Deranged Rhino Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, ALF said: I would think the Kurds knew that Trump wanted to pull out that caused Mattis to resign. Where could they go in Syria that was devastated by war. They knew because we told them. Trained with them. Funded them. Briefed them. Shared intelligence with them. And we're still doing all those things right this very moment. The only thing that has changed is our personnel/hostages have been removed from the equation. That had to happen eventually... And the Kurds don't want to go anywhere, that's a key point. They are fighting for their homeland -- they want to stay right where they are. The Turks want to take their land to use as a buffer (and to grow their own power in the region). That's just the modern version of the conflict which predates our involvement by a long, long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, ALF said: I would think the Kurds knew that Trump wanted to pull out that caused Mattis to resign. Where could they go in Syria that was devastated by war. They wouldn't go anywhere in Syria, they'll go to Iraqi Kurdistan. Or stay where they are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Think about how dangerous it is to leave 50-100 men positioned there as a buffer (against a NATO ally -- wrap your head around that) in the most unstable region on the planet. While that may keep the Turks from attacking the Kurds, it also creates leverage for many different factions, proxies, and nation states to use whenever they wish. Those 50 troops are literally hostages for the MiC (in the broadest sense) to dispose of when suitable to their agenda. What happens if a few of those soldiers are killed by Iran (or a proxy), by the Russians (or a proxy), by the Syrians (or a proxy), or any of the numerous unaffiliated terror groups active in the region? That kind of blowback could be used (and would be used) to justify yet another decade of war and occupation in a region where we have historically made things worse, not better, despite our best intentions. Not sure that's really necessary pretty sure Saudi Arabia might have that covered. 35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's really what is being argued for by the beltway bandits and the MiC cut outs with microphones. They want hostages, US troops which they can position in regions of danger and use as a "change the narrative free" card whenever it so suits their needs or their wallets. The reality is that the Kurds have been partners in the region of late. They are tough fighters who sacrificed a ton -- fighting for their homeland. Not ours. Not our allies. Their own. And that's their right, and we have been supporting them (still are) to assure that they are better positioned today to defend their land from Turkey (or Iraq/Iran/Syria/other) ... but what can/should we truly do to preserve it when doing so means either 1) fighting a war against a NATO ally in Turkey, or 2) keeping 50-100 hostages in the region as a buffer? Clearly those were our only other options some form of actual diplomacy is just a ***** fantasy. Also I'm confused are you saying it's wrong to fight a war against a NATO ally but A-OK to secretly fund and arm their enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You haven't actually paid ang attention to a word I've written, have you? You are literally too simple-minded to understand even a middling complex topic like this, even after I spelled it out for you. That's...not even funny, just sad. I don't really pay ang attention to a lot of things. But let's see the best I can figure what your vague ass point is in the original post I responded too is hey not all Kurds are good Kurds so it's okay if Turkey bombs them to kill the bad Kurds even if good Kurds die too. And they knew about us abandoning them for months...because you say so, sorry I'm having trouble your spelling is awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Not sure that's really necessary pretty sure Saudi Arabia might have that covered. Might have what covered? (not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand so the conversation can continue/prevent us from talking about two different things and thus past one another w/o realizing) 14 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Clearly those were our only other options some form of actual diplomacy is just a ***** fantasy. Also I'm confused are you saying it's wrong to fight a war against a NATO ally but A-OK to secretly fund and arm their enemies? Diplomacy has been ongoing for three years on this exact subject. Turkey won't budge. So... that really does reduce the options. It's either the two choices you quoted, or what we are doing... which is continuing our funding, arming, training and support of the Kurds (and active participation through the GCC/US spec ops) to help as best we can without things spiraling out of control and leading to option 1. As for your last sentence: Turkey's involvement in NATO is complicated for numerous reasons. This is one of them. If a NATO ally can't be restrained by diplomacy, what recourse do we have other than expulsion (which drives them closer to Russia), or actively participating in a conflict against them -- which would make article 5 moot. People are screaming down here that we abandoned the Kurds -- but we didn't. We are taking the third way forward -- a way that allows us to do as much as we can without directly compromising NATO. The alternative is to compromise NATO in order to protect the Kurds. This is not black and white. It's gray. And we're playing in that gray space to try to mitigate the human carnage in a war that predates the formation of our country. Edited October 11, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: They wouldn't go anywhere in Syria, they'll go to Iraqi Kurdistan. Or stay where they are. They gambled and stayed where they are . I hope Iraqi Kurdistan has enough room for them. Turkey wants to send back most of Syria refugees to displace the Kurds. This is going to be expensive to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Warcodered said: I don't really pay ang attention to a lot of things. But let's see the best I can figure what your vague ass point is in the original post I responded too is hey not all Kurds are good Kurds so it's okay if Turkey bombs them to kill the bad Kurds even if good Kurds die too. And they knew about us abandoning them for months...because you say so, sorry I'm having trouble your spelling is awful. Are you saying that repositioning 50 troops from the point of attack is going to cause the Kurds to not be able to defend themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Are you saying that repositioning 50 troops from the point of attack is going to cause the Kurds to not be able to defend themselves? I don't believe I said anything about that in that particular quote but whatever. How about a question for a question? Are you saying Turkey would be using the exact same tactics if those 50 troops were still there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Warcodered said: I don't believe I said anything about that in that particular quote but whatever. How about a question for a question? Are you saying Turkey would be using the exact same tactics if those 50 troops were still there? Turkey isn't the only active entity in the region. Russia's there, Iran's there, and all their proxies. If they pop off and take out a few of our troops -- what would the response be from the US? We'd have to respond. Then... that's the ballgame. That's what's being countered / taken off the table. And that's nothing but a positive for the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 6 minutes ago, ALF said: They gambled and stayed where they are . I hope Iraqi Kurdistan has enough room for them. Turkey wants to send back most of Syria refugees to displace the Kurds. This is going to be expensive to say the least. They didn't "gamble," they simply didn't want to leave a homeland they've occupied for thousands of years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 Those troops were stationed where they were to temporarily prevent Turkey from going after terrorists on their border. Turkey, after a considerable amount of time and negotiation must have said ok, USA we're going to protect our border and you should move your troops because we're going in. They have a right to protect their border. Our 50 troops held off Turkey until the Kurds were better armed and prepared for this invasion. You're splitting hairs for no other reason than you have an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Are you saying that repositioning 50 troops from the point of attack is going to cause the Kurds to not be able to defend themselves? No, he's saying that all Kurds are the same, and we should support our enemies and allies equally, and military operations don't require any planning... Just now, 3rdnlng said: Those troops were stationed where they were to temporarily prevent Turkey from going after terrorists on their border. Turkey, after a considerable amount of time and negotiation must have said ok, USA we're going to protect our border and you should move your troops because we're going in. They have a right to protect their border. Our 50 troops held off Turkey until the Kurds were better armed and prepared for this invasion. You're splitting hairs for no other reason than you have an agenda. He's not even splitting hairs. He's just saying ignorant *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Might have what covered? (not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand so the conversation can continue/prevent us from talking about two different things and thus past one another w/o realizing) Manufacturing a reason for us to go to war with Iran was that not what you were talking about? 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Turkey isn't the only active entity in the region. Russia's there, Iran's there, and all their proxies. If they pop off and take out a few of our troops -- what would the response be from the US? We'd have to respond. Then... that's the ballgame. That's what's being countered / taken off the table. And that's nothing but a positive for the US. Well thank god that problem is solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, he's saying that all Kurds are the same, and we should support our enemies and allies equally, and military operations don't require any planning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, he's saying that all Kurds are the same, and we should support our enemies and allies equally, and military operations don't require any planning... He's not even splitting hairs. He's just saying ignorant *****. As opposed to what all Kurds are different but have an equal right to be bombed by Turkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 Just now, Warcodered said: Manufacturing a reason for us to go to war with Iran was that not what you were talking about? They're one of multiple parties who'd like to see that. Which is the point being made about hostages. 1 minute ago, Warcodered said: Well thank god that problem is solved. All deployments are not equal. Not everyone of those troops are combat troops, or even ground troops, or in any way close to harm's way as the 50+ who were pulled out were. Surely that makes a difference, no? As an example: 32 special forces soldiers at a remote FOB in Afghanistan is not the same as 800 airmen and crew stationed in a highly defended and secure airfield near Riyadh or in the UAE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: As opposed to what all Kurds are different but have an equal right to be bombed by Turkey? i would welcome a decent analysis of Syria and.... how a free rights social liberal (and fiscal conservative) would find a result that would be good for "humanity at large" and i've read all sides on it, there is nothing that can be concretely put forward on Syria... nothing at all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Horseshit. You're advocating for an interventionist military as foreign policy doctrine. That’s the reality. Real American lives being placed in harms way, at the cost of American treasure, to settle regional disputes and impose American diplomatic norms on counties in another hemisphere. That’s empire. That’s vassalism. Cry foul about the pregnancy analogy all you want, but I’m disallowing your mental gymnastics. You want to engage in a special pleading fallacy to justify anti-Trump interventionism as moral, because “reasons”. It’s a ridiculous and logically inconsistent position to take. Just admit you're a neo-Cheneyite, perpetual war, boots on the ground imperialist. You’re pregnant. The President must be pregnant, too... I guess. 2,000 troops to Saudi Arabia to defend them against Iran. Follow the money. What a jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 Just now, transplantbillsfan said: The President must be pregnant, too... I guess. 2,000 troops to Saudi Arabia to defend them against Iran. Follow the money. What a jackass. One is not like the other. You just exposed the shallowness of your understanding of the realities on the ground. Just a quick question -- are you aware of what the GCC is or what their mission has been the past two years? I'm guessing no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 11, 2019 Share Posted October 11, 2019 We don't need to manufacture a reason for us to go to war with Iran, if that's what we wanted to do. Trump is going to use economic punishment instead of smart bombs to influence other countries to our will. We can now do this as an alternative to war since we have the military might to back it up and energy resources to point our middle finger at whoever we want. Isn't it nice to not have our military personnel dying for oil? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts