Kurds abandomed by Trump

Discussion in 'World Events' started by mathman, Oct 10, 2019.

  1. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    That wasn't the question I was asking. If you're an isolationist and don't want to spend US blood and treasure on other nations' conflicts, that's entirely your right. If that was your sole motivation, I don't see why you wouldn't criticize all the far costlier and more questionable US deployments elsewhere in the world in addition to the deployment in Syria. If the US was determined to withdraw, it could have done so in a reasonably ordered fashion as opposed to abandoning bases with equipment still intact requiring aerial bombing to avoid enemy capture, it could have done so without leaving thousands of ISIS prisoners to escape and the soldiers you say you care about feeling like their mission was needlessly abandoned and their Kurdish allies thrown under the bus. Trump could have set a firm deadline and stuck to it this time instead of setting deadlines in the past, rescinding them, and then ordering a rapid evacuation while ignoring Turkey shelling his own troops and Erdogan throwing his diplomatic appeals in the garbage, but I don't see you criticizing the chaotic way he has proceeded and the danger it's posed to US interests and US personnel. Now Iraq says Trump can't re-deploy his troops there as he originally intended so he has nowhere to put them, how is this responsible government, leadership and planning on his part?

    What troubles me the most however, is how you not only advocate for an end to US involvement in the region, but you seem to advocate for Bashar Assad and his Russian sponsors to be viewed as the rightful proprietors of Syrian territory, as if their opponents are all terrorists with no rights. This while you huddle in fear with guns close to your chest waiting to bring down a government whose central power levers are controlled by elected representatives. If Obama won 95% of the vote in the country you inhabit, which has a mean quality of life orders of magnitude greater than that enjoyed by 99% of all Syrians, you would call BS on that and go straight for the assault rifles and grenades, but if America's economy tanked to 1% of its current activity and Assad was reported to win 95% of your vote with Russian tanks and planes doing all his fighting, everything would be just dandy?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,416
    of course not...............
    however
    The us involvement from cia fomenting rebellion to military action has not improved the lives of the people who live there. (Libya is a good example) Therefore, a continuation of bad ideas and actions is just plain silly and stupid and damned inhumane.
    The only good has been to the wealth of the war profiteers of the military industrial complex.
    Who would you have bombed and why? Do you hold stock in a weapons manufacturing company?
    I suspect that our biggest problem is the military industrial complex/cabal.
    And, a damned inefficient/incompetent/ineffective department of state.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,821
    Sure. It's not unique in US foreign policy for one administration to make a mess somewhere, the next three to make it worse and the fifth to dump the mess on innocent bystanders and walk away unscathed. In this case, Trump may be making a payment on his election.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,574
    It is remarkable how people justify abandoning our allies to slaughter. I guess there's no decision so immoral that someone, somewhere can't justify it to support their political ideology.

    Thank God we didn't feel this way during World War II.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,416
    Damned sloppy use of the language there billvon
    Our allies include the Turks
    Our ally is the entity that would slaughter every Kurd
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

    Check it out
    Turkey is our ally!

    We have not abandoned an ally!
    Does political association involve disregarding accurate language?
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,574
    We were allies with the Kurds in the fight against ISIS; tens of thousands of them died to keep us safe from ISIS. Now they are being slaughtered. Many of our troops are sick to their stomachs at the betrayal they were forced to participate in.
    So was the USSR.
     
  10. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    Do you not feel it's time to re-evaluate whether Turkey is actually still an ally? They seem to be begging NATO to take its nukes and leave the country so they can pick fights with Russia and be left all alone by themselves to deal with the aftermath. Regardless, do you honestly believe Trump has proceeded with his withdrawal in a responsible, professional manner? Now he changes his mind and announces a deployment to Syria even bigger than the one he pulls out so he can protect the oil from being captured by Schmelzer's cousins, are you going to tell us that this was all planned in advance too?

    If someone wants to be isolationist, they could at least do so in a consistent and competent manner, no?
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    Certainly. The US has done all the immoral things one can imagine, but this has not stopped many propagandists from supporting it.

    The only immoral thing is here to name them allies, because that is a lie - they were puppets to be thrown away if they are no longer useful from the start. As all US "allies".
     
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    No, the deep state has been, once again, able to stop the planned withdrawal. Trump is weak.

    Whatever, the point is that now everybody knows why the US is in Syria. Simply to steal oil. The Russians have actually presented the evidence for this, how the oil is smuggled protected by the US soldiers. The protection of the Kurds is no longer an excuse. Demonstrating the nature of US foreign policy is useful.
     
