Disaster in the Making

[DeluxAuto]

It's a simple equation.

Either we stay and more people on our side die. Or we leave and more people on their side die.

Also note that if we stay, more people on their side die anyway.

No winners for the locals - they're going to die and there's NOTHING the US can do about it except not participate.


Speaking of not participating, do you know what it takes to stop genocide?

Write your answer here --> Just don't do it.

When ISIS rebuilds and they're stronger than ever due to Trump's war crimes, more on "our side" will die.

 

[zipman]

When ISIS rebuilds and they're stronger than ever due to Trump's war crimes, more on "our side" will die.

I guess Turkey realizes what a weak President Trump is and rolled him over to get their way.

Pretty sad that he wasn't able to use all his great negotiation skills to stop this.

I guess BB will now have to call him "weak horse" Trump.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think that those politicians and partisan idjits who want us to stay in Syria to fight against our Turkish ally should volunteer to go over there with their 2nd Amendment approved muskets and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Kurds and show their support for more war and death.

I think that's a great idea.

Quite a few Americans and Europeans alike have worked with private organizations and volunteered their support and or services in some way.

From cold hard cash to grabbing their guns and going on an ISIS safari.

Why are they sitting behind the lines and bitching about how bad a job everyone is doing when they can easily get off the fence and go show the world how it's supposed to be done? Why don't they step up and put their money where their alligator mouth is?

I'm going to guess that is because running around in black pretending to be "Anti-Fascist" by beating up old people and journalist...or being a partisan hack on the internet with no principals beyond 'orange man bad' is much easier than spending years training and conditioning, spending thousands of dollars on gear, traveling to the other side of the planet and meeting up with the homiez to go pick a gun fight you might not win with actual fascist.

I'm guessing that's a big one.

 

[BotanyBoy]

When ISIS rebuilds and they're stronger than ever due to Trump's war crimes, more on "our side" will die.

How will more on "our side" die if we aren't involved?


What is "our side"??

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think that's a great idea.

Quite a few Americans and Europeans alike have worked with private organizations and volunteered their support and or services in some way.

From cold hard cash to grabbing their guns and going on an ISIS safari.




I'm going to guess that is because running around in black pretending to be "Anti-Fascist" by beating up old people and journalist...or being a partisan hack on the internet with no principals beyond 'orange man bad' is much easier than spending years training and conditioning, spending thousands of dollars on gear, traveling to the other side of the planet and meeting up with the homiez to go pick a gun fight you might not win with actual fascist.

I'm guessing that's a big one.

Oh look, he's still trying to pivot the discussion away from Trump's Syrian fuckup onto safer ground with "whaddabout Antifa" including a dollop of "Trump Is The REAL Victim Here".

 

[DeluxAuto]

It's a simple equation.

Either we stay and more people on our side die. Or we leave and more people on their side die.

Also note that if we stay, more people on their side die anyway.

No winners for the locals - they're going to die and there's NOTHING the US can do about it except not participate.


Speaking of not participating, do you know what it takes to stop genocide?

Write your answer here --> Just don't do it.

How will more on "our side" die if we aren't involved?


What is "our side"??

Ask your birdbrained friend.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh look, he's still trying to pivot the discussion away from Trump's Syrian fuckup onto safer ground with "whaddabout Antifa" including a dollop of "Trump Is The REAL Victim Here".

Holy ascription batman, are you a pathological liar, illiterate or both?? Having a hard time telling with this one.

Pointing out none of you suddenly pro war forever because orange man bad!! leftist who think it is will put neither your money nor your ass on the line to back your bluster up isn't "whaddabout AntiFa" nor is it "Trump is the REAL victim here!" .

It's demonstrable evidence the TDS afflicted really don't have ANY principles beyond "orange man bad".

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ask your birdbrained friend.

He said if we stay.....we aren't.

So more on our side won't die, because we won't be involved.

Sounds to me like Trump made the right call by reducing our involvement in the pointless and never ending conflict in the middle east.

Hopefully he'll have us totally the fuck out of there soon and permanently.

 

[Emerson40]

Yes, but that's not being discussed, that's a lame deflection.

What is left vs right is should we continue to stay there?

Up until a few days ago the "progressive" left was against it, but because 'orange man bad' suddenly war is the greatest fucking thing ever and we need to stay in the middle east for ALL ETERNITY without any objective or desire to win anything. Just a few hundred billion and a few hundred to a few thousand dead Americans a year black hole for the fun of it!



Yes it contributed to, SO WHAT???



Whatever you gotta tell yourself to justify your hyper-partisan principal free position on war.

I’m shocked! Shocked I say, that you misconstrued what was written and argued against facts!

Well, not really. It’s what everyone expects from you.


My original post, the one you felt compelled to jump in on and try to turn into a Left vs Right thing, was that ISIS was formed well before 2010, like ican’thelp claimed.

Fact. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, founded 1999, would back this up. You and can’tbehped tried again, so hard, to spin this into a Left vs Right thing.
Silly and sad, but completely expected from the likes of you.

Where did you see my “hyper-partisan principal free position on war”?

Was it where I pointed out that the US played a huge part and bears tremendous responsibility for the instability and lives lost in the region?

Again, these are only facts that you are arguing against.

Saudi funding, mujahideen, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, The destabilization of Syria, regime change in Iraq... not just down to Trump, not just down to Obama. Not left or right.

The US is involved, up to its elbows and has plenty of blood on it’s hands. Trump’s latest gaffe only adds to it.

 

[suurfer]

Look up "Armenian genocide" Turkey has a tradition and trained hand in this.

And Greek genocide. I know, but I was irked by her emotional blackmail "if you're supporting genocide".

The thing also is, it's an entirely different scenario - different country (not theirs) already open to the scrutiny of the world, different goals.

Moreover, why would EU entrust them with 300.000 kurdish refugees (all accounted for), if they were worried about genocide?


And everyone is going "Trump this Trump that"
But he didn't take that decision by himself.
He likely followed the advice of high ranking military personnel and strategists.

One last point. The fact that the Kurd's fought against ISIS does not make us "allies" any more than the USSR being a true ally during WWII. Merely part of a coalition with common interests. The Kurd's did not join in with us, they were fighting for their very existence and would have done so had we not been there.

It's another emotional meme that massmedia are using, to criticize US's decision not to get involved in another war.

It's a messy situation, you don't judge it by the same moral criteria you'd apply in an ideal situation.

Back to your observation regarding "Greater Kurdistan" being spread over 4 nations.

None of those nations are going to cede their territories to the Kurd's. That is a political reality. Nor are they going to give them autonomous status. (Iraq only did so under US pressure and that could change at anytime in the future.)
Granting them autonomous status in the individual nations would eventually lead to a unification of those areas and a declaration of independence.

An eventuality that NONE of those nations are going to tolerate.

Sad, but true.
I think that LD agreed with that too.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I’m shocked! Shocked I say, that you misconstrued what was written and argued against facts!

Not at all. It's a solid projection though.

Was it where I pointed out that the US played a huge part and bears tremendous responsibility for the instability and lives lost in the region?

No, that's something you're just wrong about.

Again, these are only facts that you are arguing against.

No, I'm not.

Dragging progressives for their hypocrisy isn't arguing against any facts.

Making fun of the "Orange man BAD!" party for suddenly being all about endless/pointless war isn't arguing against any facts.

The US is involved, up to its elbows and has plenty of blood on it’s hands. Trump’s latest gaffe only adds to it.

Trumps latest isn't a gaffe outside of the "orange man bad" brigade and those who support endless and pointless war in the ME.

 

[RobDownSouth]

https://i.imgur.com/FYIiVgS.jpg

Oh shut up.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh shut up.

But TRUMP!! with a nice side of projection from Rob.

 

[Adre]

Yet the President is sending a couple thousand more to his friends the Saudis. Cos they’re worth our blood and treasure.

 

[cowslinger64]

But TRUMP!! with a nice side of projection from Rob.

He’s right..you really should just shut the fuck up. You're a fuckin moron and hellbent on making sure you constantly prove yourself.

 

[suurfer]

I could be wrong, but my logic is:
The potential repercussions of the US defending those kurdish forces against Turkey:

1. Higher casualties (Turkey's army is v. powerful) and war contagion (other nations jumping in)

2. The wrath of the Muslim world, and increase in suicide and knife attacks in Europe and the US.
They might have tolerated US's decision to go after ISIS, but not to intervene in in a regional issue (whoever might be in the right).

 

[Rightguide]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/trump-handing-syria-to-turkey-is-gift-to-russia-iran-isis-mcgu.html




Lindsey on Trump’s Syria call.

Putin must be beaming.

Dear Algo, in your continuing effort to stay "a-breast" of this issue try concentrating on the key statement, "If press reports are accurate this is a disaster in the making."

 

[suurfer]

Yay. Look who's back.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Ruh-roh.

Vette's back from his vacation!

https://media.giphy.com/media/d31wiMCYDmyniPU4/giphy.gif

 

[von_Bismarck]

Dear Algo, in your continuing effort to stay "a-breast" of this issue try concentrating on the key statement, "If press reports are accurate this is a disaster in the making."

You're about four days too late for that joke.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ruh-roh.

Vette's back from his vacation!

https://media.giphy.com/media/d31wiMCYDmyniPU4/giphy.gif

Five straight days picking up trash next to the Interstate. I imagine he looked quite manly wearing an orange vest with that trash-picker pole.

Only time all year he gets exercise.

 

[suurfer]

Yet the President is sending a couple thousand more to his friends the Saudis. Cos they’re worth our blood and treasure.

I just watched the Pentagon press conference.
Odd to listen to that speech, after reading this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49686128

 

[LupusDei]

The long, bloody history of Europe, and in reality the entire Eurasian land mass, based on grievances going back over a thousand years is difficult for Americans to grasp. It's even more difficult when you start talking about the Mid-East where the conflicts and grudges go back even further. Which is another way of saying what the overwhelming majority of Americans know about history could be stuffed up an ants ass without discomforting the ant.

I can understand Putin's paranoia. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the West's rush to bring all of the former bloc members into the NATO fold it most certainly would appear to be an invasion, albeit a political invasion. I can't help but wonder whether encouraging the Central nations to form their own equivalent of the EU might not have been a wiser course of action in the long run. And considering how the policy makers in Brussels are alienating the Central nations that might still be an option in the future. Russia has always wanted a buffer zone between itself and the West, especially Germany. Would that satisfy them?

Russians would have loved that, no doubt, but you shouldn't forget that they aren't the only ones suffering from paranoia.

The rush to EU and NATO wasn't anything very wanted by those organizations, but rather reluctantly acceptance of afraid beggars on their doorstep. Coming with some mild geopolitical benefits, no doubt. It's one of main disconnections here, and one that Russian propaganda relentlessly promotes for both domestic and abroad use, that it was some aggressive expansionist designs of, yeah, basically of Americans. Nope. We manipulated all the leverage we had to get it done as fast as possible, ourselves.

It also wouldn't be good because of how poor we were/are. We switched over from being about the richest province in USSR to the very poorest members of the EU and we needed that opportunity, as devastating the blessing of EU markets is.

The finality of no way back was very important, locally, and for the relationship with the Russia too. Without that they would forever see the lost provinces as a temporal arrangement, heck, they do anyway. And make no mistake, ambition of restorationists goes at least as far as Warshaw Pact borders was, plus the "slavic brothers Serbs" and their interests, if possible. It's all "our lands." Russians are working hard to undermine EU for that very goals.

Also, there's not enough commonality across the nations in question to justify such artificial arrangement, not across all of them, at least.

A block within block, or even across blocks might be possible, though.

Latvians, Lithuanians and exterminated Old Prussians (their lands forever host-less, taken as spoils of war by latest winners) speak Baltic languages. Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians are Slavs, tied in by historical events. Latvia and Estonia are foster sisters by sharing mostly same history for a millennia, but Estonia and Finland are ethnic brothers with close languages. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and western Ukraine share traditional way of life, based on independent, maximally self-sufficient freestanding homesteads, NOT organized into villages. Russians have different culture based on closely knit village, that's where the crazy ideas of collectivization come from. Belarusians and Poles are somewhat in between, but the real deep pre-christan roots are common for all aforementioned (and possibly parts of Germany and beyond) although Baltic people and Russians can be easily drawn in flame war over nuances of that. Latvia and Estonia share cultural similarities with Germany, forced by crusaders of thirteen century settling there as landlords and ruling class for seven centuries; it is it's own love/hate dynamic that seemingly have nothing to do with the mainland Germany. Sweden didn't have serfdom, and greatly eased it there, before Russians restored the German landlord rights.

Further south... sure it could have been Latvians, Courlanders to be accurate, who stormed citadel gates of Turkish held Buda in 1686 under the nose of Sarı Süleyman Paşa relief army, but they were just war-servants recruited by German landlord under Polish command. And that battle wasn't making friends anyway.

Back to your observation regarding "Greater Kurdistan" being spread over 4 nations. None of those nations are going to cede their territories to the Kurd's. That is a political reality. Nor are they going to give them autonomous status. (Iraq only did so under US pressure and that could change at anytime in the future.) Granting them autonomous status in the individual nations would eventually lead to a unification of those areas and a declaration of independence. An eventuality that NONE of those nations are going to tolerate.

One last point. The fact that the Kurd's fought against ISIS does not make us "allies" any more than the USSR being a true ally during WWII. Merely part of a coalition with common interests. The Kurd's did not join in with us, they were fighting for their very existence and would have done so had we not been there.

Very right all that.

Also Kurds are in current alliance with Assad whom both USA and Turkey want gone, but Russians and Iran back.

I wonder right now about two things now. One, would there be any difficulties between Russians who control Syria's airspace actually and Turkey, especially if they try to push deeper than declared either directly or by forces of the Syrian "rebels" they are sending in.

Two, how long it will take until there's major Kurdish uprising within the Turkey itself? There was a major crackdown on them not too long ago as much I remember, and I think they toned it down to be good partners in the anti-ISIS coalition, but if this will go on, what's the chances?

On longer term, I do not believe it would ever be easy to reduce their autonomy within Iraq, especially if efforts to rebuild Syria within current borders will fail. Then Iran... with whole region ablaze and the combat experience they have I doubt anything is out for certain. It wouldn't be soon, easy or pretty, but that's the only thing granted in that region.

 

[bigsly]

Remember when Obama was unconstitutionally arming "rebels" in Syria through his point man, Libyan Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi in 2012, there to meet his Turkish gun smuggling counterpart?

Remember when Obama proclaimed he couldn't constitutionally go to war against Syria all on his own, that Congress had to approve?

Remember in 2013 when Obama finally went to Congress to ask for its authorization for his up-til-then unconstitutional, covert military actions in Syria, which the Benghazi debacle helped expose?

Remember Congress waffling to vote on giving Obama that constitutional authorization amid humungous public opposition, and by the end of the year the government shut down, saving Obama the embarrassment of losing that vote?

Remember Obama then ramped-up his secret, unconstitutional funneling of arms to various factions in Syria anyway, a lot of which ended up in the hands of al Qaeda and Daesh?

Remember Obama then secretly started sending US troops to Syria, showing both his disdain for the Constitution and his own proclamation a couple years before?

Remember, without any Congressional authorization at all, Obama kept increasing those numbers of US troops and weapons unconstitutionally sent to Syria?

Now the next President is constitutionally undoing the unconstitutionality of the last President, and American socialists/progressives/Democrats and statists/conservatives/Republicans alike, all warmongers who demand other's blood be sacrificed instead of willingly offering their own first, absolutely hate him for it.

And speaking of the repugnant unconstitutionality of the last American President: how's Libya doing these days, warmongers?


Thanks to https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1182511944017874945?s=20

 

[SpeareChucker]

I could be wrong, but my logic is:
The potential repercussions of the US defending those kurdish forces against Turkey:

1. Higher casualties (Turkey's army is v. powerful) and war contagion (other nations jumping in)

2. The wrath of the Muslim world, and increase in suicide and knife attacks in Europe and the US.
They might have tolerated US's decision to go after ISIS, but not to intervene in in a regional issue (whoever might be in the right).

Turkey's army is a haphazard clutsterfuck at best...

Currently, they are an ambitious lot, but in action, they are Barney Fife
with more than one bullet at his disposal.
They have announced that they will take some territory as a buffer
but the reality is they will send some troops in, set up camp
and pray that the Kurds and others do not push back...