Who in the middle east should the US and GB help?

[richard_daily]

My vote goes for the Kurds and only the Kurds. The US has been mitigating factors in several genocides involving ethic Kurds and has a moral obligation to help them establish a Kurdistan. Turkey should pitch in on it too.

Otherwise, our continued efforts to destabilize the region and keep middle east powers from rising to power have failed, unless of course you're one of the rich business men involved in profiting off of the conflict/s.

Also, is it still going to be GB if Scottland and Wales leave? maybe change the name to "Sorta Great Britain"?

 

[Pairaclities]

My vote goes for the Kurds and only the Kurds. The US has been mitigating factors in several genocides involving ethic Kurds and has a moral obligation to help them establish a Kurdistan. Turkey should pitch in on it too.

Otherwise, our continued efforts to destabilize the region and keep middle east powers from rising to power have failed, unless of course you're one of the rich business men involved in profiting off of the conflict/s.

Also, is it still going to be GB if Scottland and Wales leave? maybe change the name to "Sorta Great Britain"?

No one at this time.
Leave it alone and let the rest of the fucking arab world deal with their own shit.

The RU is stirring this up through the back door as a diversion. As soon as the US is committed and engaged in the desert, they will enter Europe.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Britain hasn't been Great since August 1914. After November 1918 even the fags hadda be forced to fuck the women, to get the empire re-shelved for Hitler. THINK OF THE QUEEN AND IT WONT SEEM SO AWFUL.

 

[richard_daily]

No one at this time.
Leave it alone and let the rest of the fucking arab world deal with their own shit.

The RU is stirring this up through the back door as a diversion. As soon as the US is committed and engaged in the desert, they will enter Europe.

Russia has been involved in the middle east almost as much as we have been, and China is encroaching through Africa.

I feel we have a moral obligation to support the Kurds, since we promised them support if they rose up against Saddam. You don't make promises and then not keep them. The Kurds deserve a Kurdistan, and being Muslims means that they could be a stabilizing force in the region. That of course is assuming that the goal is a stable middle-east, which I doubt is what the state department is after.

 

[islandman]

My vote goes for the Kurds and only the Kurds. The US has been mitigating factors in several genocides involving ethic Kurds and has a moral obligation to help them establish a Kurdistan. Turkey should pitch in on it too.

Otherwise, our continued efforts to destabilize the region and keep middle east powers from rising to power have failed, unless of course you're one of the rich business men involved in profiting off of the conflict/s.

Also, is it still going to be GB if Scottland and Wales leave? maybe change the name to "Sorta Great Britain"?

You want to help the Kurds, which would piss off our partner in the war against terrorism and NATO buddy, Turkey, and potentially move it closer to becoming another Islamic state?

Seems rather short-sighted as far as grand gestures go.

 

[Queersetti]

The GB will be of no help.

Hell, we even got our ass kicked when we invaded the Playground.

 

[richard_daily]

You want to help the Kurds, which would piss off our partner in the war against terrorism and NATO buddy, Turkey, and potentially move it closer to becoming another Islamic state?

Seems rather short-sighted as far as grand gestures go.

Moral obligation isn't a grand gesture, and the US has done nothing but short-sighted actions in the middle east since the end of WW2.

Turkey is guilty of ethic cleansing against the Kurds, as I'm sure you're aware. Not to mention that Kurds are becoming have formed a viable political coalition in Turkey, which is a majority Islamic state now.

Turkey also just rebuked US air strikes against Syria.

 

[richard_daily]

The GB will be of no help.

Hell, we even got our ass kissed when we invaded the Playground.

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

 

[garbage can]

The GB will be of no help.

Hell, we even got our ass kissed when we invaded the Playground.

That's what you get when you fuck with the PG.

 

[Queersetti]

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Bwaha, typo of the month.

 

[garbage can]

I'm in favor with arming the Iraqi army and the Kurds with everything except nukes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's what you get when you fuck with the PG.

These words you speak are true.
Now we have to contend with Queen_Vicki.
:barf:

 

[Queersetti]

Bring back the Romans.

 

[dolf]

our 'help' has a long, long history of fucking shit up.

 

[islandman]

Moral obligation isn't a grand gesture, and the US has done nothing but short-sighted actions in the middle east since the end of WW2.

Turkey is guilty of ethic cleansing against the Kurds, as I'm sure you're aware. Not to mention that Kurds are becoming have formed a viable political coalition in Turkey, which is a majority Islamic state now.

Turkey also just rebuked US air strikes against Syria.

Kurds in Turkey aren't a viable political group. Yes, Ankara has engaged them in negotiations, but, by the same token, refuse to engage Syrian Kurds in the same. Because of an arbitrary geopolitical line that divides the same group of people?

I call that 'placation'.

Moral obligation is in the eye of the beholder. Choosing to side with the Kurds is no different than what the U.S. has done for decades in the levant. Why not the people of Mosul? Aren't they worthy of our protection? Are they not in the discussion because they didn't get 20 minutes on ABC News last night?

Turkey is guilty of ethic cleansing against the Kurds, as I'm sure you're aware.

Seeking absolutes when it comes to right and wrong on a global stage is a fool's errand. By that definition, the U.S. can't stand on a soapbox and claim the moral high-ground.

In the end, it's what you can live with. That's the reality of the situation. Ignore it at your (global 'you') peril.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm in favor with arming the Iraqi army and the Kurds with everything except nukes.

We just spent a decade and a trillion dollars arming the Iraqi army, dummy.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm in favor with arming the Iraqi army and the Kurds with everything except nukes.

The Iraqi army has shown time and time again that all the arms in the world won't win a war.

Bring back the Romans.

Admit it, you're just into the gladiator matches.

 

[islandman]

I'm in favor with arming the Iraqi army and the Kurds with everything except nukes.

Dear god, you're an idiot. What do you think the U.S. has been doing since Bush II???????

 

[Queersetti]

Admit it, you're just into the gladiator matches.

Well, that is that.

But, you can't tell me that a few miles of road lined with crucified ISIS fighters won't make an impression.

 

[Queersetti]

Bring back the Romans.

This is where Byron would say "Let's face it, they're the only ones who could keep order in a place like this."

 

[islandman]

This is where Byron would say "Let's face it, they're the only ones who could keep order in a place like this."

Ridiculous.

Byron would know that the gladius would be outmatched in 2014.

 

[Busybody]

why are we there

who cares about ISIS

why does the US have to do ANYTHING?

 

[richard_daily]

Kurds in Turkey aren't a viable political group. Yes, Ankara has engaged them in negotiations, but, by the same token, refuse to engage Syrian Kurds in the same. Because of an arbitrary geopolitical line that divides the same group of people?

I call that 'placation'.

Why would Akina engage with Syrian Kurds? They don't vote in Turkey. I would agree that there's placation going on, but that's not to say that the Kurds are not gaining political power within the borders of Turkey. It's Turkey's best interest to see a Kurdish state, creating a buffer against the wacko fundamentalists. If Turkey doesn't act in the Kurds best interest, the PKK will see a rise in popularity, and we'll have another Hamas/Fatah style situation which we have in Palestine. The militant wing will gain popularity, and we'll see more violence.

Moral obligation is in the eye of the beholder. Choosing to side with the Kurds is no different than what the U.S. has done for decades in the levant. Why not the people of Mosul? Aren't they worthy of our protection? Are they not in the discussion because they didn't get 20 minutes on ABC News last night?

The state department has had their head stuck up their collective asses, and tried to pretend that everything is ok in Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Syria). Mosul was the wake-up call. The problem is, the acts of the US in the middle east caused these problems. Continued intervention of the same sort (arms and bombing) will just further inflame the situation.

The problem is that we have basically ruined our finances at home over a decade long war in Iraq. Our vested interest in the region, and on the geo-political landscape in general has a great deal of importance, but I'd argue that not more than our domestic finances, and the lives of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and Americans.
[/quote]

Seeking absolutes when it comes to right and wrong on a global stage is a fool's errand. By that definition, the U.S. can't stand on a soapbox and claim the moral high-ground.

In the end, it's what you can live with. That's the reality of the situation. Ignore it at your (global 'you') peril.

I agree with this, but I'd still argue that if you make a promise to a people who are willing to rise up and give their lives in part for your cause, you keep that promise.

 

[islandman]

I agree with this, but I'd still argue that if you make a promise to a people who are willing to rise up and give their lives in part for your cause, you keep that promise.

What promise?

 

[RobDownSouth]

our 'help' has a long, long history of fucking shit up.

We seem to refuse to accept the notion that actions have consequences.