• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Trump makes way for Turkey operation against Kurds in Syria

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
Whenever an article starts with CONFIRMED I get suspicious and it always turns out to be bullshit.

Headline:
Democrat Dayton Shooter Was Part Of ANTIFA

Article text:

attended an armed protest, alongside Antifa,

From the source linked to:

He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd.
You kept reading and saw the CNN link I posted?
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,238
840
Whenever an article starts with CONFIRMED I get suspicious and it always turns out to be bullshit.

Headline:
Democrat Dayton Shooter Was Part Of ANTIFA

Article text:

attended an armed protest, alongside Antifa,

From the source linked to:

He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd.
Wow. You're going to cherry pick
"He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd."

From the source article? While implying the person you were responding to was being disingenuous?

How about we quote the previous sentence too.

Betts wore a bandanna covering part of his face and sunglasses. He carried a gun which appeared to be similar in style to the one used in Sunday’s shooting. He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd.

Now, call me crazy... but i'm struggling to see how a masked, armed, protestor marching alongside antifa "did not appear to be a part of any group". Because that sure as fuck sounds like he was antifa.

Now it's true that Antifa doesn't exactly have membership roles. Maybe he was just an antifa groupie? Alt-antifa? Antifadjacent?

Let's look deeper:


On his Twitter page, reviewed by Heavy, he described himself as “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” He wrote on Twitter that he would happily vote for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, praised Satan, was upset about the 2016 presidential election results, and added, “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.” .
So. That asshole was a socialist. Supported Elizabeth Warren. Tweeted in support of antifa related causes [there are far more tweets and posts out there]. Protested alongside antifa while masked and armed.

But... does not count as antifa. Yeah, sure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
Let's take a look at this article (i've attached images from it that include Bett's social media postings in his own words, I think the general public is educated enough with the goings on in Portland, Oregon to understand AntiFa enough to spot them in the wild.)














:
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,224
420
Whenever an article starts with CONFIRMED I get suspicious and it always turns out to be bullshit.

Headline:
Democrat Dayton Shooter Was Part Of ANTIFA

Article text:

attended an armed protest, alongside Antifa,

From the source linked to:

He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd.
How exactly does one certify membership in an intentionally non-centrally organized cell-based violent group?
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,224
420
How indeed. Maybe Trump is the leader of Antifa, try proving he is not.
Oh boy, ya got me. Can't prove a negative! :messenger_fearful:

Seriously, though...how does one get signed up for a group like that? Is there a national registry or something? My point being that if you are showing up to their events with rifles and wearing bandanas, hanging with them....you're one of em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

Kreios

Member
Oct 5, 2010
1,628
105
745
U.S.
Good on Trump for doing the right thing. Turkey is different than it used to be, and attacking allies must have helped him see through some of the bs going on. I just wish he would shut his big mouth though lol, he’s certainly not a writer
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,660
1,905
755
Eh I think I'm kind of neutral on this. It's not like he really had better options. Also, any time the media is in such 100% lockstep on anything, we always need to be wary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Facism

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Turkey is moving into Syria now.

"Syrian Kurdish forces" isn't quite right. Syria has a sovereign government in place, does it not?

Isn't Assad responsible for who is or isn't allowed to enter his country? If he is okay with Turkey doing this, why are we trying to stand up for yet another paramilitary group in another nation?

This was last December:

 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,238
840




I would like to say that the left would be cheering if any other president tweeted that. And that's true, in a vacuum.

But the real truth is that any president who would actually attempt to end the endless wars would have been subjected to the same multi-year hate campaign by the media and warhawk opposition.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
25,682
28,026
1,095




I would like to say that the left would be cheering if any other president tweeted that. And that's true, in a vacuum.

But the real truth is that any president who would actually attempt to end the endless wars would have been subjected to the same multi-year hate campaign by the media and warhawk opposition.
Anyone who can argue against those words, are too far gone in their brainwashed ideological dissonance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475




I would like to say that the left would be cheering if any other president tweeted that. And that's true, in a vacuum.