  13. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    Given that you've already stated that you like Trump because you view him as the fastest way to destroy Amerika and make Amerikans feel almost as if they were equal to or inferior to you, you're basically implying that whatever the "deep state" does to block Trump is actually good for Americans, correct?

    And no, the US is not in Syria to steal oil, but rather to prevent your cousins from taking it from the Kurds and spending the profits on vodka.
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    Fortunately, not. Because what the deep state is doing makes the US even more unpredictable. Being unpredictable means, nobody believes you (what you say today is irrelevant tomorrow), nobody tries to make contracts with you (they would be only one-sided obligations, given that breaking contracts is nothing for the US). This is heavily increased by the actions of the deep state preventing decisions made by Trump. The problem is, BTW, not a new one, the US has been characterized as unable to follow contracts already in Obama time and probably even much earlier. Kerry signing a contract about Syria was worth nothing simply because the Pentagon did not like it.

    Then, there are other actions directed against Trump which are very useful for weakening the US. Given that Trump had good relations, including business relations, with Saudi Arabia, the Trump enemies started to attack Saudi Arabia, making a big political scandal out of the Kashoggi murder.

    Then, all this anti-Russian hysteria started by the Trump enemies did a lot to discredit Western media. The more stupid the Western propaganda, the better. This has given the world nice mems like

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    (Moreover, I do not care at all about what Americans feel. I give here some information for those interested in information, that's all. I also do not care about destroying America, a US with Ron Paul as president and not sabotaged by the deep state would be a nice country, there would be no reason to hate it. Unfortunately, this is not realistic, but fortunately, the destruction of the globalist power is realistic, given the conflict between the US elites, nationalists vs. globalists.)
    Except that the little oil which can be attributed to regions where Kurds live is now already under Syrian control, and the oil the US is stealing now is on Arab territories. So, as far as Kurds get something from that oil, they are simply participating in the US stealing.
     
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    Just to illustrate how easy it becomes for the Russians to use that "protection of oil fields from IS" for the discreditation of the US: An official statement of the Russian MoD:
     
  16. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    Right, so if the US drills and sells that oil with permission from the locals who own the oil, and shares the profits with those locals, then neither ISIS nor Russia can get their grubby hands on it, correct? That would be good for the Kurds and other SDF allies, since Russia never shares anything unless it expects something even bigger in return, and is currently in the process together with Iran of plundering everything of economic value in the areas they control, inserting their own state companies into the void.

    By the way, you shouldn't hire Borat to write your foreign policy pronouncements.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    Already better, "locals" instead of "Kurds". You can be even more specific, "local IS-supporters".
     
  18. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    No, I mean the people who live on the land, work the land and maintain its infrastructure and rule of law -the traditional hallmarks of sovereignty and self determination- none of whom are obliged to obey Putin's dictats.
     
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    You mean the IS supporters who live in this land, worked the land and maintained the infrastructure and rule of IS law - the traditional hallmarks of sovereignty and self determination - are obliged to accept US and Kurdish occupation, but cannot be allowed to reunite with their Arab brothers in other parts of Syria?

    The fact is that the last time, and the only time after the creation of Syria when they were not ruled by Damascus, they were a central region of the IS. So, when the US talks about the oil sources have to be protected from the IS, they say that the state which these local people have created as an independent state once they had the ability to do this, should not be allowed to rule. But also those parts of Syria where the same Arab people live under a secular ruler should not be allowed to rule there, so this is not about the particular Sharia, rights of women or so.

    Instead, US and Kurds who have never lived there should rule these lands and own the oil.
     
  20. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    So now you're claiming that the people living in the region are IS supporters, and therefore the oil belongs to Russia?
     
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,975
    I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate Secretary General Vladimir Putin, Grand Moff Ali Khamenei, and his Holiness President General Colonel Bashar Al Assad on the successful elimination of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. We know it was always their top priority to eliminate the ISIS leadership and their Korean War Migs have now successfully proven equal to the task, there was never any need for US involvement.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
  22. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,663
    In spite of our abandonment of the Kurds, they were willing and able to give the U.S. the necessary intelligence to take out the leader of ISIS (Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi).
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,416
    If we went back in to destroy their enemy: Did we really abandon them?
    Or did we just bow out of a conflict where we would have had to attack one ally or the other?

    It seems that absent either Turkey or the US leaving NATO, we could not attack the Turks directly.

    Could the US have created an independent Kurdistan?
     

Share This Page