Trump abandons Kurdish allies to Turkish invasion

[Zombie]

Oh lordy, so now I'm living in a binary world. Please tell me what can be more binary than:

'There ISIS! Kurds, attack!'

No offense man, but your posts are becoming more and more nonsensical.

 

[Stoked]

Well, Kurds have been fighting for autonomy and their own state with Turkey for a good forty years now. From that perspective Erdogan is acting rationally.

Trump on the other hand, yeah, it just doesn't make sense. The decision to bail was clearly not well thought out, or consulted on with basically anyone aside from Erdogan as far as I can tell. I guess there could be some heretofore unknown motive for this move by Trump, but I'd hate to specu

Erdogan is an irrational dictator but I like you. You’ve now moved into fourth on my like list

1.NAOS
2.#Franklin
3.One Brow
4.Zombie

 

[Zombie]

Erdogan is an irrational dictator but I like you. You’ve now moved into fourth on my like list

1.NAOS
2.#Franklin
3.One Brow
4.Zombie

That's really sweet, you've always been number one in my heart

 

[Stoked]

That's really sweet, you've always been number one in my heart

liar. But I like that too

edit: did I use “too” right. I never understood the difference and don’t really care to learn it now.

 

[The Thriller]

The point I was trying to make, which went over your head (my fault, not yours because it is my responsibility to communicate clearly) is that there is a long history of our failed involvement in the Middle East.

Now I was actually in favor of the first Iraqi war. And I reluctantly supported Bush II in the second. I said "reluctantly" because, after Bosnia and Mogadishu, I was beginning to have doubts about our intervention policy and I didn't like the way the Afghan war was progressing with no apparent end in sight. But Bush II said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and I believed that the president had information sources that he couldn't share with us.

Then we found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but was hoodwinked into war by an Iraqi dissident who wanted us to kick Saddam out and put him in power. (And thank you, CIA, for doing a such a wonderful job of giving us this intelligence before we went to war.)

So I learned to be very skeptical when our leaders involve us in new wars. What happened in Libya and Egypt showed I was right to be skeptical. Then we got involved in Syria.

You wonder what will happen to the (Syrian) Kurds if we pull out? The same thing that will happen if we pull out next year, or in two years, or in twenty years: they will be left surrounded by hostile regimes. The same regimes that surrounded them before we intervened.

There are no good options, but, perhaps, we should have had the foresight to recognize a fools errand before we invaded a sovereign nation that was never a threat to our national interest.

And, yeah, that's what Nationalist means for those of us who voted for Trump.

You and I both know that “Nationalism” means much more to you Trump voters than merely adopting a more pragmatic and isolationist foreign policy. Come on, the key element of nationalism is its racism.

 

[Ellipse]

No offense man, but your posts are becoming more and more nonsensical.

So please enlighten me. What sense did it make to invade a sovereign country, which was allied with Russia and had Russian troops and fighter jets based there, whose president did not pose a threat to our national interests? Why did we insist that Assad must be overthrown, when that strategy failed in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt?

The only rationale I've heard is that we mustn't let the Iranians and Russia have any influence with the Syrian government.

 

[Ellipse]

You and I both know that “Nationalism” means much more to you Trump voters than merely adopting a more pragmatic and isolationist foreign policy. Come on, the key element of nationalism is its racism.

And now you're resorting to pure, leftist nonsense.

 

[The Thriller]

And now you're resorting to pure, leftist nonsense.

Looks like the truth struck a nerve. And your rebuttal of my post was laughable.

I don’t even know what “leftist” means. Someone used that term yesterday I think. What does “leftist” mean?

 

[Ellipse]

Looks like the truth struck a nerve. And your rebuttal of my post was laughable.

I don’t even know what “leftist” means. Someone used that term yesterday I think. What does “leftist” mean?

Well, I could define "leftist" for you, but you did such a wonderful job of redefining "Nationalist" for me that I seriously doubt you need my help. But let me take a stab at it.

Leftist means fascist.

 

[Stoked]

And now you're resorting to pure, leftist nonsense.

mate, you surprised? He’s stood, and largely supported to our lasting shame, died on that hill.

“right” = bigot, sexist, racist, homophobic, uneducated, inbred...

 

[The Thriller]

Well, I could define "leftist" for you, but you did such a wonderful job of redefining "Nationalist" for me that I seriously doubt you need my help. But let me take a stab at it.

Leftist means fascist.

I think Trump, his voters, and his rallies do a terrific job of defining “nationalism” for us. We’ve all seen it, 3 years as president and 4 years if you count his campaign. If you disagree, provide facts.

Leftist absolutely does not mean fascist. At this point you’re intentionally being absurd or you’re extremely poorly informed.

Just think of it, would a fascist post a YouTube video that’s critical of a racist strongman and his racist followers chanting to send a minority congresswoman back to the country she immigrated from? The very concept of a fascist being pro immigration and defending a minority congresswoman against a racist mob and racist strongman speaker should be a warning flag to you that leftists aren’t fascists. That seriously doesn’t stand out to you? Think about it. The absurdity of a fascist being pro immigration and defending a minority congresswoman against racism highlights the absurdity of calling leftists, fascists.

