Trump abandons our ally against ISIS, the Kurds to be wiped out by Turkey
- Thread starter Pokeabear
- Start date
I don't see how you reconcile that statement with "our boys" are not worth saving other human beings. It just seems inconsistent to simultaneously eschew nationalism while using "our boys" are more valuable than... "they're" (?) boys?
Why isn't the American professional soldier exactly that individual acting on his own belief wanting to get involved in protecting the superpower? Nobody makes the modern American professional soldier sign up to kill people and break things.
We make draftees kill people and expose themselves to unspeakable risk and in my book that's pretty close to where you are. They HAVE to. Where I get off your anti-war train is the your American professional soldier is a private individual that decided to go get involved where Uncle Sam tells him to.
Why? If killing combatants that are intent on killing innocents saves many more innocents than the combatants, why isn't that the obvious moral preference? Killing a few predators to protect many more victims? Setting back and doing nothing is the moral choice, huh?
False choice. You don't need a war to protect this civillians, all you need is the presence of US troops that have already been there.
This is like the trolley problem, only you are actively pulling a lever to move 100 US troops to some other foreign outpost and the trolley is going to kill a whole bunch of innocent Kurds.
Doing nothing is the best course of action.
So we agree the Kurdish fighters are terrorists and separatists in the eyes of a nato ally?
Good question, and I don't know what it was or currently is or when we come home. All are great questions.
If I had to guess, I'd say our involvement originally all started with Dumbya's Iraq stupidity.
Fair question, I don't know the answer. If they come home, it should be a disengagement that minimizes our former allies taking it on the chin and gives them some cover. In the short term, keeping Turkey from killing our foreign allies and bombing neighborhoods of civilians would be a good objective.
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. All are fair questions, too. I don't think averting a wide ranging atrocity is "wasted" resources. Wasting money by preventing a genocide. Financial statement morality much?
Why? We had a small number of volunteer soldiers that by all accounts did a heluva job. Look at the russians that started some shit with us in Syria a couple years ago. I don't hear people howling to get our boys out, outside of Erdogan.
I don't have it.
It's almost as if... it's a real bad situation I don't approve of, but we were minimizing a lot of humanitarian atrocity just by maintaining a presence.
War was averted before, and now it's not. I agree with much of your anti-war sentiment. So let's anti-war and not war. Withdrawing has instantly STARTED a war. Huh. Now just who here is anti-war? Cuz it doesn't look like Biff prevented a war by pulling out. Or a slaughter, to be more accurate.
Would that justify something?
I notice you haven't asked or noted how Americans feel about them. Does that matter, or only what an authoritarian Turk thinks? A MUSLIM one at that?
Do we agree that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah in the eyes of a nato ally?
I commend you for having the courage to attempt an answer, as noncommittal as it was.
1). So let me get this straight. You think our young men should be placed in harm’s way, but you don’t know why. You don’t know what the mission has ever been. (The original mission was to drive out ISIS as a threat in Syria. Which was considered a done deal quite awhile ago. But when it was then suggested we pull the troops out, which, to begin with, are there counter to international law, there was a huge uproar, just like now, led by sniveling NeoCons like L. Graham, and the goalposts got moved to something different, which none of us know for sure what it is, only that it was designed to keep us there as long as the profits keep rolling in, and who gives a crap if young men from flyover country and their families are destroyed.)
And in addition to not knowing what the mission is, you also don’t know what it should be. All you know is “we” ought to DO SOMETHING, as long as it’s not you being required to be one of the ones doing it.
2). In addition to not knowing what the mission is or should be, you also can’t tell us what victory would look like, how we would know when we could finally have the troops stand down. That makes sense. How can you know when the mission has been accomplished when you don’t even know what the mission is? But nevertheless you are filled with certainty that we ought to send our troops in harm’s way so they can DO SOMETHING!
3). Obviously if the mission is unknown and it is also unknown how to tell if the mission is accomplished it would be impossible to know in advance what should be the expected costs in American lives and treasure. But that is irrelevant because we have a moral imperative to DO SOMETHING!
4). The moral imperative, in your mind, comes because the Kurds were our loyal allies in fighting ISIS. It would therefore be an atrocity to abandon them now.
Have you ever asked yourself why they were our allies in the conflict? Did it occur to you they would have been fighting ISIS whether we were there or not? After all once ISIS moved into Syria they banged up right next to Kurdish held territory. Did you think the Kurds would meekly let ISIS wander into their lands and start beheading people without a fight? (As an aside I’m pretty sure that’s what Trump was alluding to with his WW2 remarks: the Kurds are not natural allies of ours. Our “alliance” was a matter of mutual one-off convenience. Which is the exact opposite of our 67 year alliance with Turkey.)
But we persuaded them to dismantle their defenses, promising to protect them from Turkey! Who persuaded them? Where’s the written document? Did the person who did the persuading have legal authority to put the US in such an agreement? I don’t know the answers to any of those questions. Do you? And if you don’t, don’t you think you ought to before you climb to the rooftops and scream DO SOMETHING?
But if “we” don’t let our boys get killed while protecting them Turkey will resort to genocide!
Really? Are you aware the largest ethnic Kurdish population in the world are residents of Turkey? If genocide is on Turkey’s mind why not start with them? I’ll tell you why. Because Kurdish terrorists have been hiding out in the “safe zone” provided by America and periodically slipping into Turkey to murder and cause mayhem. By one account they have killed over 10,000 Turks and caused untold property damage. Then they sneak back into their American protected “safe space.”
How many Americans were murdered on 9/11? And how did we respond? Why is it so unspeakable for Turkey to go into Syria and clean out the terrorists? Why was it OK for America to invade Syria illegally in order to clean out the ISIS terrorists, but it’s genocide if Turkey does the same?
Have you thought of any of this? Or is your hatred of Donald Trump so insane that as the #2 pacifist on this board you’re willing to side with the likes of Lindsay Graham rather than allow the president to give peace a chance?
This thread is gold.
I haven't seen such righteous humanitarian outrage since back when these same folks discovered that kids were being put in cages by Obama (....what? ....checks notes.... Trump?) Trump, I guess.
We must protect these tribal forces from our NATO ally, but we are bound to fight for our NATO ally should someone else attack them. That's some serious neocon kung fu.
So... pro war, pro establishment, pro ClA, pro military industrial complex..... Good job "liberals."
I haven't seen such righteous humanitarian outrage since back when these same folks discovered that kids were being put in cages by Obama (....what? ....checks notes.... Trump?) Trump, I guess.
We must protect these tribal forces from our NATO ally, but we are bound to fight for our NATO ally should someone else attack them. That's some serious neocon kung fu.
So... pro war, pro establishment, pro ClA, pro military industrial complex..... Good job "liberals."
Wait.... you mean Trump has broken the neocon republicans and has them following his agenda now instead of that of Bush, Cheany and Bill Krystol's?
If I were a liberal democrat I would seriously tap the brakes on hypocrisy as you yammer for war and insist that we trust the ClA.
El lol at you thinking this means Jack shit to the modern right. Key word modern.
While you and your ilk regress us back to the dark ages.
See "tough" guy thread, Princess.
Again, laughing at you. El lol.
Yes, i know why. You never asked that question Dan. Preventing a loyal ally from being slaughtered and keeping them as an effective counterweight against ISIS is a valid reason, particularly when we're not dying.
That means what to me in the context of moving American soldiers to safety?
Are you about to become an activist, quit your job, and go aid whoever needs it?
YOU tell ME what I'm supposed to care about this other than
1. Enjoying not playing world police. (As a pacifist I'm certain you were once this way)
2. Expecting others in NATO to do their FAIR share.
3. Use other forms of negotiation aside from killing.
Oh, and not losing U.S. men/women over a regional issue.
Convince me Lawyer.
"Just keep this from happening" sounds like
1. Continuation of being world police.
2. Putting American lives in unnecessary danger.
Where am I wrong?
