• 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

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
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 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.


So far it has only been 50, as you pointed out. What's the problem again?
I never suggested fighting the Turks nor do I support that. Turkey would not attack the Kurds if Americans were embedded in there. It was a win-win, no conflicts, no back-stabbing. Trump pulled out and effectively let the Kurds be killed while stabbing them in the back.

Saudi Arabia can protect themselves; the Kurds cannot. It's blatantly hypocritical for Trump to say we need to get the troops out of the middle east yet is putting more troops in places that they don't need to be in. And if Trump says they're only there defensively, so were the Americans with the Kurds.

Troop presence, in some cases, does result in a more peaceful region, although I will reiterate I'm against having more troops overseas than necessary. If you look at the recent history of Iraq, after we topped Saddam, we suspected the people there would hold elections and figure shit out on their own. After we left, civil war erupted. We had to go back to restore stability but by then it was already too late. It was easy to topple Saddam because you could easily identify their troops; during the Civil War, the fighters were in plainclothes, making it extremely difficult to target them effectively. I'm 100% for removing as many troops as necessary, but there's better ways to remove troops without back stabbing the people who saved American lives fighting ISIS. If Trump really cared about removing troops from the middle east, he would be focusing on the more densly populated troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, not 50 troops supporting the Kurds who sacrificed a lot for us.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,224
420
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.
Though, to be fair, the US has very little reason to care at all anymore, as we have no need to buy Mideast oil. Everything we could possibly need sits within our own shores. It's Asia/Europe that desperately need the supply chain secured. I'm fairly certain that at this point we're just doing it as a force of habit, and to justify maintaining our enormous Navy.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I never suggested fighting the Turks nor do I support that. Turkey would not attack the Kurds if Americans were embedded in there. It was a win-win, no conflicts, no back-stabbing. Trump pulled out and effectively let the Kurds be killed while stabbing them in the back.
You don't know if they would hold off, and you are proposing that we engage in brinkmanship with our allies... who host our nukes... who are in NATO.

Saudi Arabia can protect themselves; the Kurds cannot. It's blatantly hypocritical for Trump to say we need to get the troops out of the middle east yet is putting more troops in places that they don't need to be in. And if Trump says they're only there defensively, so were the Americans with the Kurds.
You see more interested in smearing Trump's behavior based on completely subjective terms like "blatantly" instead of defending and supporting your own assertions. You can't REEEEEE your way through this conversation and expect to be taken seriously. Drop the emotional pleas and explain it to me in plain language.

Troop presence, in some cases, does result in a more peaceful region, although I will reiterate I'm against having more troops overseas than necessary.
So what's the problem again? Oh yeah, you don't like how Trump went about. Around and around in circles we go. Show me a Democrat or Republican who is making similar moves and I would be more willing to support their efforts instead of Trump's (depending on what they propose). Until then, I am going to throw my support behind the person pulling troops out, regardless of their political party.

If you look at the recent history of Iraq, after we topped Saddam, we suspected the people there would hold elections and figure shit out on their own. After we left, civil war erupted. We had to go back to restore stability but by then it was already too late. It was easy to topple Saddam because you could easily identify their troops; during the Civil War, the fighters were in plainclothes, making it extremely difficult to target them effectively. I'm 100% for removing as many troops as necessary, but there's better ways to remove troops without back stabbing the people who saved American lives fighting ISIS. If Trump really cared about removing troops from the middle east, he would be focusing on the more densly populated troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, not 50 troops supporting the Kurds who sacrificed a lot for us.
How can you make these definitive statements about how Trump should act "if he really cared". Are you a military expert?
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
You don't know if they would hold off, and you are proposing that we engage in brinkmanship with our allies... who host our nukes... who are in NATO.
If Turkey was going to attack Kurds with Americans embedded in them, they would have done so already. Imagine if we saw in the news that Turkey killed Americans. We probably would go to war with them. Turkey doesn't want to fight the USA nor does the USA want to fight Turkey. Besides that, just because Countries are at war or in a conflict with each other doesn't mean they're going to use nukes. Look at Pakistan/India for an example.

You see more interested in smearing Trump's behavior based on completely subjective terms like "blatantly" instead of defending and supporting your own assertions. You can't REEEEEE your way through this conversation and expect to be taken seriously. Drop the emotional pleas and explain it to me in plain language.
Do I really need to compare the might of SA's Army versus what the Kurds have access to? I just thought that was implied. SA has the third highest military budget in the world. The Kurds aren't even a real army, their budget isn't even listed--it's why we sent them support. How do you not understand that Trump says we need to get out of the middle east while nearly simultaneously sending troops into the middle east? That is the definition of hypocrisy.


So what's the problem again? Oh yeah, you don't like how Trump went about. Around and around in circles we go. Show me a Democrat or Republican who is making similar moves and I would be more willing to support their efforts instead of Trump's (depending on what they propose). Until then, I am going to throw my support behind the person pulling troops out, regardless of their political party.
Obama also didn't want our troops in the middle east and withdrew them. I'm not arguing anything based on the polical parties--I'm on your side when it comes to pulling troops out of areas they don't need to be in. If Trump made a genuine effort to reduce the amount of troop presence in the middle east, he wouldn't start with 50 soldiers in a defensive position after getting off the phone with Turkey who would then begin an assault on them.


How can you make these definitive statements about how Trump should act "if he really cared". Are you a military expert?
No and I don't claim to me. The pentagon probably knows more than me though and they don't agree with it either. But they're just warhawks? Or are they experts? Based on your previous examples the experts can't be trusted, so who knows what's right then. I believe I'm able to think objectively enough that there are better ways to do troop withdrawals than to let our friends get massacred after getting off the phone with Erdogan, but that's just me I guess.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
If Turkey was going to attack Kurds with Americans embedded in them, they would have done so already. Imagine if we saw in the news that Turkey killed Americans. We probably would go to war with them. Turkey doesn't want to fight the USA nor does the USA want to fight Turkey. Besides that, just because Countries are at war or in a conflict with each other doesn't mean they're going to use nukes. Look at Pakistan/India for an example.

Do I really need to compare the might of SA's Army versus what the Kurds have access to? I just thought that was implied. SA has the third highest military budget in the world. The Kurds aren't even a real army, their budget isn't even listed--it's why we sent them support. How do you not understand that Trump says we need to get out of the middle east while nearly simultaneously sending troops into the middle east? That is the definition of hypocrisy.

Obama also didn't want our troops in the middle east and withdrew them. I'm not arguing anything based on the polical parties--I'm on your side when it comes to pulling troops out of areas they don't need to be in. If Trump made a genuine effort to reduce the amount of troop presence in the middle east, he wouldn't start with 50 soldiers in a defensive position after getting off the phone with Turkey who would then begin an assault on them.

No and I don't claim to me. The pentagon probably knows more than me though and they don't agree with it either. But they're just warhawks? Or are they experts? Based on your previous examples the experts can't be trusted, so who knows what's right then. I believe I'm able to think objectively enough that there are better ways to do troop withdrawals than to let our friends get massacred after getting off the phone with Erdogan, but that's just me I guess.
Around in circles we continue to go. Lots of assumptions, lots of emotional pleas, lots of contradictions within your arguments. Am I allowed to appeal to authority like you are or am I not? Should I be upset about us supporting our allies or not? At this point I'm just throwing your faulty logic back into your face and the best you can muster is "are you saying I shouldn't be contradictory?"
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
Around in circles we continue to go. Lots of assumptions, lots of emotional pleas, lots of contradictions within your arguments. Am I allowed to appeal to authority like you are or am I not? Should I be upset about us supporting our allies or not? At this point I'm just throwing your faulty logic back into your face and the best you can muster is "are you saying I shouldn't be contradictory?"
It's pretty easy to understand. Protect those that need protecting. SA doesn't need our help. The Kurds do. Don't send more troops if you don't have to. Keep the troops there that need to be there. These are very, very basic concepts.

Do you think SA needs our help? I feel like they're pretty capable of protecting themselves seeing as they buy most of our equipment and have the third highest military budget in the world.
Do you think the Kurds need our help? Well, apparently so, because they're getting hammered a couple days after we withdrew. These are very objective concepts.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
It's pretty easy to understand. Protect those that need protecting.
Based on what criteria? Should we move troops into Iran and N. Korea and China and S. Africa? All of those fall into the same category.

