Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 313

Thread: Syria, Turks, and Kurds

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,578
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,693
    Rep Power
    57
    The neocon argument for foreign policy is "We made a mess, we have to stay and clean it up. Stay forever. It is always too early to come home." The non-interventionist argument is "Stop making the mess, and eventually you DO have to come home even if it does mean some messes remain unfixed."

    Eventually, for better or worse, troops have to come home. Even if we haven't turned the area into rainbows and unicorns.

    Neocons like Patooka and Jimmy don't want to come home. They will very reluctantly agree that we wouldn't have this mess if we hadn't made this mess, but it is always too early for the troops to come back. Someone might stub their toe without US troops protecting them.

  2. Top | #22
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,246
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,285
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    The neocon argument for foreign policy is "We made a mess, we have to stay and clean it up. Stay forever. It is always too early to come home." The non-interventionist argument is "Stop making the mess, and eventually you DO have to come home even if it does mean some messes remain unfixed."

    Eventually, for better or worse, troops have to come home. Even if we haven't turned the area into rainbows and unicorns.

    Neocons like Patooka and Jimmy don't want to come home. They will very reluctantly agree that we wouldn't have this mess if we hadn't made this mess, but it is always too early for the troops to come back. Someone might stub their toe without US troops protecting them.
    Who gives a flying fuck whether someone is con, neocon, lib or chinese? The Kurds did a great job as allies, and now we're supposed to let the Turks treat them as terrorists? Is that your solution?

  3. Top | #23
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,477
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    The neocon argument for foreign policy is "We made a mess, we have to stay and clean it up. Stay forever. It is always too early to come home." The non-interventionist argument is "Stop making the mess, and eventually you DO have to come home even if it does mean some messes remain unfixed."

    Eventually, for better or worse, troops have to come home. Even if we haven't turned the area into rainbows and unicorns.

    Neocons like Patooka and Jimmy don't want to come home. They will very reluctantly agree that we wouldn't have this mess if we hadn't made this mess, but it is always too early for the troops to come back. Someone might stub their toe without US troops protecting them.
    Who gives a flying fuck whether someone is con, neocon, lib or chinese? The Kurds did a great job as allies, and now we're supposed to let the Turks treat them as terrorists? Is that your solution?
    This was always our long-term plan. On both "sides". You have be very dumb or very desperate to ally with the U.S., we are accomplished backstabbers

  4. Top | #24
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,187
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,660
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    The neocon argument for foreign policy is "We made a mess, we have to stay and clean it up. Stay forever. It is always too early to come home." The non-interventionist argument is "Stop making the mess, and eventually you DO have to come home even if it does mean some messes remain unfixed."
    The neocon argument was 'there won't be any problems'. The neocons thought the world operated differently for them than it did for others. Turns out, they were wrong. It was clear in '03 that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

    Eventually, for better or worse, troops have to come home.
    Typically they do, they are rotated.
    Even if we haven't turned the area into rainbows and unicorns.
    The good news is that it is a Libertarian utopia out there. Very little government to interfere with your life.

    Neocons like Patooka and Jimmy don't want to come home.
    Like I told the electrician when he asked me if I "wanted" to move forward with the contract work. I told him, no, I don't particularly "want" to, but I need to. Much the same with Afghanistan and Northern Syria. There will be consequences to our actions, one way or the other. And while some libertarians seem incapable of empathy or honor or simply keeping our word, we (the United States) have a debt to some people that ought be repaid.

    Curious, how many agreements should the US walk out of to appease the oxygen deprived Libertarians out there?

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    4,005
    Archived
    945
    Total Posts
    4,950
    Rep Power
    36
    The Kurds are not in opposition to Assad. The regime pays govt salaries in the Kurdish areas and the statues of Assad have not been torn down. At the same time, they are not exactly Assad allies either. Clearly they are out to get what they can. Turkish intervention and US abandonment threatens to push them further toward Assad.

    The Kurds were vital to us when ISIS was a threat. To weaken Assad, and keep an eye on the remains of ISIS, not to mention a sense of obligation, all for just 1k troops(who are not even engaged) seems a no brainer.

