mrzyphl
New member
Isn't Trump supposed to be the greatest dealmaker of all time? Why didn't he even try to negotiate an agreement between the Kurds and Turkey?
-
Features
Syria, Turks, and Kurds
- Thread starter Jason Harvestdancer
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,930
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,238
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Stupid so powerful, you need to watch it to believe it.
[YOUTUBE]RHkd4t8or9w[/YOUTUBE]
Even more... oi. *sigh*
[youtube]HNUdZZmHQJs[/youtube]
[YOUTUBE]RHkd4t8or9w[/YOUTUBE]
Even more... oi. *sigh*
[youtube]HNUdZZmHQJs[/youtube]
barbos
Contributor
This is a kind of simplistic analysis you generally don't expect from people with nobels.
In reality it all looks like Erdogan finally succeeded in convincing Assad that he is better to be "friend" with him than with Kurds. Putin who is currently a friend with both is fine with anything which gets him mission-accomplished out of Syria. US has very little leverage once Assad and Erdogan are "friends" again. Sucks to be kurd in Syria.
Last edited:
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Sound problems here... Did he say the Kurds didn't help us at Normandy???
The irony of posting all those insane conspiracies while complaining that the right are the tin foil hat wearers is priceless.
Is Mr. Krugman going to go fight with the Kurds he loves so much?
Or is he a chickenhawk, like all leftists who are demanding troops stay?
Now all of a sudden it's not so easy to make fun of "people who refuse to go to war", is it?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,238
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The good news is we have something to put in Airpoh’s thread.
Elixir
Made in America
And I bet you served with "great honor".
The Spec Ops people I know are so sad and embarrassed right now. They hate abandoning those who have fought and died beside them to slaughter.
I don't suppose (based on your posts) you ever felt like that - after all, you didn't join THEIR fucking militaries...
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,930
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
You're basically confirming Krugman.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I'm not surprised that the left abandoned its principles just to be on the opposite side of Trump.
Leftists: "No more troops needlessly dying! Bring them all home! No more War!
Trump: "OK, i'm bringing them home, guys."
Leftists: "No! Not now! We need to stay and fight with the Kurds! More of our men need to die!"
These are the same ones that say stuff like, "We shouldn't be the world's police. Just let countries do whatever they want....but also if Israel tries to genocide the Middle East we're sending troops to stop them!"
I will put it in the simplest terms for you, even though I know you won't get it. Our troops in Syria were not fighting anyone, they were only providing support. The simple fact that they were there providing support to the Kurds kept Turkey from attacking the Kurds. Had we stayed there in support of the Kurds, Turkey would not be attacking them now. If a leftist takes the position that avoiding senseless loss of life is paramount, then keeping our troops in Syria to support the Kurds, and to keep Turkey from slaughtering them wholesale, is entirely compatible with that position.
barbos
Contributor
Sure
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Why does Paul Krugman only use Apple products? Because he always breaks Windows.
When I signed up, I took an oath to the US constitution. So did all other service members. How does protecting one "ally" from another "ally" protect and defend the US constitution? Remember, the Turks are also our "allies", which means you advocate fighting against an "ally".
When I signed up, I took an oath to the US constitution. So did all other service members. How does protecting one "ally" from another "ally" protect and defend the US constitution? Remember, the Turks are also our "allies", which means you advocate fighting against an "ally".
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I don't hold the same opinion as you or them because I support option#3, but it should be mentioned that you are completely wrong. When US soldiers stayed in the zone, it caused a tentative peace between both the Turks and Kurds. Now that the Turks have invaded, Kurds and civilians are being murdered.
In any case, you made a false dichotomy between protecting one or another ally. Since staying with the Kurds protects them both from fighting, that wasn't a choice you presented.
Your claim is illogical.
Q.E.D.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Who here is advocating that we fight Turkey? All I see is people saying we shouldn't have dropped our support of the Kurds, because that allowed Turkey to pick a fight with them. If we had stayed put, our two allies would not be fighting now.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Which indicates that if we were to stay 10 more years, then on 10 years and a day they would start fighting. The only solution is to either get out of the way of their fight or stay there forever.
If we're going to stay forever, they should apply for statehood. There is a constitutional process for that.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
How long have we had bases in Europe, military stationed against a war that has not happened yet? Keeping the peace through the threat of our preparedness to respond?
This is something we already do. We have military stationed all over the planet, projecting our might and our threat to protect our interests and the interests of our allies.
So, yeah. If our sitting in the living room keeps the kids from beating each other up over the TV channel, it's a small price to pay for the benefits reaped.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I glad that you agree that no one here was advocating that we fight Turkey and that your previous argument is invalid.
Your new argument is a matter for some debate. Things could change over the course of 10 years, and an administration that cares more about not letting our allies slaughter each other would do their best to broker a deal between the two sides.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Then take the leaders and put them at a table with each other, don't put our troops in between them.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
You realize that right now, Turkey is pummeling the Kurds, don't you? If not, maybe turn on your TV, or consult a non-right-wing news source. We very much do need to put our troops between them while we bring them to the table.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
That is another false dichotomy. Staying with the Kurds decreases bloodshed of both allies. In the meantime, you can also "take the leaders and put them at a table with each other." The options are not mutually exclusive and lead to better peace prospects since there is leverage for the Turks.