Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump makes way for Turkey operation against Kurds in Syria

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fresneck
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    Obama armed various groups and got us involved. Thus our bases in Syria that Trump forced us to retreat from. What was the end game for Obama? We use the Kurds to defeat ISIS and then what?
    That's not really how it went down, but still...

    Leave a comment:


  • Fresneck
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    Obama armed various groups and got us involved. Thus our bases in Syria that Trump forced us to retreat from. What was the end game for Obama? We use the Kurds to defeat ISIS and then what?
    Don't forget he also blatantly lied on national television about US involvement in Syria, and a week later it came to light we had 10,000 troops on the ground supporting Syrian operations. But, yeah...The previous administration is completely innocent in the entire Syria debacle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fresneck
    replied
    This thread got way better after I left.

    My favorite part is everyone talking about the opinions of Kurds, whereas I was actually with those people.

    Also, the questioning of blowing up LCF is comical, but it's to be expected from all the military strategists on this board. If y'all only knew what other shit we demolished in the past year.

    Leave a comment:


  • TTURedRaider
    replied
    Also...

    Bradley fighting vehicles deployed as part of Operation Turn the F**k Around and Go Back To Syria

    Leave a comment:


  • TTURedRaider
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan View Post
    So what's the number? At what point do you value an American citizen's life enough to put tens of thousands more citizens and millions of locals in harm's way?
    When the criminal action kills/wounds more Americans than say the War of 1812 and starts to approach Mexican-American War status I think you have to consider it. What about you? Does a number exist? Would they have to be attacking San Diego directly for you to say okay that does it?

    Their argument, which I disagreed with, was that they were only defending minority rights that were already endangered by imperialist Saudis

    What I don't disagree with is the goal of protesting. That is too voice displeasure to people with the power to affect change. In this case, it would be to make it clear that we disapprove of Iranian adventurism in the region, which we do. However, what would be the outcome? With a highly impulsive narcissist who craves validation and already believes that a war in the region would be trivial, what would be the outcome? Is that outcome worth preventing further adventurism by Iran in the short term? As much as one might want to hold everyone to an idealized standard, some things aren't worth the cost.
    I figured it would be something like that. But I could argue we were doing that by partnering with Syrian Kurds defending minority rights and protecting them from the danger of Turkish imperialists. But instead they say we should show solidarity with the Socialist Kurds and also US should abandon them.

    In this case, protests could have made clear that we disapprove of Iranian and Russian adventurism in the region. They could have easily done that while the Nobel Peace Prize winning President who didn't want a war with Iran was in office. What a sight that would have been anti-war and showing solidarity with Iranian and Russian citizens who didn't think their governments should be looking for foreign monsters to slay. Protesting to voice displeasure at adventurism by any country seems a fairly low basic standard for the anti-war/anti-imperialism people to set.

    Reuters - Exclusive: Iran intervenes to prevent ousting of Iraqi prime minister - sources
    Last edited by TTURedRaider; 10-31-2019, 10:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartan
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    Agreed. I'm just saying a federal crime against 8,977+ US citizens is orders of magnitude greater than a federal crime committed against 1 US citizen.
    So what's the number? At what point do you value an American citizen's life enough to put tens of thousands more citizens and millions of locals in harm's way?

    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post
    Your misstating my position. I just want them to have a standard and hold everyone to it. Not one standard for the US and different standards for everyone else.

    Why wasn't Iran and the Houthis a case of imperialism? Its clearly a intervention by Iran into the affairs of Yemen. Why is that anymore okay than Saudi Arabia involvement or our help to Saudi Arabia? America should get out so the Kurds can fight off ethnic cleansing from Turkey, ISIS, and the Assad regime by themselves but its okay for the Houthis to receive support from Iran? If it's adventurism/interventionism/imperialism for the US to get involved in foreign countries why isn't it when Iran, Russia, Turkey, etc do it? If its a crime for Israel to annex land in Palestine why then can Russia annex Crimea from Ukraine without protests from the Left?

    Explain to me how this isn't imperialism.

    https://apnews.com/62642940e3fe4b1b87323decc9487fea



    Here we have an Iranian general sitting in for Iraq's Prime Minister telling Iraqi security officials how they should deal with anti-government protests which in part had to do with Iran's influence of Iraq.
    Their argument, which I disagreed with, was that they were only defending minority rights that were already endangered by imperialist Saudis

    What I don't disagree with is the goal of protesting. That is too voice displeasure to people with the power to affect change. In this case, it would be to make it clear that we disapprove of Iranian adventurism in the region, which we do. However, what would be the outcome? With a highly impulsive narcissist who craves validation and already believes that a war in the region would be trivial, what would be the outcome? Is that outcome worth preventing further adventurism by Iran in the short term? As much as one might want to hold everyone to an idealized standard, some things aren't worth the cost.

    Leave a comment:


  • TTURedRaider
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan View Post
    A federal crime committed against a US citizen is a crime committed against the US.
    Agreed. I'm just saying a federal crime against 8,977+ US citizens is orders of magnitude greater than a federal crime committed against 1 US citizen.

    The last meeting I went to, everyone was spinning their wheels over Iran and how the Houthis weren't a case of imperialism. So I can understand how frustrating it can be. But at the same time, you're not going to win anyone over by trying to brow beat them into believing that the US is a victim in this. It is, at best, a willing participant and, at worst, the evil empire.
    Your misstating my position. I just want them to have a standard and hold everyone to it. Not one standard for the US and different standards for everyone else.

    Why wasn't Iran and the Houthis a case of imperialism? Its clearly a intervention by Iran into the affairs of Yemen. Why is that anymore okay than Saudi Arabia involvement or our help to Saudi Arabia? America should get out so the Kurds can fight off ethnic cleansing from Turkey, ISIS, and the Assad regime by themselves but its okay for the Houthis to receive support from Iran? If it's adventurism/interventionism/imperialism for the US to get involved in foreign countries why isn't it when Iran, Russia, Turkey, etc do it? If its a crime for Israel to annex land in Palestine why then can Russia annex Crimea from Ukraine without protests from the Left?

    Explain to me how this isn't imperialism.

    https://apnews.com/62642940e3fe4b1b87323decc9487fea

    BAGHDAD (AP) — The day after anti-government protests erupted in Iraq, Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani flew into Baghdad late at night and took a helicopter to the heavily fortified Green Zone, where he surprised a group of top security officials by chairing a meeting in place of the prime minister.

    The arrival of Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force and the architect of its regional security apparatus, signaled Tehran’s concern over the protests, which had erupted across the capital and in Iraq’s Shiite heartland, and included calls for Iran to stop meddling in the country.

    “We in Iran know how to deal with protests,” Soleimani told the Iraqi officials, according to two senior officials familiar with the meeting who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the secret gathering. “This happened in Iran and we got it under control.”
    Here we have an Iranian general sitting in for Iraq's Prime Minister telling Iraqi security officials how they should deal with anti-government protests which in part had to do with Iran's influence of Iraq.
    Last edited by TTURedRaider; 10-31-2019, 06:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartan
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    Agreed. So what was with the "A republic is it's people response"?
    A federal crime committed against a US citizen is a crime committed against the US.

    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    Good for them! Of course there is no formal way to kick out a NATO member. Do the Democratic Socialists have a stance on the Turkish occupation of Syria? I'm betting they couldn't come up with a statement on it.

    Of Course Congress’ Vote to Recognize the Armenian Genocide Was Political
    That doesn’t mean it was cynical.




    See this is the kind of stuff that annoys me.
    The last meeting I went to, everyone was spinning their wheels over Iran and how the Houthis weren't a case of imperialism. So I can understand how frustrating it can be. But at the same time, you're not going to win anyone over by trying to brow beat them into believing that the US is a victim in this. It is, at best, a willing participant and, at worst, the evil empire.

    Leave a comment:


  • TTURedRaider
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan View Post
    Sure. Just like DPRK and DRC are Democratic.
    Agreed. So what was with the "A republic is it's people response"?

    Good for them! Of course there is no formal way to kick out a NATO member. Do the Democratic Socialists have a stance on the Turkish occupation of Syria? I'm betting they couldn't come up with a statement on it.

    Of Course Congress’ Vote to Recognize the Armenian Genocide Was Political
    That doesn’t mean it was cynical.


    A more surprising voice of cynicism was that of Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of only two Democrats who didn’t vote for the resolution. (She voted present.) In a statement explaining her vote, she said “recognition of genocide should not be used as cudgel in a political fight. It should be done based on academic consensus outside the push and pull of geopolitics.” She also argued that a “true acknowledgment of historical crimes against humanity must include … earlier mass slaughters like the transatlantic slave trade and Native American genocide.”

    The second point is just classic whataboutism. Nowhere does the resolution say that Turkey’s crimes are unique in all of history. (The Republic of Turkey, as opposed to the Ottoman Empire, is not even mentioned.) Acknowledging a historic genocide in Turkey—or for that matter criticizing recent human rights abuses in Israel and Saudi Arabia, as Omar has done—does not imply American infallibility.
    See this is the kind of stuff that annoys me.
    Last edited by TTURedRaider; 10-30-2019, 09:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sctrojan
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan View Post
    Sure. Just like DPRK and DRC are Democratic.



    https://www.dw.com/en/majority-of-ge...vey/a-51030130
    Turks are hated all over Europe. All organized crime is done by Turks. All petty crime is done by Turks. The fucking unibrows need to be removed from NATO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartan
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    Was Afghanistan a republic under the Taliban? Was Iraq a republic under Saddam Hussein?
    Sure. Just like DPRK and DRC are Democratic.

    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post
    Okay.

    Russia has military presence in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova, Syria, and Vietnam. Soon will have one in Eritrea and Venezuela. I'm not aware of people marching in the streets about Russia adventurism in Ukraine and Syria.

    Turkey has military presence in Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Iraq, Qatar, and Somalia. Any of the anti-war people there out protesting Turkey's adventurism in Syria?

    India has military presence in Bhutan, Maldives, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Seychelles. Have the people there protested India going into Kashmir?
    https://www.dw.com/en/majority-of-ge...vey/a-51030130

    Leave a comment:


  • TTURedRaider
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan View Post
    A republic is it's people.
    Was Afghanistan a republic under the Taliban? Was Iraq a republic under Saddam Hussein?

    How many military bases do Turkey or Russia have in Italy? Italy is effectively under US hegemony as a member of NATO that doesn't really apply to Turkey.
    Okay.

    Russia has military presence in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova, Syria, and Vietnam. Soon will have one in Eritrea and Venezuela. I'm not aware of people marching in the streets about Russia adventurism in Ukraine and Syria.

    Turkey has military presence in Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Iraq, Qatar, and Somalia. Any of the anti-war people there out protesting Turkey's adventurism in Syria?

    India has military presence in Bhutan, Maldives, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Seychelles. Have the people there protested India going into Kashmir?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartan
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    My argument - What if a nation-state supports non-state actors who committed a criminal act against the United States seeking to protect them from apprehension and prosecution?

    Argument you argued against - What if a nation state supports an actor who committed a criminal act in the United States seeking to protect them from apprehension and prosecution?

    Resulting with this pithy retort - So when are we invading France to get back Roman Polanski?
    A republic is it's people.

    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post
    I understand that citizens of the US care more about news when its about the US. I get anti-war people here protesting US wars. I get anti-war people in the UK protesting UK getting involved in wars.

    I don't understand say 3 million strong Italians in Rome protesting a US war. But those same "anti-war" people not protesting Russia invading Ukraine or Turkey invading Syria.
    How many military bases do Turkey or Russia have in Italy? Italy is effectively under US hegemony as a member of NATO that doesn't really apply to Turkey.

    Leave a comment:


  • TTURedRaider
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan View Post

    I don't know. It seems more to me like you moved the goalposts. Roman Polanski fits every part of your original argument.
    My argument - What if a nation-state supports non-state actors who committed a criminal act against the United States seeking to protect them from apprehension and prosecution?

    Argument you argued against - What if a nation state supports an actor who committed a criminal act in the United States seeking to protect them from apprehension and prosecution?

    Resulting with this pithy retort - So when are we invading France to get back Roman Polanski?

    Exactly. The media coverage about the Kurds is how the US abandoned them. The media coverage about Yemen is how the US is supporting the coalition against them. People care more about news when it is about them. The result being that the US is seen as the bad guy in both situations.
    I understand that citizens of the US care more about news when its about the US. I get anti-war people here protesting US wars. I get anti-war people in the UK protesting UK getting involved in wars.

    I don't understand say 3 million strong Italians in Rome protesting a US war. But those same "anti-war" people not protesting Russia invading Ukraine or Turkey invading Syria.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartan
    replied
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    In the "Topics," Aristotle acknowledges "that in argument it would be inappropriate to interpret as someone's position an opinion that he did not express or is not committed to, in virtue of what he said." A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument.

    My argument was about a nation state supporting non-state actors (international terrorists) who committed criminal acts that murdered nearly 3,000 people (injuring 6,000+) in the United States. Which you "re-interpreted" into an argument over starting a war over Roman Polanski's rape case.
    What if a nation-state supports non-state actors who committed a criminal act against the United States seeking to protect them from apprehension and prosecution?
    I don't know. It seems more to me like you moved the goalposts. Roman Polanski fits every part of your original argument.

    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post
    I'm capable of going to the left-wing sites that talk about things that the big corporate media doesn't. Russian annexation of Crimea and occupation of Donbass region of Ukraine? Only 20,000 brave people in Moscow and some of the Russian/Ukrainian diaspora world-wide protested the annexation of Crimea. Meanwhile millions of people in major cities world-wide protested the Iraq War with Rome setting a record with 3 million people at anti-war rally.

    People are not protesting the Turkish occupation of Northern Syria because that wouldn't gain them the most media attention? That is why I could organize a world wise protest of U.S. cooperation with Saudi Arabia in regards to Yemen but nobody would show up for Turkey trying to ethnically cleanse the Syrian border 20 km of Kurds?
    Exactly. The media coverage about the Kurds is how the US abandoned them. The media coverage about Yemen is how the US is supporting the coalition against them. People care more about news when it is about them. The result being that the US is seen as the bad guy in both situations.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X