Russia-Ukraine War Part 2

[drekwins]

My Guy, Russia, like the U.S. and China are legitimate super powers. and have warned about targeting Crimea and in the case of China, Taiwan What did you think would happen after another attack on that Bridge? Or what will happen if we keep fkn with China and Taiwan?

BTW, only 3% of the grains were reaching Africa via Ukraine, which was what Ukraine agreed to, so RU has promised to send free grain to the neediest of African countries to make up the difference.

In any event, we just adopted a pretty large country that we'll have to take care of not only militarily but share our $ economically. This is not Puerto Rico.
Good luck to our kid's 401s and future elderly social security checks.

But we'll bounce on Ukr like we did in destroyed Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya to name the most well known. But there have been less documented trashed countries like El Salvador in the 70s/80s etc.

Russia is not a superpower. Russia is in the C-league compared to USA and China. Russias economy is a fraction of the size of California.

Ok, a lesson in recent history.
There was once a very vastly rich country which found itself in the mist of total destruction. This by a newly funded and dangerous group.

The country's legitimate leader then calls upon another's help. This country comes in and allows for negotiations and terms with said members of that group. Those who want to leave this/that zone can be accomodated by buses to another area. However, those that choose to remain will get rocked.

This invited country quicly sets up a no fly zone then proceeds to systematically stabilize the country and just as important do away with said group for the safety of not only the host country but all regional, including African countries. Thus many countries and common folks near and far are dearly grateful for it. Millions of kids, men, women young and old were saved. Also those other millions that left paniced can one day return home. And so it was written.

Yeah my Guy, there is only one other country on this planet I know of, that can achieve that.

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

[Pointgod]

The U.S. wanted war with Russia and regime change without having to send own soldiers for close to 30 years at least. The Neocons wanted to fight the russians for decades now. They planned every step along the way to create a situation where their wish could come true and they succeeded.

How did the neocons convince Russia to invade a sovereign country? That’s quite the Jedi mind trick on God emperor Putin.

[Zenzibar]

Russia is not a superpower. Russia is in the C-league compared to USA and China. Russias economy is a fraction of the size of California.

Ok, a lesson in recent history.
There was once a very vastly rich country which found itself in the mist of total destruction. This by a newly funded and dangerous group.

The country's legitimate leader then calls upon another's help. This country comes in and allows for negotiations and terms with said members of that group. Those who want to leave this/that zone can be accomodated by buses to another area. However, those that choose to remain will get rocked.

This invited country quicly sets up a no fly zone then proceeds to systematically stabilize the country and just as important do away with said group for the safety of not only the host country but all regional, including African countries. Thus many countries and common folks near and far are dearly grateful for it. Millions of kids, men, women young and old were saved. Also those other millions that left paniced can one day return home. And so it was written.

Yeah my Guy, there is only one other country on this planet I know of, that can achieve that.

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

"Guarding the Conoco Oil Fields" stop right there and pause a moment. It"ll hit you.

[Zenzibar]

The U.S. wanted war with Russia and regime change without having to send own soldiers for close to 30 years at least. The Neocons wanted to fight the russians for decades now. They planned every step along the way to create a situation where their wish could come true and they succeeded.

How did the neocons convince Russia to invade a sovereign country? That’s quite the Jedi mind trick on God emperor Putin.

Convinced like the late JFK was convinced on not wanting nukes sites near our country, in Cuba. Same sht.
jeez God Help Us. Please! Wake the fk up, do it for youself.

[drekwins]

Ok, a lesson in recent history.
There was once a very vastly rich country which found itself in the mist of total destruction. This by a newly funded and dangerous group.

The country's legitimate leader then calls upon another's help. This country comes in and allows for negotiations and terms with said members of that group. Those who want to leave this/that zone can be accomodated by buses to another area. However, those that choose to remain will get rocked.

This invited country quicly sets up a no fly zone then proceeds to systematically stabilize the country and just as important do away with said group for the safety of not only the host country but all regional, including African countries. Thus many countries and common folks near and far are dearly grateful for it. Millions of kids, men, women young and old were saved. Also those other millions that left paniced can one day return home. And so it was written.

Yeah my Guy, there is only one other country on this planet I know of, that can achieve that.

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

"Guarding the Conoco Oil Fields" stop right there and pause a moment. It"ll hit you.

This was in an area of the country under threat from ISIS, who was using the oil to fund their operations. ConocoPhillips is also an American company. It made sense for them to protect it from entering ISIS hands, or Assads, or Irans, or Turkeys, or a number of other forces out there.

[Clyde_Style]

The U.S. wanted war with Russia and regime change without having to send own soldiers for close to 30 years at least. The Neocons wanted to fight the russians for decades now. They planned every step along the way to create a situation where their wish could come true and they succeeded.

