Kurds abandomed by Trump

[iceaura]

If you build something on someone else's property without their permission, who owns it?

If you abandon your stuff in somebody else's yard, they own it.
But it's not a reasonable thing to do with military gear. Normally, you'd take it with you when you left. In this case, there was no time - Trump made sure of that.

We have no need to control the region.

Or keep any of our promises, or cultivate allies, or anything of the kind. Because who needs friends or diplomacy when they have the Marines, right?

 

[Jeeves]

We have no need to control the region.

Really? Then what's all the machinations and massacres, bombing and blockades, partitioning countries and redrawing borders, arming two or more sides in every conflict, flipping regimes, assassinating leaders, imposing sanctions been all about? I suppose, like the Korean and Viet Nam fiascos, it never accomplished a clear objective... but that doesn't mean the monkey lets go of the peanuts.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Latest news...scandal..

 

[billvon]

And the saddest thing about that letter - it wasn't dug up by a reporter through a FISA request or anything. He was handing it out. He was proud of it. That's the sort of thing that Trump is proud of.

 

[Schmelzer]

Now Russia will. They just took over control of a former ally in the war on terror - and ensured that ISIS will flourish. Congratulations!

No. Russia will finish Daesh in a much better way. They have done this in the now Assad-controlled regions, even if there are yet some remains getting support from Al Tanf. If the US is really finally out of Syria, whatever remains from IS will be destroyed in quite short time.

 

[CptBork]

No. Russia will finish Daesh in a much better way. They have done this in the now Assad-controlled regions, even if there are yet some remains getting support from Al Tanf. If the US is really finally out of Syria, whatever remains from IS will be destroyed in quite short time.

Ok so within a year or so there will be no more ISIS activity in Syria, is that what you're saying? Or is "quite short time" more like 25-50 years?

 

[CptBork]

You seem to have a curious way of phrasing that.
Does Queen Elizabeth II own canada?
Does Justin Trudeau own canada?
Does Emmanuel Macron own France?
etc...etc...

Justin Trudeau was elected as the head general manager of Canada, so no the country doesn't belong to him, and it doesn't belong to Queen Elizabeth either, regardless of what a piece of paper written 150 years ago says. The Assad regime however DOES claim ownership of the country in which Russia reinstated it, and the regime is neither elected nor representative of the majority will, therefore it has no more rights over Syria than my next door neighbour here in Canada does.

Why is it you insist on the right to have guns to overthrow an elected government in America, but Syrians have no right to overthrow an unelected government on their side? If Justin Trudeau needs Russia to come bomb political opponents in Canada, does that demonstrate his popular support among the people?

 

[sculptor]

...

Why is it you insist on the right to have guns to overthrow an elected government in America ... ?

History:
One need look no further than the tyranny of the boston elite in massachusetts between the revolutionary war and the constitutional convention.
Previous to that, the regulars(british soldiers) went door to door confiscating weapons, then marched toward a powder storehouse.......and...........more history.

 

[Schmelzer]

Ok so within a year or so there will be no more ISIS activity in Syria, is that what you're saying? Or is "quite short time" more like 25-50 years?

Within a year or two, maybe three, from time to time some terrorist attacks, probably more but in principle comparable to the situation in Europe.

If the US remains occupying Al Tanf, then there will be a much larger permanent terrorist activity in the Southern regions, comparable to the actual level in this region, until the US leaves.

The Assad regime however DOES claim ownership of the country in which Russia reinstated it, and the regime is neither elected nor representative of the majority will, therefore it has no more rights over Syria than my next door neighbour here in Canada does.

First, the international law does not care about elections at all. There are many non-democratic states in the UN, and nothing in the international law prescribes democracy. Second, Assad is actually supported by a large majority of Syrian people. And, moreover, there have been elections.

If Justin Trudeau needs Russia to come bomb political opponents in Canada, does that demonstrate his popular support among the people?

The US needed NATO to fight a few terrorist opponents in the US after 9/11. This obviously demonstrates that W had no popular support among the people.

On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

 

[CptBork]

History:
One need look no further than the tyranny of the boston elite in massachusetts between the revolutionary war and the constitutional convention.
Previous to that, the regulars(british soldiers) went door to door confiscating weapons, then marched toward a powder storehouse.......and...........more history.

Did the Boston elite use sarin gas on their own people or create 12 million refugees? How many schools and hospitals did they blow up? Even Hafez Assad's comparatively minor massacre of Hama in the 1980's was worse than anything America's founding fathers did. So if you feel justified in waging armed rebellion against an elected government because of some perceived power abuses from 250 years ago, do you feel that Syrians are justified in waging an armed rebellion against an unelected government that has done things orders of magnitude worse in the last 30 years?

 

[CptBork]

The US needed NATO to fight a few terrorist opponents in the US after 9/11. This obviously demonstrates that W had no popular support among the people.

The US needed NATO for nothing, they didn't shoot a single plane down after 9/11. Why do you feel it's a relevant comparison between providing more than 100,000 foreign militants plus a foreign air force bigger and more powerful than the domestic one, then burning entire cities to the ground with these forces, vs. German pilots patrolling American skies with emotional neutrality towards shooting down hijacked airliners and never having fired a single shot? I guess this is what one should expect from a guy who compares Russia to the US pound for pound when it doesn't even match up to Spain or California.

And no, there have been no elections in Syria since the Assads took control decades ago. You can't just make up a number and call it an election with no independent monitoring, and you already said previously that any open election with independent international monitoring would be rigged by the US, which is the same as admitting that there haven't been any elections.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So Turkey pauses in it's assault against the Kurds.
One can only wonder what Pence was sent to offer Turkey to prevent Trumps impulsive actions from exploding in his face.
Turkey, already leaning towards Russia, wouldn't take much to start burning bridges.

 

[Schmelzer]

The US needed NATO for nothing,

Means, they simply made a joke of art. 5, using it for nothing. (Who believes that the US will really support some NATO country if it is attacked is quite naive. If the US will act is simply a question if the POTUS thinks it is in his personal interest to act.)

Why do you feel it's a relevant comparison between providing more than 100,000 foreign militants plus a foreign air force bigger and more powerful than the domestic one, then burning entire cities to the ground with these forces, vs. German pilots patrolling American skies with emotional neutrality towards shooting down hijacked airliners and never having fired a single shot?

It is relevant because it shows that what you have written is nonsense. BTW, I have not made any comparison with your propaganda fantasies. The fact remains that all those jihadists would have been destroyed in short time by the Syrian army without them having a lot of foreign support, in weapons, money, and many other things.

And no, there have been no elections in Syria since the Assads took control decades ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Syrian_presidential_election That you will accept only elections rigged by the US is obvious, I don't care about such elections at all, but whatever their value, they have been.

 

[sculptor]

Did the Boston elite use sarin gas on their own people...?

and more
they
unleashed the kraken
brought Cottus, Briareus and Gyges out of tartarus
got Jörmungandr to release its tail
and contracted for a death star.

It seems, Bork that you have little interest in nor knowledge of history.

 

[CptBork]

and more
they
unleashed the kraken
brought Cottus, Briareus and Gyges out of tartarus
got Jörmungandr to release its tail
and contracted for a death star.

It seems, Bork that you have little interest in nor knowledge of history.

I know that no one talks about America's founding fathers inviting foreign armies and air forces to come blow up half of their own country. So do you think the "Boston elite" were worse than Assad and that you're more entitled to armed rebellion than Syrians are?

 

[mmatt9876]

Here is some more info on the Kurdish-Turkish conflict and it's history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present)

 

[mathman]

The Turks have a history of persecuting minorities. During WWI it was the Armenians. Immediately after WWI it was the Greeks. Recent conflict with Kurds is part of the same pattern.

 

[iceaura]

If the US will act is simply a question if the POTUS thinks it is in his personal interest to act.)

You mistake Republican Trump government for all government in the US. That's because you don't know any better.

The fact remains that all those jihadists would have been destroyed in short time by the Syrian army without them having a lot of foreign support, in weapons, money, and many other things.

Assad's army would have been destroyed long ago without a lot of foreign support - in weapons, money, and many other things.

 

[CptBork]

History:
One need look no further than the tyranny of the boston elite in massachusetts between the revolutionary war and the constitutional convention.
Previous to that, the regulars(british soldiers) went door to door confiscating weapons, then marched toward a powder storehouse.......and...........more history.

Still waiting for you to explain why you believe Syrians shouldn't have the same basic rights that you get to take for granted.

 

[sculptor]

hey bork
If you want to invest your money and go to syria and help create a securely governed state that satisfies your desires........... have at it