in the first place was also made by Obama/Biden, and the decision to arm the Kurds so heavily was also made by Obama/Biden’s – leading to the crisis everyone is debating today. The Dems all said that Donals Trump has all the blood on his hands for what he did, but they need not look any further than the man man on stage with them, Joe Biden, whom has more blood on his hands than Doanld Trump could ever soak in – specifically in regards to talk to Syria. I guess if Biden is looking for the guilty, he need not look any further than a mirror.

Also, lets be real. There is a reason why Turkey “flipped” on the United States and why commentators now have to ask the question at the 2019 debate “does Turkey still belong in NATO?” The question is obviously yes, why do you think Donald Trump is doing what he is doing? To save NATO. Just think about it, if the US engages in Syria more heavily, specifically in regards to backing up the Kurds coming under assault, the US would literally be engaging with and against Turkey – a NATO member. So, it begs the question, if two NATO allies start bombing one another, what does that mean for Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and which side would all the other NATO countries have to come in defense with? You see, stopping Erdogan in Syria now would mean two NATO countries going to War with one another, which would essentially spell the end of NATO entirely. By exiting Syria, Trump is avoiding a NATO breakup. In this sense, Trump is trying to save the NATO alliance for much bigger issues which may arise throughout the future – preserving its power structure. Does the Democrats want to break up NATO just to save the Middle Eastern Kurds? Is that really a deal they are willing to cut, also going to War with Turkey in the process? I think not, but just let them talk all loud and proud in front of a microphone for a night.

** EDITORS NOTE: Turkey flipped on the USA in 2016 to side with Russia because Russia showed Turkey some leaked cables in the weeks leading up the attempted coup of President Erdogan in July 2016, which was easily foiled by the President. As Turkey has now since also proven, not only did they see hacked materials from the US by their Russians counterparts meant to sway their opinions, but Turkey also produced evidence of their own that the CIA and Obama/Biden were behind the attempted coup – largely for many of the same fallacious notions you are hearing about the Syrian conflict in the Democrats debate today. Essentially, Obama/Biden and Israel wanted Erdogan out to get rid of Assad and create a new Kurdish state. As they say, the so called “Best laid plans of mice and men” – right? Or should it be, “how Biden/Obama f*cked up the Middle East and US relations for a decade?” There is a reason Turkey turned on the USA and Trump has nothing to do with it – it was all Obama/Biden **

I guess that’s all I really have to say here, I’m just being real about the situation. I have no ‘skin in the game,’ what do I have to gain from typing this out for you? I don’t support Trump and I am not a Democrat, but you better damn sure bet even I would give Donald Trump a high five for pulling out of Syria. Better to end it now and not to make it our next Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Vietnam, or Korea – etc.

Op-Ed: Boomers v Millennials (2019 US Presidential Election Version)

I’ll be the first to admit, I’ve done everything humanly possible to distance myself from the US Presidential election and all of the hoopla surrounding it – at least while we are still in the calendar year 2018, that is. But riding back from work the other day I couldn’t help but hear the man on the radio say “Bernie Sanders is now fully recovered from his heart attack.” To which I made the remark to my boss, “Bernie Sanders had a heart attack?” Not so sarcastically adding, “well that must have finally put a nail in the coffin of his political career?” My boss responded with a laugh and “you’d think.” To which I responded “I’d hope. I mean that makes his Vice Presidential pick particularly important, doesn’t it?

Now, I may not ever vote for Sanders once day but that doesn’t mean I look at him as the enemy or hold bad feeling towards him. My social commentary was specifically in regards to age and how it effects work performance, such as in the most stressful job in the entire world; the US Presidency. Bernie Sanders is 78 now and the November 2019 election is not even 1 year away at this point, yet he is already having heart attacks over stress in the Democratic prelims to the elections? How the hell can any voter, even his closest followers, now justify voting for this man to become the Nations next President for the next 4-8 years? I mean, he literally almost just died of old age – not so far away from John McCain’s death either. In this instance, Bernie Sanders Vice Presidential pick might just be who you are voting for in the 2019 election, not for the man (candidate) himself – which is a dangerous thought/notion, and not an unjustified one either.

For the life of me, I just can not understand. How long has Bernie Sanders served in Office? How long have some of his counterparts like Joe Biden? Almost 50 years now! When will enough be enough? When will they ever retire or step away from their power trip? I mean, you only have to be 35 years old the run for the Presidency, so why are all of the leading candidates and the current incumbent more than twice as old as that? It just madness to me. Regardless, it reminds me of an old opinion editorial I wrote a few years back as an onlooker to the US primary election season, leading up to the 2016 US Presidential debate. I believe its sentiments hold equally strong then as they do today, which is why I am releasing it here for this website again today.

Download Op-Ed File: https://roguemedia.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BoomersvMillenials.pdf

Boomers v Millenials (4 Pages)

[pdf-embedder url=”https://roguemedia.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BoomersvMillenials.pdf”%5D
** If you cant scroll through the pages, hover your mouse over pdf (above), click and notice the scrolling up and down arrows on the bottom left **