SA doesn't need our help.
A bunch of their infrastructure was just blasted. And the "military experts" certainly think they need our help which is why they signed off on the move. So do we listen to the military experts or don't we?

The Kurds do. Don't send more troops if you don't have to. Keep the troops there that need to be there. These are very, very basic concepts.
Trump is fulfilling your exact request: zero troops need to be there, so he is pulling them out. Assad and the kurds no longer need our help to eliminate ISIS. These are very, very basic concepts.

Do you think SA needs our help?
I'm not a military expert. They do happen to be our allies which seemed like a really important sticking point to you just a few posts ago.

I feel like they're pretty capable of protecting themselves seeing as they buy most of our equipment and have the third highest military budget in the world.
Yeah they really seem capable of defending themselves.

Oh wait.


Do you think the Kurds need our help? Well, apparently so, because they're getting hammered a couple days after we withdrew. These are very objective concepts.
I've already answered this: the kurds no longer need our help to fight ISIS, which was the framework of the original 30-day mission.

Who is the assailing force attacking the kurds? Are they our allies or not? You keep getting tripped up on the "very objective concepts" in the story.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
Based on what criteria? Should we move troops into Iran and N. Korea and China and S. Africa? All of those fall into the same category.
I'm not advocating for moving troops into any country they don't need to be in. If they are already there and need protecting, the troops should stay in a defensive role only until they don't need to be there anymore.

A bunch of their infrastructure was just blasted. And the "military experts" certainly think they need our help which is why they signed off on the move. So do we listen to the military experts or don't we?
I'm against sending more troops into anywhere they don't need to be in. Military experts would know more about this than I, obviously, I just feel like sending military support to Saudi Arabia was more of a gesture of support than anything of real value.

Trump is fulfilling your exact request: zero troops need to be there, so he is pulling them out. Assad and the kurds no longer need our help to eliminate ISIS. These are very, very basic concepts.
But they do need to be there, to protect the allies that helped us. I guess we'll just disagree on this because my mind will never be changed at the fact that Trump abandoned the allies that helped us immediately after getting off the phone with Erdogan.

I'm not a military expert. They do happen to be our allies which seemed like a really important sticking point to you just a few posts ago.
They are our allies; they are also capable of defending themselves. Just like we don't need to send troops to S.Korea, we don't need to be sending troops to SA.

Yeah they really seem capable of defending themselves.

Oh wait.
Yes? Americans lost a lot of lives too in the conflict overseas. Deaths happen, Saudi Arabia is not going anywhere though, unlike the Kurds who will be pushed out of their homes.

I've already answered this: the kurds no longer need our help to fight ISIS, which was the framework of the original 30-day mission.

Who is the assailing force attacking the kurds? Are they our allies or not? You keep getting tripped up on the "very objective concepts" in the story.
That may be true, despite ISIS not being fully defeated. But since they helped us, we should help them in return establish a home, and not be pushed out and persecuted by Turkey.
It's obviously tricky because both Turkey and the Kurds are our allies, but Trump is choosing one over the other.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,449
4,333
735
I really don't like how quickly things ramped up after Trump's decision. It seems like a bad idea to me. But, in all honesty, I question whether there would ever be a good time to pull out if we don't first pick a side and fight until one side wins. It really seems to me that if we don't help one side beat the other and install a puppet government, there would be chaos as soon as we pull out whenever that happens. And to me that would be far worse - no more wars that don't directly relate to the US.

So yeah, I think it was a bad idea to pull out this week. But unless there is concrete evidence that another few months or even a couple years would allow us to pull out without everyone going back to fighting anyway, I won't be getting upset by pulling out now.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
25,682
28,026
1,095
I really don't like how quickly things ramped up after Trump's decision. It seems like a bad idea to me. But, in all honesty, I question whether there would ever be a good time to pull out if we don't first pick a side and fight until one side wins. It really seems to me that if we don't help one side beat the other and install a puppet government, there would be chaos as soon as we pull out whenever that happens. And to me that would be far worse - no more wars that don't directly relate to the US.

So yeah, I think it was a bad idea to pull out this week. But unless there is concrete evidence that another few months or even a couple years would allow us to pull out without everyone going back to fighting anyway, I won't be getting upset by pulling out now.
There is none, and everyone knows it.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,449
4,333
735
There is none, and everyone knows it.
That's what I believe. Which is why the human in me cringes by the news, but the "outrage" appears (to me) nothing more than a chance to take shots at Trump. Excepting of course, those who generally seem to support flexing the might of the US war machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
25,682
28,026
1,095
That's what I believe. Which is why the human in me cringes by the news, but the "outrage" appears (to me) nothing more than a chance to take shots at Trump. Excepting of course, those who generally seem to support flexing the might of the US war machine.
The outrage should be at the attackers, FFS, people are so dense in their TDS.

"It is Trump's fault Turkey decided to attack."



People are losing their minds. So much hubris and ego for the OMB ideology.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,449
4,333
735
The outrage should be at the attackers, FFS, people are so dense in their TDS.

"It is Trump's fault Turkey decided to attack."



People are losing their minds. So much hubris and ego for the OMB ideology.
I think some of them are just outraged that they can't accuse him of keeping the US in Syria during the election cycle. But that said, I wouldn't really be shocked if the DNC has made a 180 on the war issue like they did with immigration. They do seem to have a soft spot for domestic terrorists like Antifa after all.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not advocating for moving troops into any country they don't need to be in. If they are already there and need protecting, the troops should stay in a defensive role only until they don't need to be there anymore.
I am going to give you as thorough of an answer to each of your points, so I ask that you do the same for mine. I get the recurring feeling that my points are going over your head because you keep repeating the same contradictions without reacting to my responses. Since you are repeating the same points with different words, I find myself forced to repeat my same points using different words because I get the impression you didn't understand them. There's really only so much life in such an exchange.

Syria does not need to be protected. You are referring to one specific group within Syria. There's a difference. Would it be appropriate if the USA used troops to support the Uighurs or the Tibetans in China, for instance? No, I don't support that idea. I don't want yet another Korean War or Vietnam War, another tangled conflict in Asia that we are unequipped to handle. You might desire that, but I do not and that is where I am coming from.

Maybe there's a communication problem, but I cannot understand how your desires aren't being met by Trump pulling out of Syria. The country no longer needs the USA to be there. This conclusion is based on the literal criteria for why we were there, to defeat ISIS and prevent them from taking over and destabilizing the country.

I'm against sending more troops into anywhere they don't need to be in. Military experts would know more about this than I, obviously, I just feel like sending military support to Saudi Arabia was more of a gesture of support than anything of real value.

But they do need to be there, to protect the allies that helped us. I guess we'll just disagree on this because my mind will never be changed at the fact that Trump abandoned the allies that helped us immediately after getting off the phone with Erdogan.
You keep harping on this "getting off the phone with Erdogan" thing so let me slow down and ask:

- is this a literal phone call or your Shiff-esque parody? Because earlier you claimed Trump was doing it for Russia, China, Turkey until I asked for receipts and you backed down

On the topic of Turkey:

- is Turkey an ally of the USA or not?
- If yes, why are you upset that we are supporting our allies? That's literally your complaint (per the bolded).
- If Turkey is not our allies, explain to me how they fail the criteria of allies yet the kurds meet the criteria of an "ally". We can freely assist and associate with military groups around the world without being forever shackled to them politically (as blunt as that might sound).

They are our allies; they are also capable of defending themselves. Just like we don't need to send troops to S.Korea, we don't need to be sending troops to SA.
But we've literally sent troops to S. Korea and done military exercises with them in the past few years, and in that case it was a part of the escalating problems with N. Korea.


Yes? Americans lost a lot of lives too in the conflict overseas. Deaths happen, Saudi Arabia is not going anywhere though, unlike the Kurds who will be pushed out of their homes.
This sounds like morality based on outcome, and I do not agree with you.

The honor / duty / responsibility of the USA is to its allies first. 'Tis the nature of alliances. Turkey and S.A. are allies. USA is doing the "right" thing according to our laws. Are S.A. and Turkey scumbags from a moral perspective? You bet. The nature of being allies is that you don't pick and choose when to support them. You respond in their time of need and leave politicking at the door for the time being.

The Kurds are not our "allies". You are claiming that because they are at risk, we should step in. That's what got us into the Iraq war when they invaded Kuwait. I reject this warmongering logic. Syria is definitely not our allies, but we had a mutual reason to get rid of ISIS so we did. Our involvement in this Syrian conflict was largely at the behest of our European allies in the first place (French and British, mostly). So once again, we're tangled in this messed up ally-trap of contradictions. You can argue it all sorts of ways.

That may be true, despite ISIS not being fully defeated. But since they helped us, we should help them in return establish a home, and not be pushed out and persecuted by Turkey.
This sounds awfully like interventionism. "Help them establish a home" in what way? Building houses that get blown up by Turkish rockets? Sounds like another Israel / Palestinian situation. Help them establish a home by declaring and defending borders? Sounds like a literal war on our hands.

Hard pass.

It's obviously tricky because both Turkey and the Kurds are our allies, but Trump is choosing one over the other.
They are not our allies. You are using a word that you do not know its meaning. We were partners in ousting ISIS with the kurds, but they are not a political entity with which we had an alliance. We don't need to remain involved in the region's ongoing cultural / religious upheaval. What you are calling "protection" is simply more interventionism.

At this point I think the British need to surprise-reveal another gas attack just so that we can get the farce out in the open.

The USA is lambasted for being the world police and lambasted when we aren't the world police "the right way" and lambasted when we're not being the world police enough. Ungrateful complainers. It's even more amusing when people want to make it sound like these moves are for ulterior motives when the guy literally ran on an anti-intervention, America-first platform.

There's no winning with ideologues. No matter what the facts happen to be, their paradigm will spin conspiracy out of thin air.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,066
8,221
880
So where is the UN support and Arab/Muslim, heck even EU support for a Kurdish state?

Its complicated because you are dealing with Syria/Iraq/Turkey. But no one seems to have the stomach to support an independant Kurdish state. Meanwhile Palestine gets a seat at the UN and a 70 year old welfare agency.

Pressure the UN, Arab world, and EU to push for an independent Kurdistan.

Erdogan was going to make his "safe zone" to dump the Syrians there regardless. Europe was not taking them in either. So the USA could fight its ally and NATO member Turkey or let them create this safe zone. I guess when Erdogan isn't bashing Israel he losses his hero status. The guy outlined this whole plan in front of the UN at the end of September but everyone focused on his Israel bashing.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Maybe we should build a wall around the kurds so that unwanted foreigners don't come into their territory. Maybe we should establish their border like TheContact TheContact has suggested to prevent future issues.

I wonder how that would be viewed. Would it be an obvious move by Donald "The Wall Builder" Trump? Would it be viewed charitably or negatively, and would Trump get credit for the good idea? Would people realize the similarity to the Mexico-USA border? Would it be compared to the walling off of Jews in ghettos in Germany? Would it be compared to no-go zones in Sweden and Germany, zones that were vehemently denied even existed a few years ago? So many questions spinning in my head.

People can't keep their story straight. We have to defend our allies, but not be interventionist, but not abandon our allies, but not push regime change. Meanwhile, we're droning civilians and inciting more and more islamic terrorism in the region. Our allies in the EU can't practice what they preach by sending us, their allies, much assistance. Instead they watch from a distance while they begrudgingly pay their NATO bills finally. USA gets blamed and mocked either way.

I want the USA to be more isolationist. The consensus seems to be that we police the world too much, and I agree that we've pushed our troops into too many regions for the sake of the global commerce we all enjoy. I'd like it if the USA stopped being mercenaries and became more like well-armed merchants. Live in a stable region? We're more than happy to station our troops there as a deterrent and as a show of solidarity. Going through a civil war or declaring war on your neighbors? Sorry buddy, but the merchant guild doesn't get involved in war like we used to. The world hated us for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A Regular Guy

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,524
7,438
715
've already answered this: the kurds no longer need our help to fight ISIS, which was the framework of the original 30-day mission.

Who is the assailing force attacking the kurds? Are they our allies or not? You keep getting tripped up on the "very objective concepts" in the story.
Wrong. They needed help to be able to fight the IS. They needed their back protected but this protection does not exist anymore and they re facing a genocide now. Turkey or better Erdogan is the closest you can get today to a modern Hitler. He is a real threat and should not be left alone. I always thought trump did a pretty good job with politics outside of the US. But this move is something I can not support at all.

All that it will do is bring the IS back and Erdogan the opportunity to eradicate all Kurdish people
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
First of all let me start this off by saying thank you for not resorting to ad-hominem attacks or resorting to name-calling which is more than I can say for some other people here. I truly do appreciate your input and thoughtful responses. I don't claim to be an expert at any of these so I welcome other peoples' opinions.

I am going to give you as thorough of an answer to each of your points, so I ask that you do the same for mine. I get the recurring feeling that my points are going over your head because you keep repeating the same contradictions without reacting to my responses. Since you are repeating the same points with different words, I find myself forced to repeat my same points using different words because I get the impression you didn't understand them. There's really only so much life in such an exchange.

Syria does not need to be protected. You are referring to one specific group within Syria. There's a difference. Would it be appropriate if the USA used troops to support the Uighurs or the Tibetans in China, for instance? No, I don't support that idea. I don't want yet another Korean War or Vietnam War, another tangled conflict in Asia that we are unequipped to handle. You might desire that, but I do not and that is where I am coming from.

Maybe there's a communication problem, but I cannot understand how your desires aren't being met by Trump pulling out of Syria. The country no longer needs the USA to be there. This conclusion is based on the literal criteria for why we were there, to defeat ISIS and prevent them from taking over and destabilizing the country.
I don't recall myself saying Syria needed protection; I agree with you that we shouldn't send troops to interfere with China's internal conflicts even if China is persecuting minorities. That is their own problem.

I think you're mistaken that Trump is pulling all troops out of Syria. The only troops he's pulled are the 50 that were protecting the Kurds. We can see what happens in the future, and I'll gladly change my tune if Trump fulfills his promise of pulling all troops out of all of the middle east, but I strongly believe that they will remain and Trump only took the soldiers out of protecting the Kurds to pander to Turkey.

In addition, Trump is being quoted as the Kurds "didn't help us in Normandy" which I think given your knowledge of the middle east and foreign affairs in general, shows just how little Trump knows about our history.

You keep harping on this "getting off the phone with Erdogan" thing so let me slow down and ask:

- is this a literal phone call or your Shiff-esque parody? Because earlier you claimed Trump was doing it for Russia, China, Turkey until I asked for receipts and you backed down

On the topic of Turkey:

- is Turkey an ally of the USA or not?
- If yes, why are you upset that we are supporting our allies? That's literally your complaint (per the bolded).
- If Turkey is not our allies, explain to me how they fail the criteria of allies yet the kurds meet the criteria of an "ally". We can freely assist and associate with military groups around the world without being forever shackled to them politically (as blunt as that might sound).
It's not a parody. I know all media is bias but I'll at least quote the most prominent media that is more align to Trump than others in response to the first sentence. I also did respond to your question about how it benefits Russia and China. I did overstep my knowledge of how China would benefit, but it does benefit Russia and Iran. Having said that, I do believe Turkey will take over the ISIS prisoners and not allow them to be free unless the Kurds release them first in response to Trump's betrayal.

Yes Turkey is our Ally in regards to NATO
I'm not upset about supporting our Allies; I think we have different definitions of what an Ally is. Maybe it's inappropriate to call them an Ally, as there is no formal declaration of what. Perhaps the better term is "friend". I for one, am not comforetable with betraying my friends. Maybe you are. That's where we differ.


But we've literally sent troops to S. Korea and done military exercises with them in the past few years, and in that case it was a part of the escalating problems with N. Korea.
I agree? I'm not sure what you're pointing out here unless I'm misunderstanding.

This sounds like morality based on outcome, and I do not agree with you.

The honor / duty / responsibility of the USA is to its allies first. 'Tis the nature of alliances. Turkey and S.A. are allies. USA is doing the "right" thing according to our laws. Are S.A. and Turkey scumbags from a moral perspective? You bet. The nature of being allies is that you don't pick and choose when to support them. You respond in their time of need and leave politicking at the door for the time being.

The Kurds are not our "allies". You are claiming that because they are at risk, we should step in. That's what got us into the Iraq war when they invaded Kuwait. I reject this warmongering logic. Syria is definitely not our allies, but we had a mutual reason to get rid of ISIS so we did. Our involvement in this Syrian conflict was largely at the behest of our European allies in the first place (French and British, mostly). So once again, we're tangled in this messed up ally-trap of contradictions. You can argue it all sorts of ways.
I replied earlier about out differentiating opinions on what Allies are. I'm still not comfortable with stabbing our friends in the back after they helped us clean up the mess we created. I also reject that having soldiers set up in a defenive position in "warmongering". If that was the case, we would be in a constant World War with all the soldiers we have deployed across the planet.


This sounds awfully like interventionism. "Help them establish a home" in what way? Building houses that get blown up by Turkish rockets? Sounds like another Israel / Palestinian situation. Help them establish a home by declaring and defending borders? Sounds like a literal war on our hands.

Hard pass.
I agree it's similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Keep in mind, I'm Jewish, I visited there and completely support the creation of Israel. I'm biased in that regard.

They are not our allies. You are using a word that you do not know its meaning. We were partners in ousting ISIS with the kurds, but they are not a political entity with which we had an alliance. We don't need to remain involved in the region's ongoing cultural / religious upheaval. What you are calling "protection" is simply more interventionism.

At this point I think the British need to surprise-reveal another gas attack just so that we can get the farce out in the open.

The USA is lambasted for being the world police and lambasted when we aren't the world police "the right way" and lambasted when we're not being the world police enough. Ungrateful complainers. It's even more amusing when people want to make it sound like these moves are for ulterior motives when the guy literally ran on an anti-intervention, America-first platform.

There's no winning with ideologues. No matter what the facts happen to be, their paradigm will spin conspiracy out of thin air.
Again, we have different defintions of Allies which I've touched upon. I think there's a difference between avoiding being the world police and stepping in to be the world police, and leaving and saying "fuck it". Either don't help at all, or follow through with your commitments.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,524
7,438
715
'fuck trump and fuck anyone who supports him'; hey guys thanks for being civil i'm such a great guy we're all great everything is great



great stuff from trump, so nice to have a president with balls
Instead he is basically now responsible for the extinction of Kurdish people. US had not to get involved into fights. All they had to do was having a presence to hinder Erdogan. It is the same with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were need in the cold war to prevent an all out war.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
25,682
28,026
1,095
I saw that earlier today and the worst part about it is that his biggest detractors will completely ignore it so they can continue making him out to be a monster. The usual suspects are too busy losing their minds:

#VirtueSignaling
#Opportunist
#HotMessingExpressing
#ChooChoo
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,941
15,558
1,395
The Pentagon
Instead he is basically now responsible for the extinction of Kurdish people. US had not to get involved into fights. All they had to do was having a presence to hinder Erdogan. It is the same with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were need in the cold war to prevent an all out war.
if things trail off we'll pump more arms and see where the chips fall

they need to learn to stand on their own feet or they will fall, how many more proxy battles do we wanna encourage

trump said he'd wipe out turkey if they don't level their attacks
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
Instead he is basically now responsible for the extinction of Kurdish people. US had not to get involved into fights. All they had to do was having a presence to hinder Erdogan. It is the same with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were need in the cold war to prevent an all out war.
Erdogan, Turkish President eradicates Kurdish people, a genocide if you will [something the Turks are famous for with regards to Armenia]. Europe does nothing with regards to their neighbors doing this.

Somehow this is the U.S. President Donald Trumps Fault.

TDS Logic.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,524
7,438
715
Erdogan, Turkish President eradicates Kurdish people, a genocide if you will [something the Turks are famous for with regards to Armenia]. Europe does nothing with regards to their neighbors doing this.

Somehow this is the U.S. President Donald Trumps Fault.

TDS Logic.
I am not saying Europe is innocent. Hell we made terrible deals with Erdogan. But Trump and the US troops were the only thing that did hinder Erdogan from this.


they need to learn to stand on their own feet or they will fall, how many more proxy battles do we wanna encourage
How can they withstand a huge Turkish Army? Erdogan even using radical Islamist now to fight Kurdish people. Furthermore that basically did happen over night. They had no time to prepare. They had not time to react. They were being left alone and Erdogan already moves in because he prepared for this since years already. The US Troops were the only buffer that prevented Erdogan from exterminate all Kurdish people
 
Last edited:

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
I am not saying Europe is innocent. Hell we made terrible deals with Erdogan. But Trump and the US rumps were the only thing that did hinder Erdogan from this.
Yes, Donald Trump is undoing the fuckery that is the President Barack Obama and Sec. Of Defense Hillary Clinton's foreign policy.

Tell me, were you a fan of Michael Bolton?
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,524
7,438
715
Yes, Donald Trump is undoing the fuckery that is the President Barack Obama and Sec. Of Defense Hillary Clinton's foreign policy.

Tell me, were you a fan of Michael Bolton?
He is not undoing ANYTHING. That is the point. Look I always thought Trumps aggressive style in politics outside of the US were pretty good. But this is a move I do not understand or can agree with because it will EVERYTHING make worse outside of the US. Europe will suffer, Kurdish people will be eliminated and IS will rise again..

Erdogan is a modern Hitler. And I do not use this word lightly. He is the biggest threat to a World War 3.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
He is not undoing ANYTHING. That is the point. Look I always thought Trumps aggressive style in politics outside of the US were pretty good. But this is a move I do not understand or can agree with because it will EVERYTHING make worse outside of the US. Europe will suffer, Kurdish people will be eliminated and IS will rise again..

Erdogan is a modern Hitler. And I do not use this word lightly. He is the biggest threat to a World War 3.
Well, the EU has a duty to stop the next Hitler, don't you think? He's your neighbor.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,524
7,438
715
Well, the EU has a duty to stop the next Hitler, don't you think? He's your neighbor.
which what kind of Army? Speaking of Germany 90% of military Equipment does not function in Germany. Germany could be taken by Poland in 3 days or so. We are not capable to do anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcz117chief

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
if things trail off we'll pump more arms and see where the chips fall

they need to learn to stand on their own feet or they will fall, how many more proxy battles do we wanna encourage

trump said he'd wipe out turkey if they don't level their attacks
he said he'd wipe out their economy (which apparently he's done before according to him (no it didn't happen)). so they went ahead and attacked the kurds and he's done nothing except said it's a "bad idea" and also that the kurds "didnt help us in WW2". what a good guy
 
Last edited:

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
which what kind of Army? Speaking of Germany 90% of military Equipment does not function in Germany. Germany could be taken by Poland in 3 days or so. We are not capable to do anything
That's an ironic turn of events, historically speaking.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,524
7,438
715
That's an ironic turn of events, historically speaking.
Yeah but that does not help in this situation. Germany is fucked either way. Right now Berlin is blocked by Exstinction Rebellion for 4 days straight and the police and Government is just watching how these people block bridges, streets for 4 days straight now.

But back to the topic. Trump saying that they did not help in WW2 is awful too. I liked the more agressive Trump regarding China, Korea etc. I applaud his decision to move the embassy to Jeruslaem. But here it is fucking awful for people who helped beating the IS. Who are protecting Syria from the IS. Who are holding 10000 IS terrorists as prisoners. They need our support and help.
 

Stiflers Mom

Member
Apr 27, 2012
2,970
481
815
Well, next time you'd need those kurds fighting some asshole terror force because you don't want to get involved yourself, have fun getting the middle finger from them.
 

mcz117chief

Member
Sep 29, 2013
10,711
1,791
685
Bohemia
which what kind of Army? Speaking of Germany 90% of military Equipment does not function in Germany. Germany could be taken by Poland in 3 days or so. We are not capable to do anything
I concur this statement. From my friends and their friends who were in Bundeswehr the situation is beyond catastrophic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunki

gamerMan

Member
Jun 10, 2014
1,286
75
380
toybuzz.org
Even if he was an isolationist, why would he do this at this time? Either he is an idiot or is compromised. It makes absolutely no political sense especially at this time. There is nothing he's going to get out of this. He's being impeached and this is going to make a lot of enemies in the Republican party. He's committing political suicide. Lindsey Graham,the biggest Trump supporter, is even calling this the biggest mistake of his presidency. Who in the administration told him to do this? Nobody! The only winners are Turkey and Russia.

Unless, he's batshit insane, the timing of this smells absolutely wrong. From the Ukraine saga, we know that the President is willing to trade blow jobs with foreign countries for "favors." With Trump and his family's business ties in Turkey, there is a huge conflict of interest.
Breibart “I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump said in 2015. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two,”
Outside of cult 45, everybody knows that Trump only does things to lick his own balls. This tweet is telling:
 
Last edited: