Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Triumph is going to destroy the 'BUSA :(


Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...

@Mercer@misteraven@abrasivesaint@Fist 666


Posting in here as nobody wants full articles in the political memes thread.


So, I'd reckon that this article below properly articulates what @Mercer's politically illiterate ass could not. Posting here to assist the poor lad in putting a coherent argument together. Keep trying kid, you...., might get there one day 🧐



America’s Ill‐Fated Syria Intervention: The Lessons Washington Must Learn

This article appeared on National Interest (Online) on October 15, 2019.
News that Turkey had sent its military into northeast Syria, after receiving a tacit green light from President Trump, marked a grim low point in U.S. involvement in the lengthy, multisided Syrian civil war. The fate of Kurdish forces who battled ISIS and civilians sheltered in refugee camps have generated understandable concern. But there has been too little reflection on how we arrived at this unhappy place. Americans should learn from the experience and pledge to avoid similar debacles in the future.

The many problems with U.S. intervention in Syria began with an extraordinarily ambitious, and ultimately irreconcilable, set of goals. U.S. officials wanted to take advantage of the Arab Spring reform movements that erupted in early 2011 to oust Bashar al-Assad's regime, while also thwarting Russian and Iranian ambitions in Syria and beyond. Both the Obama and Trump administrations relied on some violent extremists to defeat other radical groups, especially the Islamic State, which sought to establish its so-called Caliphate. Supporting regime change in Damascus undercut efforts to counter ISIS. Moreover, as ISIS gained strength, the United States enlisted the help of—and armed—Kurdish fighters, which contradicted promises to NATO ally Turkey. Particularly worrisome to Ankara was U.S. support for fighters associated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a Marxist-Leninist organization which the U.S. government still lists as a terrorist organization.


In other words, successive administrations adopted policies toward a new and informal partner which conflicted with the long-held security concerns of a treaty ally of nearly sixty-eight years. In recent months, President Donald Trump has reiterated his desire to withdraw all U.S. forces from Syria and hinted that he might give in to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s demand that the United States withdraw support from the Kurds along Turkey’s border. In both cases Trump encountered fierce resistance from within his administration and throughout the Washington foreign-policy establishment, and he retreated from that pressure. The White House’s latest announcement suggests that he still wants to wash his hands of the entire Syria imbroglio.


Policymakers should commit U.S. forces to wage war only when vital interests are stake, the mission is clear, and the objectives are attainable. The Syrian escapade never met any of these criteria.


The ensuing bipartisan inside-the-Beltway furor was entirely predictable. Reflexive Republican hawks, such as Rep. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY), and even on-again, off-again Trump supporters like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), blasted the president’s decision. Leading Democrats got in their digs, too. Sen. Bernie Sanders called Trump’s decision “extremely irresponsible” and predicted it was “likely to result in more suffering and instability.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the president for betraying the Kurds and “deserting an ally in a foolish attempt to appease an authoritarian strongman.” 


Such opposition seems partly rooted in revulsion at Trump’s utter disregard for the effect that his decision is likely to have on millions of people—including, in this case, Kurds who fought alongside U.S. forces in the region. But this decision is little different than many others that he has issued as president. Trump appears unable or unwilling to consider others’ well-being. Reince Priebus, Trump’s first White House chief of staff, observed that “the president has zero psy­chological ability to recognize empathy or pity in any way.” An anonymous senior administration official noted “the president’s amorality ... he is not moored to any discernible first principles.”


Trump's hamfistedness may also make more difficult a military withdrawal that is not only justified but inevitable. Bashar al-Assad survived eight years of civil war, and, with the aid of Moscow and Tehran, has consolidated control over much, though not all, of Syrian territory. A small U.S. presence cannot force Assad to yield, ensure free elections, limit Russian influence, oust Iranian forces, prevent an Islamic State revival, or protect the Kurds. And yet too many in Washington hope that it can.


A renewed commitment and additional resources, including troops, money, and diplomats, would struggle to deliver on even a few of these goals, but there is no appetite for such an undertaking. Americans outside of Washington oppose yet another open-ended mission in the Greater Middle East.


Moreover, the U.S. mission in Syria does not advance a vital U.S. national-security objective; the threat from ISIS has always been overblown, and claims that a few hundred—or even a few thousand—U.S. ground troops are all that stand between the group and a global resurgence defy all logic. The Islamic State challenged every government in the region, and was ultimately thwarted: it beggars belief that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and multiple Gulf States cannot deal with the radical remnant. After all, ISIS and other violent extremists pose a greater threat to them than to the United States.


Even more unrealistic is the notion that the United States can transform the Syrian political order, or that a few thousand troops give us much leverage over the process. Assad survived his moment of greatest peril and Washington cannot force Iran and Russia to abandon him now. More to the point, the United States survived much of the Cold War with a hostile Syria allied with a globe-straddling Soviet Union. A much-weakened Assad is more liability than asset for Vladimir Putin's Russia.


Washington should be reducing its permanent overseas presence and expecting local forces to secure their own interests. Going forward, U.S. officials should choose allies more carefully and drop former friends when circumstances change. Additionally, NATO needs a process for expelling members no longer committed to the alliance's common purpose. In any case, the United States should avoid making conflicting commitments to multiple allies.


Even more important, Washington should choose its fights more carefully. Not every problem is America's to solve, and not every problem can be solved by U.S. military power. Policymakers should commit U.S. forces to wage war only when vital interests are stake, the mission is clear, and the objectives are attainable. The Syrian escapade never met any of these criteria. Alas, it likely will take more than a couple of Trump tweets to cure the U.S. government of its interventionist addiction.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, just when you thought it was safe to get out of the forever wars.......


Trump’s Needlessly Dangerous Saudi Arabia Deployment



The Trump administration has approved the deployment to Saudi Arabia of Air Force F-15s, new air defense systems, and other military hardware, along with U.S. troops to operate and maintain those weapons systems. These new measures the Pentagon announced on October 11 will bring the total U.S. troop deployment to the kingdom to 3,000 since a mid-September attack on Saudi oil facilities. Speaking to reporters after the announcement, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that it is now “clear that Iranians are responsible” for the attacks and warned that Washington has additional units “on alert” that can provide increased security to both the U.S. forces and Saudi Arabia “if necessary.”


U.S. leaders have taken an unsavory step deepening Washington’s support of an odious, duplicitous Saudi regime that brutalizes its own people and has committed an appalling array of war crimes in Yemen. It also puts the United States in the middle of an escalating political and military confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The direct confrontation between Riyadh and Tehran is merely one component of a larger struggle for regional dominance pitting major Sunni powers against a loose alliance of Shia factions led by Iran. Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Bahrain are other arenas in which that power struggle continues to be waged.


The administration’s decision to elevate the U.S. military role in Saudi Arabia is all the more bizarre and indefensible in light of President Trump’s repeated condemnations of the Iraq War and other U.S. Middle East entanglements. In defending his recent decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria, the president stated bluntly that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.” Trump is correct, but he needs to follow his own advice throughout the region, not just in Syria.


Instead, he has taken a step that boosts America’s risk exposure in an especially reckless manner. Given the animosity between Riyadh and Tehran, the ongoing Saudi-Iranian confrontation could explode into a major war at any time. With the administration’s latest decision, U.S. military personnel are on the front lines between those feuding powers, acting as a tripwire.


The new deployment could endanger America in another way. Many devout Muslims regard a U.S. military presences on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia—the location of the sacred sites of Mecca and Medina—as an insult to their faith. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden cited the stationing of U.S. troops in the kingdom following the Persian Gulf War as a key reason why he ordered the 9-11 attacks. Other jihadi zealots likely hold similar views, increasing the risk to the American homeland of another revenge attack.


Trump’s policy, therefore, is unwise on multiple levels. Critics of his decision to move U.S. troops out of harm’s way in northern Syria and begin a complete withdrawal from that country implicitly want to keep America in a forever war. Unfortunately, even as he makes a prudent move on the Syria front, President Trump may be initiating another, even more dangerous, forever war entangling the United States in Saudi Arabia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I'm done dude, you've admitted you're trolling, and now with the ad hominem attacks, not reading your wall of text.

Oh get over yourself dude, I was clearly just having a laugh. Stop taking yourself so seriously and lighten up a touch.


BTW, it's not trolling, it's posting qualified analysis from credible sources.




Edited by Hua Guofang
  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arming and aiding Middle Eastern rebels to deal with other Middle Eastern rebels and then fucking them over has never gone wrong in the past. Nope. Not once. 

Edit: Just like i said, we’ll always have deployment of troops elsewhere. We’re leaving Syria to station in Saudi Arabia because Trump (double edit: and other fools) want war in Iran, (double edit: and have for as long as i can remember) and now he’s lining up to tee off.  


Another thing i’ve been saying for years.. Fuck Saudi Arabia. I don’t trust the cunts one bit. No sir i don’t, not one bit. 

Edited by abrasivesaint
  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, clicking on this from my notifications I was genuinely hoping it was going to be about Triumph Motorcycles taking over American motorcycle industry. 

edit: Not sure if this has anything to do with the thread name, or if it’s total coincidence with play of Trump and the word Triumph but Triumph motorcycles are referred to as Trumpys in some regions. 

Edited by abrasivesaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triumphs are good bikes.  I'm not sure why people like those over other bikes though.... like a Harley.  @iloveboxcars


Don't they do weird stuff like have 3 injectors per cylinder on some models?  I remember a friend telling me about that.


edit: The democrats don't have a snowballs chance in hell at winning this election because they don't have a single candidate that is worth their weight in salt.  I wish this could be a close race (for political sport) but it will be anything but that.  I think 4 years is kind of a short time span to sort out the trash pumps necessary to drain a swamp.  8 years should make some sizable progress on top of what we've already seen.  We've already douched out a lot of people that were in government for the wrong reason.  I just wish we'd get some clips of him actually telling some of the cucks "you're fired."  Shit would be straight gold.  Down vote my post if you want, I don't care.... I know people won't agree with me..... but just keep in mind I've read everything that's already here and I haven't downvoted anyone that had a differing opinion than mine..... this is the difference between the left and the right.  The right is ok with others existing that don't have the same views.  The left is not.

  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dirty_habiT said:

Heh, yeah man.... I quit reddit recently because the only reddit I cared about looking at was the /r/austin sub...... and it was just full of a bunch of cucktards.  I don't need or want to waste my intellect on people that are know-it-alls with selective hearing.

Its pretty bad huh? Theres a few decent subs but overall its a pit of cuckoldery 

  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not a fan of harleys either..... because.... they just rattle themselves apart as they create oil leaks and turn your gooch/taint into leather.  I've heard stories of them leaking brand new on the show room floor.


I ride a 2007 KTM 200XC.  Going to try to take it out tomorrow morning I think for some trail riding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol hold on guys, I'm not intending to start a shit flinging fest here.  This is quickly entering a ford vs. chevy type debate and when you boil it all down..... it's preference.  Nobody is "wrong" for riding any certain bike... and I wouldn't argue that any certain bike is significantly better than any other brand.  They all have their features and down falls.


I wish my bike had an electric start.  That's why I'm looking at new ones.  I really want this: https://www.ktm.com/us/enduro/300-xc-w-tpi-erzbergrodeo/


And when I get it, I'm giving my 200XC to my gf.  It's way more bike than she can handle right now and will take her a while to grow into it.  I'm too comfortable on it already and it doesn't scare me anymore.


edit: also, I wouldn't want an offroad harley.  It's a fuckin pig.... way too heavy.  I don't care what you do to lighten it, the motor itself is heavy af.... and it's dimensions are big.  I think it's gimmicky to make a harley into an off road bike and it's really just so you can give other harley riders a boner.  Who cares.  That's just my opinion  of course.  😄

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...