Truly, Get Educated

 

[Ellipse]

Leftist absolutely does not mean fascist. At this point you’re intentionally being absurd or you’re extremely poorly informed.

Take it up with Antifa, who use violence to shut down anyone with a different point of view.

 

[Zombie]

So please enlighten me. What sense did it make to invade a sovereign country, which was allied with Russia and had Russian troops and fighter jets based there, whose president did not pose a threat to our national interests? Why did we insist that Assad must be overthrown, when that strategy failed in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt?

The only rationale I've heard is that we mustn't let the Iranians and Russia have any influence with the Syrian government.

You seem to be under the assumption that I think US supported regime change in Syria was a good idea. I'm pretty sure that's not the position I've taken here or elsewhere. Nor do I believe that was the Obama administration's stated purpose for military activities in Syria.

As for our military intervention in Syria against ISIS, it's kind of a sticky wicket. On one hand I don't believe the US should be using the AUMF as a blank check to use our military in whatever theater we choose without an approval from congress. On the other hand the rise of ISIS was due at least in part to our military interventions in Iraq, we created the mess and have at least some responsibility to clean it up. There probably was a better way to go about that though.

All that said, what you seem to be doing in this thread is boiling the conversation down to either "we abandon the Kurds in Syria to Turkey" or "another perpetual war in Syria," which I believe is a false choice.

There are other options which include continued US presence until the Kurds have security against Turkish invasion, or some sort of agreement hashed out for support if they are acted against. Instead, we got a green light for Turkey to do what they want, with basically no warning whatsoever for our supposed allies.

 

[Zombie]

Take it up with Antifa, who use violence to shut down anyone with a different point of view.

They pretty much only use violence against fascists. That's kind of their bag.

 

[Zombie]

mate, you surprised? He’s stood, and largely supported to our lasting shame, died on that hill.

“right” = bigot, sexist, racist, homophobic, uneducated, inbred...

Well, I wouldn't use that definition of nationalist to describe Ellipse, I don't know anything about the guy. But as far as the emergence of "nationalism" on the far right, racism is probably the biggest motivating factor for it.

 

[Rubashov]

Pretty consistent with US foreign policy to be honest, dealing with dictators is generally a fairly safe bet. Can see Trump being a fan of it too.

 

[Ellipse]

They pretty much only use violence against fascists. That's kind of their bag.

LOLOLOLOL

So its okay to use violence to shut down opposing points of view? Isn't that the very definition of a fascist?

 

[framer]

Just to be clear, here was @The Thriller thoughts on the Kurds and American involvement in the Middle East when Obama was president:

Maybe we should uncomplicate things and just leave the Middle East alone?

Don't we have enough problems here to deal with?

​

I grow tired of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc all crying for handouts and essentially blackmailing us. If we don't meet x demands, someone scary will overrun their country, kill many, threaten Israel, shutdown the oil, and/or obtain a Nuke to use against us. It's not rational and it's costing us billions.

Time to graduate from your diapers and move onto Pampers. If Pakistan fails, let it. If punkass Karzai cannot survive without US gov handouts, then let him fail and be beheaded by his Taliban brothers. If Iraq cannot unify, then let it fail and be broken up into 3 different countries (one for the Sunnis, one for the Kurds, and one for the Shiites). Let these rational ME countries crap their own pants for a while (without having us rush over to wipe their asses).

Ah yes, and don't even get me started on how rational it is that Muslims kill each other. As if god would really favor Sunnis over the Shiites... sigh... And would justify killing each other... Genius.... So rational...

In order for these pathetic countries to grow,they need to be let alone to fail. Great Britain kept them afloat... And now we have... Eventually, they gotta grow up!

Perhaps if they were made to fail or succeed by their own merit, they would become more rational?

Btw, I laugh when idiots like Rand Paul suggest we arm the Kurds. As if they can be trusted with American weapons? Why, so they can wreck havoc in a few years on the Turks, Shia, Sunnis, Jews, and Armenians?

Now he seems more. . . nuanced. What could possibly have changed?​

 

[framer]

They pretty much only use violence against fascists. That's kind of their bag.

Here they are taking down that fascist old woman in a walker trying to cross the street. She was likely to kill dozens if she ever left the crosswalk. . .

 

[Zombie]

LOLOLOLOL

So its okay to use violence to shut down opposing points of view? Isn't that the very definition of a fascist?

When the opposing POV is fascism, sure.

I don't really feel like going through the entire history of antifa or why saying "antifa are the real fascists!" is both ignorant and a self serving line used by people on the far right, but here's a unique perspective on a self described antifa group using violence to "shut down opposing points of view"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/untold-story-syria-antifa-platoon-666159/

As a side note, it's kind of funny that the only people antifa have killed happen to be ISIS fighters.

Would be nice if the Proud Boys and the rest of the far right goons could say the same.