    On top of it, if the Turks don't behave towards civilians, that blood will be on our hands.

    Generally, I agree with getting out of the ME. This seems a stupid way to do so.

    Maybe Erdogan dangled a hotel deal in front of Trump.

  6. Top | #26
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,246
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,285
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
    The Kurds are not in opposition to Assad. The regime pays govt salaries in the Kurdish areas and the statues of Assad have not been torn down. At the same time, they are not exactly Assad allies either. Clearly they are out to get what they can. Turkish intervention and US abandonment threatens to push them further toward Assad.

    The Kurds were vital to us when ISIS was a threat. To weaken Assad, and keep an eye on the remains of ISIS, not to mention a sense of obligation, all for just 1k troops(who are not even engaged) seems a no brainer.

    On top of it, if the Turks don't behave towards civilians, that blood will be on our hands.

    Generally, I agree with getting out of the ME. This seems a stupid way to do so.

    Maybe Erdogan dangled a hotel deal in front of Trump.
    I always think of JFK and Cuba. JFK convened his people and discussed what to do. he wanted their opinions and then decided. Some were vehemently opposed to his actions but there was at least a semblance of order and dignity to his behavior. But Trumpo tells us that his "great and unmatched wisdom" is the solution, and later that he will destroy Turkey if it does anything bad.

    The guy is a fucking loon, a dangerous, laughable fucking loon.

  7. Top | #27
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,714
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    1,943
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Neocons like Patooka and Jimmy don't want to come home. They will very reluctantly agree that we wouldn't have this mess if we hadn't made this mess, but it is always too early for the troops to come back. Someone might stub their toe without US troops protecting them.
    I keep telling you, I'm not a neocon. I'm a nazi. Which is why I wasn't in the least bit reluctant in my agreement. You seem to have the opinion that throwing allies under the bus will have no lasting repercussions. That's adorable.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,552
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    So Trump is announcing his intent to pull US troops out of Syria.

    Way back down the memory hole, I remember when Democrats thought Bush was far too militaristic, throwing troops around the world without any thought. Obama taught them to stop worrying and love the war.

    Now Democrats who hate everything Trump does and Republicans who are opposed to peace in the Middle East are united against Trump.

    So much for the anti-war left.

    It is being described as abandoning "our allies" the Kurds, who may or may not be invaded by "our allies" the Turks. Apparently our allies want to war with each other and the only reason they don't is because we are holding them apart. Holding them apart is supposed to be a job for the US. It isn't a job I would choose for the US.

    It seems that as much as nobody cares when troops are sent in, it is some sort of crisis when troops are pulled out.
    I agree. All foreign policy decisions must be made with a clear binary set of ethics without any context or consideration of unintended consequences. That's why throwing Afghan freedom fighters under the bus in the 1980s was the smart thing to do. It absolutely had no ramifications down the road. This decision will be fine as well. It will be perfect, just wait.
    If the US hadn't gotten involved in supporting them, then withdrawing that support wouldn't be "throwing Afghan freedom fighters under the bus". Isn't it fun to describe non-intervention as a half-way measure the way Neocons always do?
    But pulling out after we're already there is not "non-intervention". We're like the local police department separating the wife from the abusive husband, then all of a sudden we pull allow and allow the husband to have his way. Clearly, I would advise countries to never trust America. Our word is crap.

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,552
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    I think both sides are somewhat wrong. Option#3: Our focus in an alliance with the Kurds ought to be in helping them with self-defense and in helping them with self-determination, i.e. an independent Kurdistan.

    There is some overlap with these ideas in helping them to occupy Northeastern Syria, but not enough. On there other hand, leaving them means Turkey will go on the offensive against them to occupy Northeastern Syria.

    No easy answer. So I support option#3 above.
    Don: the problem here is that Turkey would immediately attack Northern Syria, even with the US there. For some reason, their biggest nightmare is an independent Kurdistan on their border. Bullies don't like anyone standing up to them...

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,759
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    9,344
    Rep Power
    65
    Wait a second... Trump is still allowed to talk on the phone with foreign leaders??

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •