Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need a formal agreement for the Kurds, giving up 11,000 lives fighting ISIS wasn't enough so we are under no obligation because we don't have a piece of paper. How many NATO soldiers gave their lives in Iraq.
I don't know why I need to point this out but Turkey is also in Syria illegally.
Sounds like a job for the UN to do something about it. The USA is not the world police force.
I don't know why I need to point this out, but just because Turkey is there illegally doesn't mean that we should be as well. Nor does it mean that we need to do something about it. It seems like Syria at this point is Ok with the Turks.
We need a formal agreement for the Kurds, giving up 11,000 lives fighting ISIS wasn't enough so we are under no obligation because we don't have a piece of paper. How many NATO soldiers gave their lives in Iraq.
I don't know why I need to point this out but Turkey is also in Syria illegally.
Lol, the Kurds were not fighting ISIS for the US, they were fighting for themselves. They would have fought despite us being there or not.
This is like saying since the Soviets lost 20 million people in WW2, the US was obligated to the Soviets for everything after. Well no, our cooperation was for WW2 only.
The Kurds are interested in one thing, their own country. The Kurds have been waging a defacto war with Turkey for decades now. Syria's civil war allowed a vacuum in which they seized the opportunity and have now attempted to form their own country. The US has zero obligation to support them to do this.
And yes, Turkey is illegally in Syria, I do not see where it is implied they are not.
Lol, the Kurds were not fighting ISIS for the US, they were fighting for themselves. They would have fought despite us being there or not.
This is like saying since the Soviets lost 20 million people in WW2, the US was obligated to the Soviets for everything after. Well no, our cooperation was for WW2 only.
The Kurds are interested in one thing, their own country. The Kurds have been waging a defacto war with Turkey for decades now. Syria's civil war allowed a vacuum in which they seized the opportunity and have now attempted to form their own country. The US has zero obligation to support them to do this.
Actually they were doing both, ask one of the soldiers they were fought along side. Military leaders praised their support because they saved lives of American soldiers that would have been killed in their place.
They lost thousands of lives fighting with us so yes that is an obligation except for those with short memories. But Erdogan comes along and gives us 24 hours to desert them and we pick up and run without any negotiations. Spare me the fact that Kurds and Turkey have been at war for years, that is a Trump diversion and irrelevant.
Yes allies who gave up their lives for us amounts to an obligation.
Actually they were doing both, ask one of the soldiers they were fought along side. Military leaders praised their support because they saved lives of American soldiers that would have been killed in their place.
They lost thousands of lives fighting with us so yes that is an obligation except for those with short memories. But Erdogan comes along and gives us 24 hours to desert them and we pick up and run without any negotiations. Spare me the fact that Kurds and Turkey have been at war for years, that is a Trump diversion and irrelevant.
Yes allies who gave up their lives for us amounts to an obligation.
The fact is the US is illegally in the country, they are providing material support for a terror group, and have no obligation aside ISIS in which the Kurds would have fought with or without us anyway as they were doing it for themselves.
Many Soviet troops lost their lives as well supporting Allied forces. If not for the counter offensive, Germany would have dealt harshly against Allied troops on the western front. The Soviets attacked the Japanese as agreed also. Guess what, none of that obligated the US to assist the Soviets in anyway past the goals of WW2.
Turkey did not give 24 hours, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the military knows it would take a lot longer to build up those forces, and those forces are not being built up along the border for show, that is support for an invasion.
The Kurds and Turks have been at war for decades, that is a fact whether you like it or not. The Kurds want to establish their own state in eastern Turkey. The PKK has been spearheading this by force, and is a declared terror group responsible for numerous terror attacks.
The fact is the US is illegally in the country, they are providing material support for a terror group, and have no obligation aside ISIS in which the Kurds would have fought with or without us anyway as they were doing it for themselves.
Many Soviet troops lost their lives as well supporting Allied forces. If not for the counter offensive, Germany would have dealt harshly against Allied troops on the western front. The Soviets attacked the Japanese as agreed also. Guess what, none of that obligated the US to assist the Soviets in anyway past the goals of WW2.
Turkey did not give 24 hours, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the military knows it would take a lot longer to build up those forces, and those forces are not being built up along the border for show, that is support for an invasion.
The Kurds and Turks have been at war for decades, that is a fact whether you like it or not. The Kurds want to establish their own state in eastern Turkey. The PKK has been spearheading this by force, and is a declared terror group responsible for numerous terror attacks.
On a positive note, almost everyone is against his actions, Dems, Repubs, Evangelicals...... it is being called what might be the worst Presidential decision in history.
Trump may have ruined his 2020 chances. A very slight glimmer of hope.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
This defense of Turkey is curious. Not even Trump goes there, and he's blaming about everybody in sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The fact is the US is illegally in the country, they are providing material support for a terror group, and have no obligation aside ISIS in which the Kurds would have fought with or without us anyway as they were doing it for themselves.
You infer the US has some obligation to defend Americans from world terrorism ("obligation aside [from] ISIS"). But then you appear to object to fighting ISIS on their 'home" territory. Does this mean the preference is to wait until ISIS-directed terrorism is committed outside the area of their declared Caliphate? You also state the Kurds would have fought without us, which may be true but do not address how well that might have succeeded without U.S. "material support." You do not address the logistics of the U.S. providing "material support" without committing what appears to be a cardinal sin of not first obtaining visas from the Assad government. There's a clear need to rank priorities here: ISIS or Assad-issued visas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Many Soviet troops lost their lives as well supporting Allied forces. If not for the counter offensive, Germany would have dealt harshly against Allied troops on the western front. The Soviets attacked the Japanese as agreed also. Guess what, none of that obligated the US to assist the Soviets in anyway past the goals of WW2.
Not a good analogy. No one argued the United States was obligated to assist the Soviets post-VE day or them the US post-Japanese surrender. The two countries came together to soundly defeat a common enemy then mutually went their separate ways - very separate as it turned out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Turkey did not give 24 hours, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the military knows it would take a lot longer to build up those forces, and those forces are not being built up along the border for show, that is support for an invasion.
That Erdogan marched some troops up to the border then would have to march them back again would be on Erdogan. Not a good reason to support his invasion or even assert it was inevitable. A withdrawal after the fact no doubt will be harder if not impossible to negotiate. That Erdogan wanted to invade is clearly established and not the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The Kurds and Turks have been at war for decades, that is a fact whether you like it or not. The Kurds want to establish their own state in eastern Turkey. The PKK has been spearheading this by force, and is a declared terror group responsible for numerous terror attacks.
From a state-perspective, Turkey's aims are only relevant if it proves useful to the United States as an ally. Kurdish support is only valuable as long as its efforts add value. That said, as long as either or both act as allies it is against U.S. interest to jettison them absent reason or diplomatic cover. U.S. interests include not incurring costs - for example, reduced ability to form alliances, anti-Americanism, diminished morale, lack of confidence in US decision-making process, job not done etc. Personally, I place no little importance on the humanitarian or moral aspects but I'm not naive enough to think that drives U.S. policy. Still that is relevant, for those considerations are important to many including voting U.S. citizens.
It was in U.S. interests to keep two important but mutually-aggressive allies apart. That was happening until the U.S. torpedoed the recently established Safe Zone. Russian troops appear to have taken the place of U.S.soldiers with the barrier reestablished - except unfortunately where the Turks made inroads and the Kurds fight on alone.
Whether or not any party likes certain on-ground realities is irrelevant. The Turks were going to have to figure out how to deal with the PKK within their borders. The Kurds were not going to get a State. The United States needed to figure out an exit strategic that was less costly to U.S. interests.
More broadly, Turkey backed by a Sunni-extremist group carving out territory from Syria is counter-productive - again for US interests. Resettlement of Sunni refugees almost certainly is best accomplished throughout Syria with the concurrence of the central government (now to be Assad with the Kurds) - not crowded into a narrow border strip. That sounds like Gaza all over again. The idea should be to get Syria back together not continue to carve it up.
This defense of Turkey is curious. Not even Trump goes there, and he's blaming about everybody in sight.
I have zero care about Trump, did not vote for him, probably will not in 2020. At that, I see no defense of Turkey, I support the US not being involved at all. This issue is between Syria and Turkey, Turkey invaded, so who ever Syria invites also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
You infer the US has some obligation to defend Americans from world terrorism ("obligation aside [from] ISIS"). But then you appear to object to fighting ISIS on their 'home" territory. Does this mean the preference is to wait until ISIS-directed terrorism is committed outside the area of their declared Caliphate? You also state the Kurds would have fought without us, which may be true but do not address how well that might have succeeded without U.S. "material support." You do not address the logistics of the U.S. providing "material support" without committing what appears to be a cardinal sin of not first obtaining visas from the Assad government. There's a clear need to rank priorities here: ISIS or Assad-issued visas?
Yes, I am against invading other countries, despite who is present. If the US was really serious about ISIS, it would have supported Assad fully. Instead, the US arms various groups, creates a power vacuum, ISIS grows. That shows me the US is not concerned about ISIS, the US wanted regime change, the gov just uses ISIS to keep the voters happy. The gov needs ISIS as an excuse to be involved in Syria. No ISIS, no domestic support.
The Kurds would have fought just fine against ISIS, provided ISIS was not being funneled material support from groups the US and Saudis provided support to. ISIS would have never even grew if not for US and Saudi efforts at regime change.
And yes, it is a cardinal sin to invade a country, illegally occupying it. Would you like a country to send troops into the US? No? Would you like one of these idiotic extremist groups in the US to invite foreign troops? And you would be ok with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
Not a good analogy. No one argued the United States was obligated to assist the Soviets post-VE day or them the US post-Japanese surrender. The two countries came together to soundly defeat a common enemy then mutually went their separate ways - very separate as it turned out.
It is a great analogy. The Allies and Soviets were cooperating for one goal, to defeat the Axis. Same with the Kurds and US, to defeat ISIS. There are no other goals nor areas of cooperation. Turkey, a long standing and current US ally, has been engaged in a defacto war with the Kurds for 40 years, and it is well known Turkey is not going to allow a Kurd state to form to set up a base to attack eastern Turkey. Turkey said they are going to invade, the US needs to move out of the way (aside from the fact we should not be there), as this is an issue between Turkey and Syria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
That Erdogan marched some troops up to the border then would have to march them back again would be on Erdogan. Not a good reason to support his invasion or even assert it was inevitable. A withdrawal after the fact no doubt will be harder if not impossible to negotiate. That Erdogan wanted to invade is clearly established and not the issue.
I did not say support the invasion, I said we should not be there at all. This is an issue between Syria and Turkey. Let them battle it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
From a state-perspective, Turkey's aims are only relevant if it proves useful to the United States as an ally. Kurdish support is only valuable as long as its efforts add value. That said, as long as either or both act as allies it is against U.S. interest to jettison them absent reason or diplomatic cover. U.S. interests include not incurring costs - for example, reduced ability to form alliances, anti-Americanism, diminished morale, lack of confidence in US decision-making process, job not done etc. Personally, I place no little importance on the humanitarian or moral aspects but I'm not naive enough to think that drives U.S. policy. Still that is relevant, for those considerations are important to many including voting U.S. citizens.
The Kurds are in this for one thing, a state of their own. They have zero care nor allegiance to anyone nor anything else aside from that. The US should not be involving itself in such affairs, under the guise of "ISIS" that the Kurds will use to keep US forces there. It would be in no interest of the Kurds to actually solve the ISIS issue if that would mean removal of US troops. We would be there for decades maybe, just as we are, well, many places going on 20 years now with no end in sight.
At that, Turkey is the ally here, not some nation group, one which fully backs a recognized terror organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
It was in U.S. interests to keep two important but mutually-aggressive allies apart. That was happening until the U.S. torpedoed the recently established Safe Zone. Russian troops appear to have taken the place of U.S.soldiers with the barrier reestablished - except unfortunately where the Turks made inroads and the Kurds fight on alone.
Russia is the invited party and legally in Syria. This is the international norm which the US fought to establish, yet so willingly to violate and have a hissy fit if others abide by it. "Safe zone" was just a "hey, we the US want this area of Syria to have control over". Look at the other, large safe zone of Syria, it is the area Assad controls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
Whether or not any party likes certain on-ground realities is irrelevant. The Turks were going to have to figure out how to deal with the PKK within their borders. The Kurds were not going to get a State. The United States needed to figure out an exit strategic that was less costly to U.S. interests.
The least costly was not to get involved, the second least costly is to get out ASAP. This is an issue between Syria and Turkey. Saying the Turks were going to have to figure out how to deal with the PKK inside their borders is like saying the US should do the same regarding terrorism.
I do not support Turkey's invasion, but I do see why they are doing it, what should be done is to coordinate with Assad in establishing control of the country, thus the Kurds will not have a state and would be constrained from bother Turkey in such a manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
More broadly, Turkey backed by a Sunni-extremist group carving out territory from Syria is counter-productive - again for US interests. Resettlement of Sunni refugees almost certainly is best accomplished throughout Syria with the concurrence of the central government (now to be Assad with the Kurds) - not crowded into a narrow border strip. That sounds like Gaza all over again. The idea should be to get Syria back together not continue to carve it up.
I agree, and that should have been the goal all along. instead, the US got all excited over this regime change stuff despite the trail of destruction it had, and the US completely ignored Russia's warning about it (Gates' book "Duty" goes into this). If the US was concerned about terrorism, the US would have never decided to back some unvetted groups, supply material support, and create the obvious vacuum that allowed ISIS to gain strength. The US has supported all sorts of brutal dictators in the past for its interests, so in this case, to me the US had no interest in ISIS, it had interest in removing Assad, hence why ISIS was not really being dealt with until Russia showed up, the US was also busy destroying Syrian infrastructure more so than targeting anything of real value to counter ISIS.
On a positive note, almost everyone is against his actions, Dems, Repubs, Evangelicals...... it is being called what might be the worst Presidential decision in history.
Trump may have ruined his 2020 chances. A very slight glimmer of hope.
"It's sad that the usually serene resort destination of Syria has been transformed into a war-torn hellscape under Trump," said Hillary Clinton. "Under my watch, the Middle East was basically a big golf resort."
Barack Obama and George W. Bush joined in their condemnation of what Trump has done to the Middle East. "It's like they say in Texas," said Bush. "Attack Iraq once, shame on me. Attack it twice, well, then you won't get attacked again."
"Trump has betrayed our allies, the Kurds," said one man in Arizona who had just googled "who are the Kurds" a few minutes before. "Look at all this violence he's causing in the usually utopian paradise of Syria."
The nation has called on Trump to allow U.S. soldiers to stick around for another few centuries in order to bring our various conflicts to a satisfactory conclusion.
They are on a roll...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