How did the neocons convince Russia to invade a sovereign country? That’s quite the Jedi mind trick on God emperor Putin.

Seriously now, WTF?

I'll have whatever HopelesslyThick is having

[Clyde_Style]

Russia is not a superpower. Russia is in the C-league compared to USA and China. Russias economy is a fraction of the size of California.

Ok, a lesson in recent history.
There was once a very vastly rich country which found itself in the mist of total destruction. This by a newly funded and dangerous group.

The country's legitimate leader then calls upon another's help. This country comes in and allows for negotiations and terms with said members of that group. Those who want to leave this/that zone can be accomodated by buses to another area. However, those that choose to remain will get rocked.

This invited country quicly sets up a no fly zone then proceeds to systematically stabilize the country and just as important do away with said group for the safety of not only the host country but all regional, including African countries. Thus many countries and common folks near and far are dearly grateful for it. Millions of kids, men, women young and old were saved. Also those other millions that left paniced can one day return home. And so it was written.

Yeah my Guy, there is only one other country on this planet I know of, that can achieve that.

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, Trump abandoned them after they had given their lives on our oath. One of the biggest betrayals among all alliances in American history.

[Zenzibar]

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

"Guarding the Conoco Oil Fields" stop right there and pause a moment. It"ll hit you.

This was in an area of the country under threat from ISIS, who was using the oil to fund their operations. ConocoPhillips is also an American company. It made sense for them to protect it from entering ISIS hands, or Assads, or Irans, or Turkeys, or a number of other forces out there.

So ISIS takes from the Syrian nation and by "proxy" we take it from both and then turns the field's operation over to ConocoPhillips. That's some real bully ball sht right there my Guy. No?

You conviniently stopped short of the full story regarding those oil fields. I hope you were being deceptive and not just another sheep.

Check it, there's an article here from ABCNews that I would like you to tell me if you agree or not with. Avoid the "Yes but" or the "No buts". Yes/No like in high
school. Pure left article of course ...

We're keeping the oil' in Syria, Trump says, but it's considered a war crime
The Pentagon said the U.S. would use force to protect troops securing the oil.

ByConor Finnegan
October 28, 2019, 7:39 PM ET
• 10 min read

After President Donald Trump said on Monday the U.S. will be "keeping the oil" in northeastern Syria, his administration is looking into the "specifics," according to a senior State Department official -- but it's prompted renewed cries that doing so is a war crime.

Trump has a long history of calling for the U.S. to "take the oil" in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria in particular. But any oil in both countries belongs to their governments, and according to U.S. law and treaties it has ratified, seizing it would be pillaging, a technical term for theft during wartime that is illegal under U.S. and international law.

"We're keeping the oil," Trump said Monday to a conference of police chiefs in Chicago. "I've always said that -- keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We've secured the oil."

President Donald Trump speaks in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, Sunday, Oct. 27, 2019, to announce that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed during a US raid in Syria.

On Sunday, when detailing the U.S. special forces raid against ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Trump said U.S. troops would remain in Syria to secure "massive" oil reserves and even put up "a hell of a fight" against any force that tried to take them.

"We should be able to take some also, and what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly," he added.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed Monday that U.S. troops will remain in the eastern Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor "to secure the oil fields" against ISIS. But the senior State Department official said the administration was "just beginning to look at the specifics of this," and downplayed a U.S. role in seizing any oil.

Instead, the official implied that the Syrian Democratic Forces, the majority-Kurdish forces that fought with the U.S. against ISIS, would continue to extract and profit off the oil produced in the area.

If U.S. troops or companies were to take any oil without Assad's government's permission, it would be considered pillaging, according to legal experts, because the land and its resources belong to Assad, who despite the eight-year civil war remains the country's head of state.

Pillaging is illegal under international law, explicitly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the U.S. ratified as a treaty in 1955. The U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 also made it punishable under U.S. law to commit a "grave breach" of any of the Geneva conventions "whether inside or outside the United States."

These codifications were built on many previous legal prohibitions and military practices, from the charter of the Nuremberg trials that prosecuted the Nazis after World War II, to the Hague Convention of 1907 which was first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt, all the way back to the 1863 Lieber Code. Commissioned and signed by President Abraham Lincoln, it governed the conduct of the Union Army in the field during the American Civil War and prohibited "all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force," punishable by death.

Although the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court in 1998, 122 other countries are and could extradite American officials if required to by the court -- something the Trump administration has vociferously battled in a possible ICC investigation into war crimes by the U.S., the Taliban and other forces in Afghanistan.

Still, the senior State Department official said securing oil fields is simply part of U.S. forces' fight against ISIS, not any U.S. effort to extract oil.

"It's very important to keep that out of the hands of ISIS, given ISIS's history of fueling and funding its caliphate with those oil fields," they told reporters Monday, adding, "The revenues generated by that allow the SDF to operate as a security and governance entity in the northeast, which thus contributes to our platform of D(efeating) ISIS there."

The administration has said those U.S. forces in northeastern Syria are there to combat the terror group ISIS -- arguing that means their deployment is within the authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, that Congress passed in 2001. That's debatable, according to many Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as that law was passed specifically to counter al-Qaeda and those that aided it with the Sept. 11 attacks, but saying U.S. forces are now there to secure oil fields has raised greater alarm among lawmakers about the legality of their deployment.

Syrians work at a primitive oil facility, where petrol for cars and heating fuel are being extracted from crude oil purchased from wells controlled by the predominantly Kurdish Syrians

In particular, Trump threatened to use military force to defend U.S. control of the oil fields, saying, "Either we'll negotiate a deal with whoever is claiming it, if we think it's fair, or we will militarily stop them very quickly."

The Pentagon confirmed that U.S. forces would "respond with overwhelming military force against any group who threatens the safety of our forces there," according to Esper, even if it were Assad or his backers Russia and Iran. But that kind of fight over oil fields would not be permitted under the AUMF, setting up at the very least a legal battle with Congress.

"Congress never authorized the troops in Syria in the first place, let alone troops to protect oil fields. This is unconstitutional," tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.

Beyond the legality, many critics have also said Trump's initial decision to withdraw U.S. forces and abandon the SDF that lost 11,000 fighters as the de facto U.S. foot soldiers against ISIS, but now keep some hundreds of troops to guard oil further undermines America's standing.

"We'll betray an ally, but we'll go back in to protect the oil? That sickens me, frankly, yada yada yada Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told ABC's "This Week" on Sunda
@@@@

So my Guy, I really, really doubt you made it this far. But either you agree with the Don or not. Which is it?

[drekwins]

Ok, a lesson in recent history.
There was once a very vastly rich country which found itself in the mist of total destruction. This by a newly funded and dangerous group.

The country's legitimate leader then calls upon another's help. This country comes in and allows for negotiations and terms with said members of that group. Those who want to leave this/that zone can be accomodated by buses to another area. However, those that choose to remain will get rocked.

This invited country quicly sets up a no fly zone then proceeds to systematically stabilize the country and just as important do away with said group for the safety of not only the host country but all regional, including African countries. Thus many countries and common folks near and far are dearly grateful for it. Millions of kids, men, women young and old were saved. Also those other millions that left paniced can one day return home. And so it was written.

Yeah my Guy, there is only one other country on this planet I know of, that can achieve that.

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, Trump abandoned them after they had given their lives on our oath. One of the biggest betrayals among all alliances in American history.

I'm all too aware. I was disgusted and ashamed of the decision then and I still hate it. The United States still has troops is Syria, though... but yeah, complete betrayal.

[Clyde_Style]

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, Trump abandoned them after they had given their lives on our oath. One of the biggest betrayals among all alliances in American history.

I'm all too aware. I was disgusted and ashamed of the decision then and I still hate it. The United States still has troops is Syria, though... but yeah, complete betrayal.

That POS Trump did it for his buddy Putin. Disgusting

[drekwins]

"Guarding the Conoco Oil Fields" stop right there and pause a moment. It"ll hit you.

This was in an area of the country under threat from ISIS, who was using the oil to fund their operations. ConocoPhillips is also an American company. It made sense for them to protect it from entering ISIS hands, or Assads, or Irans, or Turkeys, or a number of other forces out there.

So ISIS takes from the Syrian nation and by "proxy" we take it from both and then turns the field's operation over to ConocoPhillips. That's some real bully ball sht right there my Guy. No?

You conviniently stopped short of the full story regarding those oil fields. I hope you were being deceptive and not just another sheep.

Check it, there's an article here from ABCNews that I would like you to tell me if you agree or not with. Avoid the "Yes but" or the "No buts". Yes/No like in high
school. Pure left article of course ...

We're keeping the oil' in Syria, Trump says, but it's considered a war crime
The Pentagon said the U.S. would use force to protect troops securing the oil.

ByConor Finnegan
October 28, 2019, 7:39 PM ET
• 10 min read

After President Donald Trump said on Monday the U.S. will be "keeping the oil" in northeastern Syria, his administration is looking into the "specifics," according to a senior State Department official -- but it's prompted renewed cries that doing so is a war crime.

Trump has a long history of calling for the U.S. to "take the oil" in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria in particular. But any oil in both countries belongs to their governments, and according to U.S. law and treaties it has ratified, seizing it would be pillaging, a technical term for theft during wartime that is illegal under U.S. and international law.

"We're keeping the oil," Trump said Monday to a conference of police chiefs in Chicago. "I've always said that -- keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We've secured the oil."

President Donald Trump speaks in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, Sunday, Oct. 27, 2019, to announce that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed during a US raid in Syria.

On Sunday, when detailing the U.S. special forces raid against ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Trump said U.S. troops would remain in Syria to secure "massive" oil reserves and even put up "a hell of a fight" against any force that tried to take them.

"We should be able to take some also, and what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly," he added.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed Monday that U.S. troops will remain in the eastern Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor "to secure the oil fields" against ISIS. But the senior State Department official said the administration was "just beginning to look at the specifics of this," and downplayed a U.S. role in seizing any oil.

Instead, the official implied that the Syrian Democratic Forces, the majority-Kurdish forces that fought with the U.S. against ISIS, would continue to extract and profit off the oil produced in the area.

If U.S. troops or companies were to take any oil without Assad's government's permission, it would be considered pillaging, according to legal experts, because the land and its resources belong to Assad, who despite the eight-year civil war remains the country's head of state.

Pillaging is illegal under international law, explicitly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the U.S. ratified as a treaty in 1955. The U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 also made it punishable under U.S. law to commit a "grave breach" of any of the Geneva conventions "whether inside or outside the United States."

These codifications were built on many previous legal prohibitions and military practices, from the charter of the Nuremberg trials that prosecuted the Nazis after World War II, to the Hague Convention of 1907 which was first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt, all the way back to the 1863 Lieber Code. Commissioned and signed by President Abraham Lincoln, it governed the conduct of the Union Army in the field during the American Civil War and prohibited "all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force," punishable by death.

Although the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court in 1998, 122 other countries are and could extradite American officials if required to by the court -- something the Trump administration has vociferously battled in a possible ICC investigation into war crimes by the U.S., the Taliban and other forces in Afghanistan.

Still, the senior State Department official said securing oil fields is simply part of U.S. forces' fight against ISIS, not any U.S. effort to extract oil.

"It's very important to keep that out of the hands of ISIS, given ISIS's history of fueling and funding its caliphate with those oil fields," they told reporters Monday, adding, "The revenues generated by that allow the SDF to operate as a security and governance entity in the northeast, which thus contributes to our platform of D(efeating) ISIS there."

The administration has said those U.S. forces in northeastern Syria are there to combat the terror group ISIS -- arguing that means their deployment is within the authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, that Congress passed in 2001. That's debatable, according to many Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as that law was passed specifically to counter al-Qaeda and those that aided it with the Sept. 11 attacks, but saying U.S. forces are now there to secure oil fields has raised greater alarm among lawmakers about the legality of their deployment.

Syrians work at a primitive oil facility, where petrol for cars and heating fuel are being extracted from crude oil purchased from wells controlled by the predominantly Kurdish Syrians

In particular, Trump threatened to use military force to defend U.S. control of the oil fields, saying, "Either we'll negotiate a deal with whoever is claiming it, if we think it's fair, or we will militarily stop them very quickly."

The Pentagon confirmed that U.S. forces would "respond with overwhelming military force against any group who threatens the safety of our forces there," according to Esper, even if it were Assad or his backers Russia and Iran. But that kind of fight over oil fields would not be permitted under the AUMF, setting up at the very least a legal battle with Congress.

"Congress never authorized the troops in Syria in the first place, let alone troops to protect oil fields. This is unconstitutional," tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.

Beyond the legality, many critics have also said Trump's initial decision to withdraw U.S. forces and abandon the SDF that lost 11,000 fighters as the de facto U.S. foot soldiers against ISIS, but now keep some hundreds of troops to guard oil further undermines America's standing.

"We'll betray an ally, but we'll go back in to protect the oil? That sickens me, frankly, yada yada yada Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told ABC's "This Week" on Sunda
@@@@

So my Guy, I really, really doubt you made it this far. But either you agree with the Don or not. Which is it?

Pump the brakes. There have been long relationships between United States oil companies and Syria. Syria actually solicited American companies to partner with Syria to help explore, locate and refine oil within their country. One of the many American companies they contracted with was ConocoPhillips. Then, ConocoPhillips discovered several reserves and built process plants. This dates back to the early 2000s.

You are intentionally making it sound as if American companies stole from the Syrian people. In reality, they wanted the USA there! The United States companies provided the expertise and technology required to process these natural resources. They did not have the capabilities.

Fast forward to the war, the same Conoco Fields were captured by ISIS in 2014. Keep in mind, this is the largest producing refinery in all of Syria. ISIS cashed in on the profits from this facility for 3 years until it was taken back under control by US Special Forces and US-backed Forces in 2017. There is no way to spin this as a negative, unless you also support ISIS.

Meanwhile, the Civil War is still in-progress. There are still extremists within the country. At the same time, Iran also has forces in the country and is hopeful to carve out paths through the Northwest... which would put them with a direct path to Israel. Meanwhile, the USA supports the Kurds. When you add all of this volatility together, it makes perfect sense for the USA Special Forces to continue occupation of Conoco, alongside the Kurdish.

One other thing that I want to note about Assad is that he is also now an illicet drug dealer. Captagon production skyrocketed in Syria after it caught popularity with Syrias neighbors as a party drug stimulant. They are all unhappy about it. The issue has become so bad that a country bombed a Captagon manufacturing facility and then the home of a drug kingpin known to be distributing it. The party most likely responsible for the airstrikes on the facility was Jordan. Assad is a loser and a scumbag, Of course he wants American forces out of Syria. However, USA stands with the Kurds.

[HopelessKnick]

Lol please enlighten me, and everyone, on how that conflict started? Wasn't it something along the lines of the "legitimate" dictator (who received his education in the West) authorizing the kidnapping, torture and murder of school age students that wrote graffiti on walls with messaging that he took offense to? Yeah, that was it.

Assad is a murdering punk and a low-life. He is not Syria. He is Syria dictator. Big difference. Also, please remind me, what happened at the Battle of Khasham? lol Oh wait, I'll refresh your memory - 40 American Special Forces and Kurdish fighters were guarding the Conoco Oil Fields. 500 Russian Wagner forces and Syrian Govt Forces approached and began firing on them. Russia was notified to attempt to de-escalate the situation. They continued and the group of 40 ripped them to shreds, with air raid, after air raid, after air raid in a massive show of force. 200-300 Russians/Syrians were killed, the rest were wounded and left running away. ZERO American or Kurdish forces were injured or killed. Look up the Battle of Khasham on Youtube, there are all re-creations and Audio tapes from the Russians troops that survived. They were left in awe of what a real Superpower could do and will have nightmares of that day forever.

"Guarding the Conoco Oil Fields" stop right there and pause a moment. It"ll hit you.

This was in an area of the country under threat from ISIS, who was using the oil to fund their operations. ConocoPhillips is also an American company. It made sense for them to protect it from entering ISIS hands, or Assads, or Irans, or Turkeys, or a number of other forces out there.

Guarding the conoco Oil fields. Drekwins is a complete lost cause, a pure brainwashed propagandist with no hope to have anything close to a world view that could reflect reality in a somewhat balanced way.

Thank god the U.S. were "guarding" (mind you not occupying and stealing the oil) but "guarding" the conoco oil fields. So kind of them. And surely enough it wasn't the russians, iranians combined with the leftover syrians that played by far the biggest role in defeating IS in Syria and Iraq. Thankfully the U.S. is still occupying and stealing syrian oil--ah sorry I mean "protecting" it...long after IS has been defeated. The same action for which Russia has been condemned ---attacking and occupying another country--- the U.S. like so often in history is doing to this day in bright daylight....this time just boldly occupying and stealing syrian oil...and the propagandists convert it into "protecting"....can't make this **** up.

[HopelessKnick]

The U.S. wanted war with Russia and regime change without having to send own soldiers for close to 30 years at least. The Neocons wanted to fight the russians for decades now. They planned every step along the way to create a situation where their wish could come true and they succeeded.

How did the neocons convince Russia to invade a sovereign country? That’s quite the Jedi mind trick on God emperor Putin.

Seriously now, WTF?

I'll have whatever HopelesslyThick is having

Well you can---it is caused interest and knowledge. It would take the effort of spending many hours studying international politics/history etc. It is not very difficult to do, but you won't find it on CNN.

The Neocons pushed NATO closer and closer to russias border, knowing fully that it would likely lead to war. Angela Merkel used to say NATO in Ukraine equals war in Europe, there is no circumstance imaginable where it does not lead to war in europe. The U.S. promised Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 that they would be joining the alliance in the near future, knowing FULLY WELL that this would be the path to war with Russia. To stop this thing in its tracks would have been possible at any step along the way. It just needed a commitment to say: "NATO can't be extended right on Russias borders. We ourselves would never accept chinese or russian military alliances or bases in Mexico or Canada so we are not going to extend NATO there. We can work with Russia around a framework of guarantees to secure Ukraine, but NATO cannot be in Georgia or Ukraine."

But the intention was always war with Russia, in the hopes of Destabilization and potential breakup. The caucasus republics having always been somewhat prone to eying independence.

It is really odd that someone would ask the above question about the neocons. It just reveals the utter lack of understanding of how these things work. You even HAVE THE HISTORIC example of Cuba and you would still ask the question? Didn't the U.S. threaten a nuclear strike on Cuba? Didn't they as a first step engage a complete sea blockade? Aren't they still sanctioning Cuba 60 years after against the will of the entire world (minus Israel). Now imagine a scenario with China or Russia building military alliances and military bases in Mexico and Canada.

[HopelessKnick]

This was in an area of the country under threat from ISIS, who was using the oil to fund their operations. ConocoPhillips is also an American company. It made sense for them to protect it from entering ISIS hands, or Assads, or Irans, or Turkeys, or a number of other forces out there.

So ISIS takes from the Syrian nation and by "proxy" we take it from both and then turns the field's operation over to ConocoPhillips. That's some real bully ball sht right there my Guy. No?

You conviniently stopped short of the full story regarding those oil fields. I hope you were being deceptive and not just another sheep.

Check it, there's an article here from ABCNews that I would like you to tell me if you agree or not with. Avoid the "Yes but" or the "No buts". Yes/No like in high
school. Pure left article of course ...

We're keeping the oil' in Syria, Trump says, but it's considered a war crime
The Pentagon said the U.S. would use force to protect troops securing the oil.

ByConor Finnegan
October 28, 2019, 7:39 PM ET
• 10 min read

After President Donald Trump said on Monday the U.S. will be "keeping the oil" in northeastern Syria, his administration is looking into the "specifics," according to a senior State Department official -- but it's prompted renewed cries that doing so is a war crime.

Trump has a long history of calling for the U.S. to "take the oil" in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria in particular. But any oil in both countries belongs to their governments, and according to U.S. law and treaties it has ratified, seizing it would be pillaging, a technical term for theft during wartime that is illegal under U.S. and international law.

"We're keeping the oil," Trump said Monday to a conference of police chiefs in Chicago. "I've always said that -- keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We've secured the oil."

President Donald Trump speaks in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, Sunday, Oct. 27, 2019, to announce that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed during a US raid in Syria.

On Sunday, when detailing the U.S. special forces raid against ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Trump said U.S. troops would remain in Syria to secure "massive" oil reserves and even put up "a hell of a fight" against any force that tried to take them.

"We should be able to take some also, and what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly," he added.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed Monday that U.S. troops will remain in the eastern Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor "to secure the oil fields" against ISIS. But the senior State Department official said the administration was "just beginning to look at the specifics of this," and downplayed a U.S. role in seizing any oil.

Instead, the official implied that the Syrian Democratic Forces, the majority-Kurdish forces that fought with the U.S. against ISIS, would continue to extract and profit off the oil produced in the area.

If U.S. troops or companies were to take any oil without Assad's government's permission, it would be considered pillaging, according to legal experts, because the land and its resources belong to Assad, who despite the eight-year civil war remains the country's head of state.

Pillaging is illegal under international law, explicitly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the U.S. ratified as a treaty in 1955. The U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 also made it punishable under U.S. law to commit a "grave breach" of any of the Geneva conventions "whether inside or outside the United States."

These codifications were built on many previous legal prohibitions and military practices, from the charter of the Nuremberg trials that prosecuted the Nazis after World War II, to the Hague Convention of 1907 which was first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt, all the way back to the 1863 Lieber Code. Commissioned and signed by President Abraham Lincoln, it governed the conduct of the Union Army in the field during the American Civil War and prohibited "all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force," punishable by death.

Although the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court in 1998, 122 other countries are and could extradite American officials if required to by the court -- something the Trump administration has vociferously battled in a possible ICC investigation into war crimes by the U.S., the Taliban and other forces in Afghanistan.

Still, the senior State Department official said securing oil fields is simply part of U.S. forces' fight against ISIS, not any U.S. effort to extract oil.

"It's very important to keep that out of the hands of ISIS, given ISIS's history of fueling and funding its caliphate with those oil fields," they told reporters Monday, adding, "The revenues generated by that allow the SDF to operate as a security and governance entity in the northeast, which thus contributes to our platform of D(efeating) ISIS there."

The administration has said those U.S. forces in northeastern Syria are there to combat the terror group ISIS -- arguing that means their deployment is within the authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, that Congress passed in 2001. That's debatable, according to many Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as that law was passed specifically to counter al-Qaeda and those that aided it with the Sept. 11 attacks, but saying U.S. forces are now there to secure oil fields has raised greater alarm among lawmakers about the legality of their deployment.

Syrians work at a primitive oil facility, where petrol for cars and heating fuel are being extracted from crude oil purchased from wells controlled by the predominantly Kurdish Syrians

In particular, Trump threatened to use military force to defend U.S. control of the oil fields, saying, "Either we'll negotiate a deal with whoever is claiming it, if we think it's fair, or we will militarily stop them very quickly."

The Pentagon confirmed that U.S. forces would "respond with overwhelming military force against any group who threatens the safety of our forces there," according to Esper, even if it were Assad or his backers Russia and Iran. But that kind of fight over oil fields would not be permitted under the AUMF, setting up at the very least a legal battle with Congress.

"Congress never authorized the troops in Syria in the first place, let alone troops to protect oil fields. This is unconstitutional," tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.

Beyond the legality, many critics have also said Trump's initial decision to withdraw U.S. forces and abandon the SDF that lost 11,000 fighters as the de facto U.S. foot soldiers against ISIS, but now keep some hundreds of troops to guard oil further undermines America's standing.

"We'll betray an ally, but we'll go back in to protect the oil? That sickens me, frankly, yada yada yada Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told ABC's "This Week" on Sunda
@@@@

So my Guy, I really, really doubt you made it this far. But either you agree with the Don or not. Which is it?

Pump the brakes. There have been long relationships between United States oil companies and Syria. Syria actually solicited American companies to partner with Syria to help explore, locate and refine oil within their country. One of the many American companies they contracted with was ConocoPhillips. Then, ConocoPhillips discovered several reserves and built process plants. This dates back to the early 2000s.

You are intentionally making it sound as if American companies stole from the Syrian people. In reality, they wanted the USA there! The United States companies provided the expertise and technology required to process these natural resources. They did not have the capabilities.

Fast forward to the war, the same Conoco Fields were captured by ISIS in 2014. Keep in mind, this is the largest producing refinery in all of Syria. ISIS cashed in on the profits from this facility for 3 years until it was taken back under control by US Special Forces and US-backed Forces in 2017. There is no way to spin this as a negative, unless you also support ISIS.

Meanwhile, the Civil War is still in-progress. There are still extremists within the country. At the same time, Iran also has forces in the country and is hopeful to carve out paths through the Northwest... which would put them with a direct path to Israel. Meanwhile, the USA supports the Kurds. When you add all of this volatility together, it makes perfect sense for the USA Special Forces to continue occupation of Conoco, alongside the Kurdish.

One other thing that I want to note about Assad is that he is also now an illicet drug dealer. Captagon production skyrocketed in Syria after it caught popularity with Syrias neighbors as a party drug stimulant. They are all unhappy about it. The issue has become so bad that a country bombed a Captagon manufacturing facility and then the home of a drug kingpin known to be distributing it. The party most likely responsible for the airstrikes on the facility was Jordan. Assad is a loser and a scumbag, Of course he wants American forces out of Syria. However, USA stands with the Kurds.

This is what brainwashing does for you.....being the first one to condemn the attack and occupation of a country when it does not suit your narrative or world view or simply emotional state of mind, but also being the first one to go to great lengths to defend the same illegal act when it suits your argument. Even when a former U.S. president calls it for what it is, you have sheep running around trying to spew their propaganda.

You can't make this **** up---the U.S. then, after killing close to 5million people in the middle east, all of a sudden became so concerned about IS killing people in Syria that they were forced to occupy oil fields in Syria right--a country an ocean and thousands of miles away. This is EXACTLY how propaganda works: Finding ways to legitimize an illegal occupation thousands of miles away. To this day the U.S. is still controlling 90% of syrian oil and here you have propagandists like drekwins or Claudiastyle defending it.

[Clyde_Style]

How did the neocons convince Russia to invade a sovereign country? That’s quite the Jedi mind trick on God emperor Putin.

Seriously now, WTF?

I'll have whatever HopelesslyThick is having

Well you can---it is caused interest and knowledge. It would take the effort of spending many hours studying international politics/history etc. It is not very difficult to do, but you won't find it on CNN.

The Neocons pushed NATO closer and closer to russias border, knowing fully that it would likely lead to war. Angela Merkel used to say NATO in Ukraine equals war in Europe, there is no circumstance imaginable where it does not lead to war in europe. The U.S. promised Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 that they would be joining the alliance in the near future, knowing FULLY WELL that this would be the path to war with Russia. To stop this thing in its tracks would have been possible at any step along the way. It just needed a commitment to say: "NATO can't be extended right on Russias borders. We ourselves would never accept chinese or russian military alliances or bases in Mexico or Canada so we are not going to extend NATO there. We can work with Russia around a framework of guarantees to secure Ukraine, but NATO cannot be in Georgia or Ukraine."

But the intention was always war with Russia, in the hopes of Destabilization and potential breakup. The caucasus republics having always been somewhat prone to eying independence.

It is really odd that someone would ask the above question about the neocons. It just reveals the utter lack of understanding of how these things work. You even HAVE THE HISTORIC example of Cuba and you would still ask the question? Didn't the U.S. threaten a nuclear strike on Cuba? Didn't they as a first step engage a complete sea blockade? Aren't they still sanctioning Cuba 60 years after against the will of the entire world (minus Israel). Now imagine a scenario with China or Russia building military alliances and military bases in Mexico and Canada.

Mother Russia appreciates your efforts comrade

[HopelessKnick]

Seriously now, WTF?

I'll have whatever HopelesslyThick is having

Well you can---it is caused interest and knowledge. It would take the effort of spending many hours studying international politics/history etc. It is not very difficult to do, but you won't find it on CNN.

The Neocons pushed NATO closer and closer to russias border, knowing fully that it would likely lead to war. Angela Merkel used to say NATO in Ukraine equals war in Europe, there is no circumstance imaginable where it does not lead to war in europe. The U.S. promised Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 that they would be joining the alliance in the near future, knowing FULLY WELL that this would be the path to war with Russia. To stop this thing in its tracks would have been possible at any step along the way. It just needed a commitment to say: "NATO can't be extended right on Russias borders. We ourselves would never accept chinese or russian military alliances or bases in Mexico or Canada so we are not going to extend NATO there. We can work with Russia around a framework of guarantees to secure Ukraine, but NATO cannot be in Georgia or Ukraine."

But the intention was always war with Russia, in the hopes of Destabilization and potential breakup. The caucasus republics having always been somewhat prone to eying independence.

It is really odd that someone would ask the above question about the neocons. It just reveals the utter lack of understanding of how these things work. You even HAVE THE HISTORIC example of Cuba and you would still ask the question? Didn't the U.S. threaten a nuclear strike on Cuba? Didn't they as a first step engage a complete sea blockade? Aren't they still sanctioning Cuba 60 years after against the will of the entire world (minus Israel). Now imagine a scenario with China or Russia building military alliances and military bases in Mexico and Canada.

Mother Russia appreciates your efforts comrade

Thank you ClaudiaStyle....You brainwashed presence could not have made for any better argument for my arguments...it's almost like you are my puppet...ah sorry I meant assistant..

[Clyde_Style]

Well you can---it is caused interest and knowledge. It would take the effort of spending many hours studying international politics/history etc. It is not very difficult to do, but you won't find it on CNN.

The Neocons pushed NATO closer and closer to russias border, knowing fully that it would likely lead to war. Angela Merkel used to say NATO in Ukraine equals war in Europe, there is no circumstance imaginable where it does not lead to war in europe. The U.S. promised Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 that they would be joining the alliance in the near future, knowing FULLY WELL that this would be the path to war with Russia. To stop this thing in its tracks would have been possible at any step along the way. It just needed a commitment to say: "NATO can't be extended right on Russias borders. We ourselves would never accept chinese or russian military alliances or bases in Mexico or Canada so we are not going to extend NATO there. We can work with Russia around a framework of guarantees to secure Ukraine, but NATO cannot be in Georgia or Ukraine."

But the intention was always war with Russia, in the hopes of Destabilization and potential breakup. The caucasus republics having always been somewhat prone to eying independence.

It is really odd that someone would ask the above question about the neocons. It just reveals the utter lack of understanding of how these things work. You even HAVE THE HISTORIC example of Cuba and you would still ask the question? Didn't the U.S. threaten a nuclear strike on Cuba? Didn't they as a first step engage a complete sea blockade? Aren't they still sanctioning Cuba 60 years after against the will of the entire world (minus Israel). Now imagine a scenario with China or Russia building military alliances and military bases in Mexico and Canada.

Mother Russia appreciates your efforts comrade

Thank you ClaudiaStyle....You brainwashed presence could not have made for any better argument for my arguments...it's almost like you are my puppet...ah sorry I meant assistant..

Bitcoin payment made. Keep up the good work

[HopelessKnick]

Mother Russia appreciates your efforts comrade

Thank you ClaudiaStyle....You brainwashed presence could not have made for any better argument for my arguments...it's almost like you are my puppet...ah sorry I meant assistant..

Bitcoin payment made. Keep up the good work

Well done! My brother has actually also invested a lot in cryptocurrencies etc.---I hope it works out.

Actually I'm also considering doing it, but it seems it has gotten pretty expensive at this point. Also I'm not really that interested in financial stuff and monitoring all that takes time and effort.

[Clyde_Style]

Thank you ClaudiaStyle....You brainwashed presence could not have made for any better argument for my arguments...it's almost like you are my puppet...ah sorry I meant assistant..

Bitcoin payment made. Keep up the good work

Well done! My brother has actually also invested a lot in cryptocurrencies etc.---I hope it works out.

Actually I'm also considering doing it, but it seems it has gotten pretty expensive at this point. Also I'm not really that interested in financial stuff and monitoring all that takes time and effort.

No worry comrade. we also send swag to honor effort defending motherland. Enjoy shirt!

[HopelessKnick]

Bitcoin payment made. Keep up the good work

Well done! My brother has actually also invested a lot in cryptocurrencies etc.---I hope it works out.

Actually I'm also considering doing it, but it seems it has gotten pretty expensive at this point. Also I'm not really that interested in financial stuff and monitoring all that takes time and effort.

No worry comrade. we also send swag to honor effort defending motherland. Enjoy shirt!

Everytime I see a notification with you having replied to one of my posts I delight. It is like someone directly underlining, emphasizing and boosting all my arguments. Keep around.