But the real truth is that any president who would actually attempt to end the endless wars would have been subjected to the same multi-year hate campaign by the media and warhawk opposition.
even Trump's die-hard fans like mitch and lindsey are against allowing Turkey to eliminate and persecute the Kurds. It's not accurate to say "what if Obama was President and he did this" because Obama is not the President and he did not do this. Pulling out if Syria helps Russia and China as well as Turkey. Trump admits he has a conflict of interest in Turkey because of his twin Trump Towers. I agree we need to get out of the middle east but abandoning your allies is disgraceful. Who, in the future, would want to help us like the Kurds did after we abandoned them once we had no more use for them? Even the Pentagon disagreed with the decision. Do you think Trump knows more than our top defense officials or do you think he did this out of personal gain? (i.e. appease his base, conflict of interest with his businesses). Also please explain this one to me if you can: If he is so adamant about getting out of the Middle East why did he send boots on the ground in SA after their oil fields were attacked. Trump puts himself over anything else including our country. That's now narcissism works.

and
Trump: "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..... "
also Trump: *sends soldiers to Saudi Arabia*

??????
 
Last edited:

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
They were rooting he'd start a nuclear war to prove their insane predictions right, so...
I see this stupid sign every day and laugh. Beatrice Moore, who owns a few buildings on Grand avenue and that sign, has been ostracized from the rest of the business owners on that road, due to being so leftist and precious about her politics. She used to try and dictate how the streets vibe is supposed to be but there are a number of shops that have told her to go pound sand for it.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
even Trump's die-hard fans like mitch and lindsey are against allowing Turkey to eliminate and persecute the Kurds. It's not accurate to say "what if Obama was President and he did this" because Obama is not the President and he did not do this. Pulling out if Syria helps Russia and China as well as Turkey. Trump admits he has a conflict of interest in Turkey because of his twin Trump Towers. I agree we need to get out of the middle east but abandoning your allies is disgraceful. Who, in the future, would want to help us like the Kurds did after we abandoned them once we had no more use for them? Even the Pentagon disagreed with the decision. Do you think Trump knows more than our top defense officials or do you think he did this out of personal gain? (i.e. appease his base, conflict of interest with his businesses). Also please explain this one to me if you can: If he is so adamant about getting out of the Middle East why did he send boots on the ground in SA after their oil fields were attacked. Trump puts himself over anything else including our country. That's now narcissism works.

and
Trump: "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..... "
also Trump: *sends soldiers to Saudi Arabia*

??????
You seem confused. On the one hand, Trump is badman because he pulled out troops from a region where "our allies" need help. Yet Turkey is literally our allies. We have nukes there. They are a fellow NATO member. The kurds are not recognized as a government or political body, not even by their own country.

On the other hand, when Trump sends troops to our allies (Saudi Arabia), you freak out.

Your emotions are being played for the sake of warmongering. Hate to be the one to break it to you. Reexamine who is spoonfeeding you opinions.
 
Aug 22, 2018
414
448
360
Americans volunteered to help the Kurds.
We did?
When was the referendum?
Frankly the US has made it easier for Terrorist organizations to take power by destabalizing or toppling regimes in the Middle East who were actively fighting them.

US intervention hasn't made it better than the Kurds will have to fight their own battles. I'm not buying into this war narrative fact or fiction, I don't care and you can't make me desire to send those close to me to die in place of others.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
You seem confused. On the one hand, Trump is badman because he pulled out troops from a region where "our allies" need help. Yet Turkey is literally our allies. We have nukes there. They are a fellow NATO member. The kurds are not recognized as a government or political body, not even by their own country.

On the other hand, when Trump sends troops to our allies (Saudi Arabia), you freak out.

Your emotions are being played for the sake of warmongering. Hate to be the one to break it to you. Reexamine who is spoonfeeding you opinions.
They are both our allies. How, on one hand, can Trump say we need to get soldiers out of the middle east, yet only pulls 50 soldiers who were protecting the Kurds from a Turkish assault and not the thousands of other soldiers station across the middle east.
How can he then think it's okay to deploy more soldiers in Saudi Arabia when he's now telling us we need to get out of the middle east.
Ex-Military and others volunteered to fight and help the Kurds, not the Turkish military.
Protecting the Kurds is not warmongering. He pulled them out to help Russia, China, Turkey, and himself. Not for you. Not for the soldiers.

We did?
When was the referendum?
Frankly the US has made it easier for Terrorist organizations to take power by destabalizing or toppling regimes in the Middle East who were actively fighting them.

US intervention hasn't made it better than the Kurds will have to fight their own battles. I'm not buying into this war narrative fact or fiction, I don't care and you can't make me desire to send those close to me to die in place of others.
yes

yes

yes

yes

etc
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
They are both our allies.
We're allies with Assad or we're allies with the kurds? We were allies of ISIS too. And with the Taliban. Supporting our allies the French was the impetus for the USA's presence in Vietnam.

How, on one hand, can Trump say we need to get soldiers out of the middle east, yet only pulls 50 soldiers who were protecting the Kurds from a Turkish assault and not the thousands of other soldiers station across the middle east.
Dunno. I'm eager to hear your evidence for why this is a huge contradiction that surely reflects poorly on Trump personally.

How can he then think it's okay to deploy more soldiers in Saudi Arabia when he's now telling us we need to get out of the middle east.
Ex-Military and others volunteered to fight and help the Kurds, not the Turkish military.
He's supporting our allies, though.

Protecting the Kurds is not warmongering. He pulled them out to help Russia, China, Turkey, and himself. Not for you. Not for the soldiers.
How do you know his motivations for pulling them out? Rachel Maddow is that you?

Seriously, if this is the foundation of your dispute then we have nothing further to discuss. Trump is doing what his constituents have hired him to do. Trump is doing what he has talked about since 2016:



Feel free to complain that he isn't doing it the way you think he should, though. I don't see any Democrats stepping up to alleviate the situation. Pure narcissism on the part of the Party of Peace: get angry at Trump for pulling out of warzones, scolding him for not doing it right, accusing him of doing it for personal interests... yet not lifting a finger to deal with the problem themselves.

Why not put that majority in the House of Representatives to good work? :pie_thinking:
 
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
How about Fuck Turkey.
Trump pulled the soldiers out embedded with the Kurds, against the wishes of his defense officials, after he got off the phone with Ergodan. Trump knew what was going to happen. Yes, fuck Turkey as well.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
882
1,501
400
Who, in the future, would want to help us like the Kurds did after we abandoned them once we had no more use for them?
Everyone, because America has the biggest stick on the playground. Nobody in a future war looking for military support will give a shit about America leaving the Kurds. Were talking war, not some soap opera.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
We're allies with Assad or we're allies with the kurds? We were allies of ISIS too. And with the Taliban. Supporting our allies the French was the impetus for the USA's presence in Vietnam.


Dunno. I'm eager to hear your evidence for why this is a huge contradiction that surely reflects poorly on Trump personally.


He's supporting our allies, though.


How do you know his motivations for pulling them out? Rachel Maddow is that you?

Seriously, if this is the foundation of your dispute then we have nothing further to discuss. Trump is doing what his constituents have hired him to do. Trump is doing what he has talked about since 2016:



Feel free to complain that he isn't doing it the way you think he should, though. I don't see any Democrats stepping up to alleviate the situation. Pure narcissism on the part of the Party of Peace: get angry at Trump for pulling out of warzones, scolding him for not doing it right, accusing him of doing it for personal interests... yet not lifting a finger to deal with the problem themselves.

Why not put that majority in the House of Representatives to good work? :pie_thinking:
We were never Allies with ISIS... I think you're confused about the differences between the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Whether I know his motivations or not, what harm is there keeping 50 soldiers protecting the Kurds when OBJECTIVELY it benefits Russia, China, and Turkey. I'll forget about the Trump Towers even though he openly admitted to it being a "conflict of interest".

Both Republicans AND Democrats are against him pulling out, so leave the bullshit "party of peace" narrative out of this.

Now I've answered your questions, why won't you answer mine:
Why is it OK for him to pull 50 Soldiers (in a defensive position) protecting the Kurds out of the Middle East while it's also OK to deploy more soldiers in SA and not removing troops elsewhere?

Trump is not a military expert, so when his defense officials are saying it's a bad idea and he does it anyway, why do you think he did it anyway? Is 50 soldiers in a defensive position protecting our allies (who are now being assaulted which Trump knew would happen) really the best way to withdraw our troops?
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,224
420
We were never Allies with ISIS... I think you're confused about the differences between the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Whether I know his motivations or not, what harm is there keeping 50 soldiers protecting the Kurds when OBJECTIVELY it benefits Russia, China, and Turkey. I'll forget about the Trump Towers even though he openly admitted to it being a "conflict of interest".

Both Republicans AND Democrats are against him pulling out, so leave the bullshit "party of peace" narrative out of this.

Now I've answered your questions, why won't you answer mine:
Why is it OK for him to pull 50 Soldiers (in a defensive position) protecting the Kurds out of the Middle East while it's also OK to deploy more soldiers in SA and not removing troops elsewhere?

Trump is not a military expert, so when his defense officials are saying it's a bad idea and he does it anyway, why do you think he did it anyway? Is 50 soldiers in a defensive position protecting our allies (who are now being assaulted which Trump knew would happen) really the best way to withdraw our troops?
I'm mostly staying out of the back and forth, but to respond to the 2 bolded statements, I'd have to take issue to the following:

1. We created ISIS

2. 50 soldiers aren't going to protect shit vs. the Turkish military. 50 soldiers isn't enough to secure a small town. At that point they're just props being used to keep Turkey from attacking the Kurds via fear of repercussions.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
I'm mostly staying out of the back and forth, but to respond to the 2 bolded statements, I'd have to take issue to the following:

1. We created ISIS

2. 50 soldiers aren't going to protect shit vs. the Turkish military. 50 soldiers isn't enough to secure a small town. At that point they're just props being used to keep Turkey from attacking the Kurds via fear of repercussions.
1. I'm aware of that. That doesn't mean we were allies with them.
2. 50 soldiers won't protect the Kurds from the entire Turkish military, but Turkey would absolutely not start a campaign against the Kurds with Americans embedded in them. Imagine if Turkey bombed the Kurds and killed Americans. We would be on the brink of war with Turkey. That's why they waited until the Military left when Trump effectively gave them the green light. How does that not register to you?
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,941
15,558
1,395
The Pentagon
I constructed at least a thoughtful argument with citations. At least the other people who don't agree with me put some thought into their posts.
i
don't
care

fuck
off
bitch

feel free to trek out to syria, please picture my avatar when you inevitably get stabbed in the back
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
We were never Allies with ISIS... I think you're confused about the differences between the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.
We were never allies with the kurds, either.

Whether I know his motivations or not, what harm is there keeping 50 soldiers protecting the Kurds when OBJECTIVELY it benefits Russia, China, and Turkey.
This isn't an answer to my question. This is just asking what I think which I have already explained.

Since you don't know his motivations, can I safely disregard your empty posturing about "doing it to help Turkey, Russia, China instead of our soldiers"? Orrrr... was I supposed to take that part of your argument seriously?

I'll forget about the Trump Towers even though he openly admitted to it being a "conflict of interest".
Do you honestly take that as a conflict of interest (that he's openly admitting?) or is he drawing a wide boundary around himself to make sure his actions aren't perceived the wrong way?

Compared to all the surefire "Russian connections", this is nothing. Remember when Putin supposedly bought our presidency because Trump had some business in Russia? lol

Both Republicans AND Democrats are against him pulling out, so leave the bullshit "party of peace" narrative out of this.
There are warhawks in both parties, but only one has claimed to be anti-war since Vietnam. Where do you stand on the issue of war?

Now I've answered your questions, why won't you answer mine:
You didn't really answer them, merely responded with more questions. In either case...

Why is it OK for him to pull 50 Soldiers (in a defensive position) protecting the Kurds out of the Middle East while it's also OK to deploy more soldiers in SA and not removing troops elsewhere?
Because they are two different conflict zones with different circumstances and considerations. One would think that the two different situations would warrant different reactions. Let me flip the question around: why is it okay to take such-and-such military action in Region A and to take a different action in Region B? Arggg, Trump is such a hypocrite!

Should Trump remove troops evenly from all regions -- when he pulls troops from one conflict, he must pull them from all -- or is it allowed for Trump to apply some nuance? You seem to be advocating for some nuance and context in the first place, so I'm puzzled why you are now apparently arguing against nuance.

Trump is not a military expert,
Should so-called military experts be the final say as to whether we wage war in a region?

I think not, but I'm eager to hear why being a "military expert" qualifies someone to fulfill their campaign promises.

so when his defense officials are saying it's a bad idea and he does it anyway, why do you think he did it anyway?
I don't read minds. My impression is that warhawks are telling him that pulling out of war is a bad idea. What does this mean? It means that warhawks don't like him pulling out of war. Does it mean that Trump is making a bad decision? You tell me.

Is 50 soldiers in a defensive position protecting our allies (who are now being assaulted which Trump knew would happen) really the best way to withdraw our troops?
Pulling out soldiers gradually seems to be is the method used by every previous administration. Is Trump wrong to apply the same method? Once again, you seem to be contradicting your own standpoints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
25,682
28,026
1,095

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,224
420
1. I'm aware of that. That doesn't mean we were allies with them.
2. 50 soldiers won't protect the Kurds from the entire Turkish military, but Turkey would absolutely not start a campaign against the Kurds with Americans embedded in them. Imagine if Turkey bombed the Kurds and killed Americans. We would be on the brink of war with Turkey. That's why they waited until the Military left when Trump effectively gave them the green light. How does that not register to you?
It doesn't register to me, because the US is not supposed to be the UN. We shouldn't have random "peacekeeping troops" stationed in harms way all over the world wearing our little helmets and dithering about whether or not to actually do anything. We aren't going to be the world police anymore, and I think it's a good thing. Having 50 troops...50! in between a stateless separatist group and one of the largest militaries in the world is a perfect example.

If we really honestly were committed to the Kurds, we would have 100,000 troops stationed within their supposed borders with an armored division, and a navy strike group stationed nearby. We don't do that, because it's not worth it to the US. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
We were never allies with the kurds, either.


This isn't an answer to my question. This is just asking what I think which I have already explained.

Since you don't know his motivations, can I safely disregard your empty posturing about "doing it to help Turkey, Russia, China instead of our soldiers"? Orrrr... was I supposed to take that part of your argument seriously?


Do you honestly take that as a conflict of interest (that he's openly admitting?) or is he drawing a wide boundary around himself to make sure his actions aren't perceived the wrong way?

Compared to all the surefire "Russian connections", this is nothing. Remember when Putin supposedly bought our presidency because Trump had some business in Russia? lol


There are warhawks in both parties, but only one has claimed to be anti-war since Vietnam. Where do you stand on the issue of war?


You didn't really answer them, merely responded with more questions. In either case...


Because they are two different conflict zones with different circumstances and considerations. One would think that the two different situations would warrant different reactions. Let me flip the question around: why is it okay to take such-and-such military action in Region A and to take a different action in Region B? Arggg, Trump is such a hypocrite!

Should Trump remove troops evenly from all regions -- when he pulls troops from one conflict, he must pull them from all -- or is it allowed for Trump to apply some nuance? You seem to be advocating for some nuance and context in the first place, so I'm puzzled why you are now apparently arguing against nuance.


Should so-called military experts be the final say as to whether we wage war in a region?

I think not, but I'm eager to hear why being a "military expert" qualifies someone to fulfill their campaign promises.


I don't read minds. My impression is that warhawks are telling him that pulling out of war is a bad idea. What does this mean? It means that warhawks don't like him pulling out of war. Does it mean that Trump is making a bad decision? You tell me.


Pulling out soldiers gradually seems to be is the method used by every previous administration. Is Trump wrong to apply the same method? Once again, you seem to be contradicting your own standpoints.
1) https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/trump-handing-syria-to-turkey-is-gift-to-russia-iran-isis-mcgu.html
2) https://epic.org/2019/10/senate-report-confirms-russia-.html
3) I'm very anti-war, but we're the ones who made the already-fucked up situation in the middle east worse with the invasion and pre-emptive pull out in Iraq. Sometimes pulling out of a quagmire isn't what's best for the world or America itself, especially one you proliferated yourself, else we would have been out of the middle east a long time ago. I'll let any defense experts here shed some more information on that one though...
4) I don't know the answer to this question. I don't think anyone here does. But what Trump did do which is inarguable, is pulled the only defense the Kurds had from being wiped out away, and 2 days later they're being attacked. There are better ways to withdraw troops without ensuring the ones we leave behind are going to be slaughtered.
5) There was no war being waged with the Kurds. The Americans protecting the Kurds were 100% in a defensive position.
6) I agree that warhawks or experts in war generally tend to want to do the thing they're good at, but they will also know more about the situation than the layman would. As a non-expert, it would make more sense to do me to do a smaller withdrawal from areas where more soldiers were stationed in, rather than pulling a very small amount out of one area when you know the ones left behind were going to be wiped out. Remember when he tried to pull out a shit ton of soldiers and got a huge backlash and then reverted his decision? I wonder what is different about those two instances--you tell me.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
It doesn't register to me, because the US is not supposed to be the UN. We shouldn't have random "peacekeeping troops" stationed in harms way all over the world wearing our little helmets and dithering about whether or not to actually do anything. We aren't going to be the world police anymore, and I think it's a good thing. Having 50 troops...50! in between a stateless separatist group and one of the largest militaries in the world is a perfect example.

If we really honestly were committed to the Kurds, we would have 100,000 troops stationed within their supposed borders with an armored division, and a navy strike group stationed nearby. We don't do that, because it's not worth it to the US. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's the truth.
But we were committed to the Kurds. We provided them help but they provided the manpower for helping to eliminte ISIS. They did the majority of the fighting along with Iraqi troops. They helped clean up the mess we created and we abandoned them. I would gladly pull out nearly every soldier from Iraq and Afghanistan even though we created a huge fucking mess after we toppled Saddam and thought they would figure it out themselves, but abandoning the people that helped you by pulling out a mere 50 soldiers is not the right thing to do.
 

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,593
689
1,250
Yeah, one can discuss the pros and cons of leaving Syria overnight, but that tweet sounds like insanity and megalomania. Self praise, direct threat to allies,... I mean, one can be a Trump supporter, but aren't you at least a tiny bit concerned that he could be turning senile ?
In any case being that impulsive can be dangerous. It actually sounds like he realized he took a rash decision with the withdrawal, and tries to correct it by oversteering in the opposite direction.
He is not senile. He is just stupid and naive.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
1) https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/trump-handing-syria-to-turkey-is-gift-to-russia-iran-isis-mcgu.html
2) https://epic.org/2019/10/senate-report-confirms-russia-.html
3) I'm very anti-war, but we're the ones who made the already-fucked up situation in the middle east worse with the invasion and pre-emptive pull out in Iraq. Sometimes pulling out of a quagmire isn't what's best for the world or America itself, especially one you proliferated yourself, else we would have been out of the middle east a long time ago. I'll let any defense experts here shed some more information on that one though...
4) I don't know the answer to this question. I don't think anyone here does. But what Trump did do which is inarguable, is pulled the only defense the Kurds had from being wiped out away, and 2 days later they're being attacked. There are better ways to withdraw troops without ensuring the ones we leave behind are going to be slaughtered.
5) There was no war being waged with the Kurds. The Americans protecting the Kurds were 100% in a defensive position.
6) I agree that warhawks or experts in war generally tend to want to do the thing they're good at, but they will also know more about the situation than the layman would. As a non-expert, it would make more sense to do me to do a smaller withdrawal from areas where more soldiers were stationed in, rather than pulling a very small amount out of one area when you know the ones left behind were going to be wiped out. Remember when he tried to pull out a shit ton of soldiers and got a huge backlash and then reverted his decision? I wonder what is different about those two instances--you tell me.
What do quotes from warhawk news agencies mean to me? Nothing at all, actually. I remember reading identical articles about many of Trump's other decisions, how they were an "obvious gift to such-and-such foreign power". Big yawn from me.

What Trump did is obviously arguable, as we are here arguing about it. You have failed to explain why it's so inarguable. I am not going to constantly go in circles answering your open-ended questions.

Just stand up for what you believe instead of constantly asking me "but don't you see a problem with him pulling out 50 troops here but not over there?" No, I obviously don't see a problem with it. I celebrate it because it is (hopefully) the early steps of pulling out even more troops. You seem to be the one simultaneously upset that Trump isn't going about it the "right way", upset that he is abandoning our allies, and upset that he is supporting our allies. This gordian knot of cognitive dissonance can't be comfortable, so you have my sympathies.

With Turkey on the border and conflict imminent, it makes perfect sense that we would pull troops out of areas that are most-likely to boil over with conflict. It is exactly the correct decision if our goal is to pull out of the region and avoid firefights. The alternative is that maybe some US troops get caught in the crossfire and then we're stuck there... again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
What do quotes from warhawk news agencies mean to me? Nothing at all, actually. I remember reading identical articles about many of Trump's other decisions, how they were an "obvious gift to such-and-such foreign power". Big yawn from me.

What Trump did is obviously arguable, as we are here arguing about it. You have failed to explain why it's so inarguable. I am not going to constantly go in circles answering your open-ended questions.

Just stand up for what you believe instead of constantly asking me "but don't you see a problem with him pulling out 50 troops here but not over there?" No, I obviously don't see a problem with it. I celebrate it because it is (hopefully) the early steps of pulling out even more troops. You seem to be the one simultaneously upset that Trump isn't going about it the "right way", upset that he is abandoning our allies, and upset that he is supporting our allies. This gordian knot of cognitive dissonance can't be comfortable, so you have my sympathies.

With Turkey on the border and conflict imminent, it makes perfect sense that we would pull troops out of areas that are most-likely to boil over with conflict. It is exactly the correct decision if our goal is to pull out of the region and avoid firefights. The alternative is that maybe some US troops get caught in the crossfire and then we're stuck there... again.
In what instance did I say I was upset for him supporting our allies? You mean when I argued he sent troops to SA despite him supposedly being anti-war and wanting to remove as many troops as possible? That seems hypocritical to me. I would be in favor of pulling enough soldiers out of the middle east but leave enough so that they can defend themselves so another Iraq doesn't happen again. What I'm not in favor of is pulling every single troop embedded with the Kurds out so they can be annihilated a few days later. Not everything is black and white.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
882
1,501
400
In what instance did I say I was upset for him supporting our allies? You mean when I argued he sent troops to SA despite him supposedly being anti-war and wanting to remove as many troops as possible? That seems hypocritical to me. I would be in favor of pulling enough soldiers out of the middle east but leave enough so that they can defend themselves so another Iraq doesn't happen again. What I'm not in favor of is pulling every single troop embedded with the Kurds out so they can be annihilated a few days later. Not everything is black and white.
SA got troops because you don't fuck around with oil. NATO Warships protect tankers from pirates in places like the Gulf of Aden for the exact same reason.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
In what instance did I say I was upset for him supporting our allies? You mean when I argued he sent troops to SA despite him supposedly being anti-war and wanting to remove as many troops as possible? That seems hypocritical to me.
Yes, it seems hypocritical to lambast Trump for not supporting our "allies" the kurds, while getting upset that we won't fight our actual allies the Turks, while getting upset that we are supporting our other actual allies, the Saudis. This isn't a judgment on those specific groups because I think both the Turkish leadership and Saudi leadership is corrupt as all getout.

Yet, they are our allies.

As I already pointed out, there is no hypocrisy in handling different military conflict zones differently. In the case of Saudi Arabia, they were attacked by a well-organized force causing a ton of damage to their infrastructure, and then we moved in (arguably, only giving some token support). In the case of Syria, we successfully completed the goal of reducing/eliminating ISIS and now we are pulling out troops. This naturally will cause a vacuum of power, but they are two different situations calling for two different approaches.

But I'm not a "military expert" so I guess I don't know what's really going on here.

I would be in favor of pulling enough soldiers out of the middle east but leave enough so that they can defend themselves so another Iraq doesn't happen again.
I do not support this, and many people around the world do not support this American interventionism. The last 20 years seems to indicate that US troop presence in a region does not result in a more peaceful region.

What I'm not in favor of is pulling every single troop embedded with the Kurds out so they can be annihilated a few days later. Not everything is black and white.
So far it has only been 50, as you pointed out. What's the problem again?