The Kurds

[sharkman]

.....Everyone else is so caught up in the pro or anti Trump angle and/or drama and/or bullshit.

Yep EB, it's the same bunch of clowns caught up making stupid comments..."the blind leading the blind"...not knowing what they are talking about and without any clear knowledge of the situation...just like in the "Climate Change" thread!

You are correct EB, in a nutshell, "the Kurds are problem tenants"!

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Yep EB, it's the same bunch of clowns caught up making stupid comments..."the blind leading the blind"...not knowing what they are talking about and without any clear knowledge of the situation...just like in the "Climate Change" thread!

You are correct EB, in a nutshell, "the Kurds are problem tenants"!

So, someone who questions not that climate is changing but if man can alter it is a clown. It should be we are not sheep being led by media and political agendas. There is no 100% proof that we can change the climate right now. You guys just do not get it and never will. Wrong thread, just thought to chime in.
As for the Kurds, sucks for their final outcome but how long does someone need to keep interfering in a very long term battle. Not say it is right what happened. If non related parties stayed out of it a long time ago this shit would not be happening.

 

[jalimon]

You are correct EB, in a nutshell, "the Kurds are problem tenants"!

The problem Sharky is there is a lot of bad tenants in the world. And the USA knows that perfectly well. Give these countries too much liberty and fuck it forget all the money america or europe has these fucked up countries will take over out of sheer number of population. They can truly prove that we are a "Tigre de papier". America's power is it's money. But that is all virtual with the market. They know with just enough network together they can make that collapse quite easily. Better avoid giving them the chances.

So sorry but there are no problem tenants.

 

[No_Church_InThe_Wild]

Well to be honest the Americans have been arming both sides pretty well lol ,,, they have been fair to both sides as far as stockpiling them with weaponry is concerned, Turkish and Kurdish side .

But my understanding of the situation is that Turkey is calling the shots . Did anyone really expect that the US would help the Kurds carve up Syria and create some kind of Kurdistan independent nation and in the process alienate Turkey? Perhaps 30,40 years ago the outcome could have been a bit different ,,, although I very much doubt it . But these days Turkey is a real regional power. They have been arming themselves to the teeth for the past decades with the help of course of their good NATO ally the USA . If the USA doesn’t oblige then the Russians will gladly sell to them .

Turkey has been courted by both super powers and they both want their business and influence. It’s no surprise that neither really wants to displease them . Especially the Americans who need them as an IMPORTANT strategic ally in this part of the world . Anyone who doesn’t understand this has surely flunked geography.
Nobody is going to dare risk that for a bunch of freedom fighters who have sadly served their purpose for now . I do sympathize with the Kurdish people but in politics loyalty is a fickle thing , it’s ruthless and to be honest I’m not convinced that the outcome would’ve been any different no matter which US president was in charge. So in a sense I’m absolving Trump a bit , I don’t think he did anything different than previous administrations have done in the region.

The diplomacy part and the whole handling and selling the situation to tge media and public would have been surely more polished if another President was serving. It’s not always what you do but how you do it that gets criticized. And yes it’s true that the left and plenty of posters here like to bash on Trump on almost every thread they get tge opportunity, myself included because it feels pretty good I guess lol .
But how can you blame them with the comments and Mickey Mouse statements that he has made .
Spouting nonsense about WW2 allies and also saying something along the lines of “ we gave tge Kurds a lot of MONEY to do a job” and so on . I mean he’s talking about “money “ like it’s some kind of real estate deal and not taking into consideration the huge amount of casualties that the Kurds sustained in order to defeat Isis .
Wouldn’t that kind of talk and reasoning not anger any decent human being?

 

[No_Church_InThe_Wild]

^^^
And as for the gentlemen who continuously bring up that this is not the USA’s problem, that it’s not their fight , that they should have never gone there and better yet never interfere in any future regional conflicts.
Can they say that with a straight face ? after all wasn’t it Bush and his cronies that brought up the slaughter of the ethnic Kurds by the EVIL dictator SADDAM and wanting to protect them as one of the reasons why they invaded IRAK in the first place ,,,along with the WMD bs of course ? So why not in Syria then ...


Oh yea I forgot there was plenty of oil in Irak right ?
Then suddenly it became UNCLE SAMS duty to intervene and save the helpless Kurds ,,, cmon gentlemen lol

The USA will go where they need to go to protect their own interests so why not say it .
It’s the hypocrisy of politics that people really take issue with .

 

[EagerBeaver]

There are no US interests that need to be protected in Syria. You guys keep up bringing up extraneous statements by politicians and generals who are mere tools of the same wrongful imperialistic policies of the past which history has proven did not work. Nobody in thread has provided a single valid reason for the US to be in Syria other than “so and so said this or that” which is all drama, bullshit or political rhetoric that has no bearing to 2019. Please provide real reasons that are sensible for intervening in a conflict that hasn’t been resolved in over 100 years and is not going to be resolved by US intervention any time in the next 100 years. What US interest is at stake? There isn’t one. It’s pure fiction. The Generals are only speaking as erstwhile advocates for the Kurds based on their military situation on the ground. What they say therefore means squat except to the press and those who wish to use it politically. As a matter of developing sound foreign policy, for the future, nobody pays attention to such statements.

 

[Cruiser777]

after all wasn’t it Bush and his cronies that brought up the slaughter of the ethnic Kurds by the EVIL dictator SADDAM and wanting to protect them as one of the reasons why they invaded IRAK in the first place ,,,along with the WMD bs of course ? So why not in Syria then ...

As we see now under Mr Trump, the US don't care about the kurds now and they didn't care during the first Irak war either under George Sr as the US
didn't help or interfere when the kurds had the uprising against Saddam during first Irak war where they got massacred after. George Sr had stopped the
war already at 100 hours because it was "Mission accomplished" as the UN mandate was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not to invade Irak.

George Jr didn't know even who the kurds were or kurds existed or not in the first place, he fabricated the second Irak war under the false premise of
911 and WMD, the true reason was personal, he wanted revenge because Saddam had plotted to assassinate George Sr and second he wanted to be
a "War president". As we know what happened to his "Mission accomplished".

Of course he thought it would be a cakewalk, another 100 hours war, but as we all know what was the outcome, cost the lives of thousands
American soldiers for his personal ego.

On the other hand give credit to Mr Trump (Weather you like him or not), because during the election he said, he is or the Americans are sick of the wars, he wanted to bring soldiers home and he is not looking or restraining himself from starting new wars.

If the US and the their Middle Eastern allies hadn't created ISIS (Apparently to topple Assad ? Why ?*) then the Americans would have never gone to Syria
in the first place (Then they had to go just because the Russians and the Iranians went in). Alsoi they went in with only with just few hundred soldiers as most
of the fighting ISIS thing was taken care of by kurds up north and the Russians and the Iranians in the rest of the country.

* Of course there is another reason but thats another topic.

 

[EagerBeaver]

If the US and the their Middle Eastern allies hadn't created ISIS (Apparently to topple Assad ? Why ?*) then the Americans would have never gone to Syria in the first place (Then they had to go just because the Russians and the Iranians went in)

If ISIS was the only reason to go there in the first place and then Russia and Iran went in, why not leave them to try and clean up the mess and have to deal with successors to ISIS? This is exactly what I posted earlier. By breaking the cycle of intervention, you stop creating these extremist groups which are only gaining power in order to oppose imperialism by interlopers. It’s like a formulaic movie being played over and over again with essentially the same actors changing in name only. Stop the imperialistic interventions and you take away the impetus to start and finance a new successor group or, if it’s Russian imperialism, it becomes their problem instead of ours. This is what I posted like 5 times already. The only posts actually discussing the history here support a complete withdrawal. And allowing Russia to be worn down instead. Russia is counting on us intervening in order to destabilize the region, which has been the Russian playbook since Stalin everywhere in the world. When do you stop watching the same movie over and over and say enough is enough?

 

[sharkman]

I never swear to anything!...lol! ...but I love to stir up shit! :usa2:

 

[Cruiser777]

...but I love to stir up shit! :usa2:

Yesss, thats great entertainment.

 

[Bred Sob]

Stop the imperialistic interventions and you take away the impetus to start and finance a new successor group

It is a good start but it is clearly not enough. At the very least the U.S. must acknowledge all the grievous harm it had caused ISIS, help restore the caliphate and ensure its viability. Supply it with modern weapons and other needed resources. The Marshall Plan would be a good model.

 

[Cruiser777]

If ISIS was the only reason to go there in the first place and then Russia and Iran went in, why not leave them to try and clean up the mess and have to deal with successors to ISIS? This is exactly what I posted earlier.

Obviously ISIS was not the main reason, ISIS was "Created" (Entered in from Turkey) to get rid of Assad which didn't work, the main reason going after Assad
(Who had done nothing against the US) was to disrupt the Iran, Syria, Lebanon connection to leave Israel alone.

Once the Russians and the Iranians went in things changed, the US didn't have to go in since the Kurds and the others were fighting against ISIS already,
the US went in just to say we are here and remember that Trump just few months ago said that the Americans will stay in Syria as long as the Iranians are
staying in Syria, this, had nothing to do with ISIS.

 

[Bred Sob]

So I guess it is ok to intervene when cheap oil is at stake, but otherwise the US should mind its own business.

Fradi, you were right as usual.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/24/us-military-syria-tanks-oil-fields