Jump to content

Immediate withdrawal from Syria


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Since when do you need to be related to the little old lady getting beat up by the thugs outside the grocery store?

Where the little old lady is the Syrian population and the thugs are all the loonies paid by america?

In this picture america is also beating up on the little old lady.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 915
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You're either just a dumb cunt, or you're waiting for your nuts to drop and still intellectually bereft of intelligence. Aus has been your most loyal ally, and has backed and supplied arms and le

Dear Christ....... The issue is not in the leaving.  It is the manner in which you do so. People that believed in you are going to get wiped out. For believing in you. And you think tha

He also ran on eliminating the deficit, which just hit an all-time record also ran on 4 (then 5, then 6) % annual GDP growth.  How's that going?  the military's footprint is now 20% larger t

Posted Images

This is a credible source. 

 https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/10/16/fearing-us-abandonment-kurds-kept-back-channels-wide-open/

The Russians started setting this up some time ago. Get the Kurds to accept Syrian rule, because the US would abandon them. 

 

 I'd say the quick reaction of the Syrian Army to move to where they did this week shows they too have been creating contingency plans. 

They are drawing the line at Kobani: 

 https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/10/19/trump-touts-turkey-cease-fire-even-it-appears-shaky/

 
Quote

 

By MEHMET GUZEL and SARAH EL DEEB Associated Press | October 19, 2019 at 1:00 AM EDT - Updated October 20 at 1:47 AM

By KARL RITTER and SARAH EL DEEB Associated Press

ISTANBUL (AP) — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants Syrian government forces to move out of areas near the Turkish border so he can resettle up to 2 million refugees there, his spokesman told The Associated Press on Saturday. The request will top Erdogan's talks next week with Syria's ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Arrangements along the Syrian-Turkish border were thrown into disarray after the U.S. pulled its troops out of the area, opening the door to Turkey's invasion aiming to drive out Kurdish-led fighters it considers terrorists.

Abandoned by their American allies, the Kurds — with Russia's mediation — invited Damascus to send troops into northeastern Syria as protection from Turkish forces. That has complicated Turkey's plan to create a "safe zone" along the border, where it can resettle Syrian refugees now in Turkey. Most of those refugees fled Syria's government.

Erdogan's spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin said Ankara does not want either Syrian forces nor Kurdish fighters in the border area because refugees would not go back to areas under their control.

Turkey has said it wants to oversee that area.

"This is one of the topics that we will discuss with the Russians, because, again, we are not going to force any refugees to go to anywhere they don't want to go," he said. "We want to create conditions that will be suitable for them to return where they will feel safe."

Turkey has taken in about 3.6 million Syrians fleeing the conflict in their homeland but now wants most of them to return. So far, very few have returned to an enclave Turkey already took over and has controlled since 2017.

Under an agreement made by the U.S. and Turkey Thursday, a five-day cease-fire has been in place. Turkey expects the Kurdish fighters to pull back from a border area.

A senior Syrian Kurdish official acknowledged for the first time that the Kurdish-led forces agreed to the pull-back, stating that his forces will move 30-kilometer (19 miles) south of the border.

Redur Khalil, a senior Syrian Democratic Forces official, told the AP that the withdrawal will take place once Turkey allows the Kurdish-led force to evacuate its fighters and civilians from Ras al-Ayn, a border town under siege by Turkish-backed forces. He said that Kurdish-led force was preparing plans to conduct that evacuation on Sunday, if there are no further delays.

Khalil said Kurdish-led fighters would pull back from a 120-kilometer (75-mile) stretch along the border from Ras al-Ayn to Tal Abyad, moving past the international highway.

"We are only committed to the U.S. version not the Turkish one," Khalil said.

A previous agreement between the U.S. and Turkey over a "safe zone" along the Syria-Turkish border floundered over the diverging definitions of the area.

Erdogan has said the Kurdish fighters must withdraw from a far larger length of the border from the Euphrates River to the Iraqi border — more than 440 kilometers (260 miles) — or else the Turkish offensive will resume on Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the agreement pertains to the smaller section between the two towns. Kalin confirmed that is the area affected by the pause in fighting, but said Turkey still wants the larger zone.

Two days into the cease-fire, the border town of Ras al-Ayn has been the sticking point in moving forward.

"We hope that as of tonight or tomorrow, they will stick to this agreement and leave the area," Kalin said.

The Kurdish official meanwhile said his force had negotiated with the Americans the details of its pull-back from the border, starting with the Ras al-Ayn evacuation. But he said the evacuation stalled for 48 hours because Turkish-backed forces continued their siege of the town.

A partial evacuation took place Saturday. Medical convoys were let into part of the town still in Kurdish hands, evacuating 30 wounded and four bodies from a hospital. Khalil said the plan to complete the evacuation from Ras al-Ayn is now set for Sunday.

Turkish officials denied violating the cease-fire or impeding the fighters' withdrawal, blaming the continued violence on the Kurds.

If Kurdish fighters then pull back from the 120-kilometers (75 miles) border area, it is uncertain what the arrangement would be along the rest of the northeastern border, most of which remains solely in the hands of Kurdish-led fighters.

Last week, Syrian forces began deploying into Kurdish areas, moving only into one location directly on the border, the town of Kobani, and a few positions further south.

Khalil said the Syrian government and its ally Russia did not want to deploy more extensively in the area, apparently to avoid frictions with Turkey.

"We noticed there was no desire (from the Russians and Syria) to have the Syrian military on the dividing line between us and the Turks except in Kobani," he said.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This incompetent maniacal move by the Gropenfuhrer should be unifying decent Americans behind whoever runs against him in the primaries and,  if he manages to gain his party’s nomination,  his opponent in the general election. 
 

The slaughter of the Kurds and the genocide of any who remain in a twenty mile wide swath of their homeland is entirely the fault of Donald Trump. 
 

Anyone who for any reason still continues to offer support for the Gropenfuhrer should find his political career is over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

This is the most perfect example of his unsuitability for any responsibility that requires a focus beyond his immediate personal profitability.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

There could NEVER come a time for withdrawal when Duopoly warmongers wouldn't say it was a bad idea, a betrayal of our sacred role as world police, yadayadayada. If getting out is to be done, it's going to come with that kind of heat no matter when it's done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Erdo is demanding Nuclear weapons....... Think Trump'll just hand over those that are already there?...... I do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Now Erdo is demanding Nuclear weapons....... Think Trump'll just hand over those that are already there?...... I do.

 

Fuck no. Trump has a few in a warehouse somewhere he'll sell cheap because they are past their best-before. No questions asked, no serial numbers, no registration with the Federal Bureau of Personal Nuclear Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2019 at 5:50 PM, Mark K said:

August, 1990 actually.  We didn't give a shit about Kuwait..not really.  

 Soreass has a point though. A Kurdish state carved out of the northern part of Syria might have been a very bad idea. We will never know. 

We officially didn't give a shit about Kuwait. We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Fuck no. Trump has a few in a warehouse somewhere he'll sell cheap because they are past their best-before. No questions asked, no serial numbers, no registration with the Federal Bureau of Personal Nuclear Weapons.

Donnies way of exploding the deficit, literally. Scorched earth....... but winning..........

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

There could NEVER come a time for withdrawal when Duopoly warmongers wouldn't say it was a bad idea, a betrayal of our sacred role as world police, yadayadayada. If getting out is to be done, it's going to come with that kind of heat no matter when it's done.

Apparently we've vowed to protect S Korea, Japan and Europe forever - despite their having fairly capable militaries of their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olsonist said:

We officially didn't give a shit about Kuwait. We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts.

We most definite gave a shit about Saudi Arabia. Everybody knew what the inevitable result would be if Saddam took a notion to take them out too. IMO had Saddam just re-arraigned the Kuwaiti princelings and stepped out nothing would have happened. However he tossed the entire batch of royals out and to the Saudis that was a death threat. They no likey Baathism. Feared it they did. Still do. That's why they want Assad gone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Shoot - the brief looks like a good article, but, behind the paywall.  Anybody able to post the text?   

I'll be in trouble with Waffles but ..here.

Apologies if it's a bit untidy. long piece . I've taken the pics and links out.

SOCHI, Russia — His jets patrol Syrian skies. His military is expanding operations at the main naval base in Syria. He is forging closer ties to Turkey. He and his Syrian allies are moving into territory vacated by the United States.

And on Tuesday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia played host to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey for more than six hours of talks on how they and other regional players will divide control of Syria, devastated by eight years of civil war.

The negotiations cemented Mr. Putin’s strategic advantage: Russian and Turkish troops will take joint control over a vast swath of formerly Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria. The change strengthens the rapid expansion of Russian influence in Syria at the expense of the United States and its Kurdish former allies.

Under terms of the agreement, Syrian Kurdish forces have six days to retreat more than 20 miles from the border, abandoning land that they had controlled uncontested until earlier this month — when their protector, the American military, suddenly began to withdraw from the region. The Syrian Kurdish leadership did not immediately respond to the demand.

Mr. Erdogan also got most of what he wanted — a buffer zone free of a militia that Turkey regards as a terrorist threat — but it came at the expense of sharing control of the area with Mr. Putin and the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, whose rule Mr. Erdogan has long opposed.

“Only if Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is respected can a long-lasting and solid stabilization in Syria be achieved,” Mr. Putin said alongside Mr. Erdogan after the meeting.

“It is important that our Turkish partners share this approach,” Mr. Putin added. “The Turks will have to defend peace and calm on the border together with the Syrians. This can only be done in the atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation.”

Mr. Putin has emerged as the dominant force in Syria and a major power broker in the broader Middle East — a status showcased by Mr. Erdogan’s hastily arranged trip to the Russian president’s summer home in Sochi. And it looks increasingly clear that Russia, which rescued the government of President al-Assad with airstrikes over the last four years, will be the arbiter of the power balance there.

As President Trump questions American alliances and troop deployments around the world, Russia, like China, has been flexing its muscles, eager to fill the power vacuum left by a more isolationist United States. In Syria, both Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan have seized opportunities created by Mr. Trump’s sudden withdrawal.

 
 

Mr. Erdogan had long wanted go to war against the Kurdish-led forces that control northeast Syria but he dared not, as long as the Kurds’ American allies were stationed there. After Mr. Trump agreed to withdraw American forces from the area, Mr. Erdogan launched an invasion.

The Sochi meeting began a few hours before the end of an American-brokered truce between Turkish and Kurdish forces in Syria, where Mr. Erdogan says his troops have seized more than 900 square miles of territory since invading on Oct. 6.

“The U.S. is still the 500-pound gorilla,” said Howard Eissenstat, a professor of Middle East history at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y. “If the U.S. decided that ‘issue X’ was a primary concern to its national security, there would be very little that anybody in the region could do about it.”

But with the United States increasingly removing itself from the picture — as symbolized in the Russian news media by the images of abandoned washing machines and unopened cans of Coca-Cola left behind in the chaotic withdrawal — it was Russia’s consent Mr. Erdogan needed on Tuesday to solidify and extend his gains.

“Before, Turkey could play the U.S. against Russia and Russia against the U.S.,” said Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, an Istanbul-based research group. “Now that’s no longer the case, and Russia has shaped up to be Turkey’s only real counterpart in Syria.”

 

The Sochi meeting looked to be a culmination of Mr. Putin’s yearslong strategy of taking advantage of Western divisions to build closer ties with Turkey, a NATO member and long a key United States ally, and to increase Moscow’s influence in the Middle East.

 
 

As the United States and Western Europe vacillated in their approach to Syria — to the frustration of Turkey and other Middle Eastern powers — Russia chose to protect its ally, Mr. al-Assad, and stuck with him despite fierce criticism from the West that the Syrian ruler was a brutal despot.

The upshot, Russians now say, is that while their country lacks the West’s economic might, it can be counted on to keep its word.

“Some people are furious again, some people are jealous and some people are drawn to power,” Dmitri Kiselyov, the prominent host of a news program on state-controlled Russian television, told viewers Sunday night. “Whatever the case, Erdogan is flying to Russia to meet with Putin.”

Russian television showed Mr. Putin looking relaxed as he delivered his opening remarks in Sochi, leaning back with his hands clasped easily over an armrest. Mr. Erdogan, by contrast, sat up straight as he eyed his Russian counterpart.

Mr. Putin, who relishes chances to drive wedges into Western alliances, has drawn closer to Mr. Erdogan, whose relations with Europe and the United States have been rocky. They have met eight times this year, according to Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin foreign policy adviser.

 

In July, Turkey defied Western warnings and began taking delivery of a Russian antiaircraft missile system, prompting the United States to cancel Turkey’s purchase of American-made fighter jets. NATO had warned that the purchase could reveal Western technological secrets to Russia, and that the Russian weapons were incompatible with the alliance’s systems.

 
 

Mr. Putin has also cultivated ties with the United States’ closest ally in the region, Israel, and its bitterest adversary, Iran, another supporter of Mr. al-Assad.

Russia “doesn’t have the economic or military capabilities the U.S. has,” Mr. Eissenstat said, “but it has been very savvy about using its power in limited and effective means.”

 

Until this month, Kurdish fighters had managed to carve out their own autonomous region in northeast Syria, free of government control, amid the chaos of the war. They greatly expanded their territory from 2015 onward, when they became the principal Syrian partner of an American-led coalition working to defeat militants from the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIS.

As Kurdish fighters won ISIS-held land, they took over its governance, eventually establishing control over roughly a quarter of Syria.

 
 
 
But Mr. Erdogan viewed the Kurdish militia, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, as a threat to Turkish national security, since the group is an offshoot of a guerrilla movement that has waged a decades-long insurgency in Turkey.

As a result, Mr. Erdogan sought to create a buffer zone along the entire length of the Turkish-Syrian border, roughly 20 miles deep, to keep Kurdish fighters from getting within mortar range of Turkey.

 
 

 

On Tuesday, Mr. Erdogan got Mr. Putin to agree to parts of this plan: Under the agreement, Russian and Turkish troops will jointly patrol most of the Syrian-Turkish border, a stretch roughly 260 miles long and six miles deep. Kurdish forces will have to withdraw even further — to an area 20 miles from the border.

The Turkish government and its Syrian Arab proxies will also get to keep control of a deeper area of borderland, roughly 75 miles long and 20 miles deep, captured from Kurdish forces this month.

But in exchange, Mr. Erdogan has had to give up hopes of exerting greater control over a much wider territory — and agree to allow Mr. al-Assad’s forces back to a border they abandoned several years ago.

Mr. Erdogan was also rebuked by Mr. Putin for risking a revival of the Islamic State. Distracted by the invasion, Kurdish fighters have been unable to carry out anti-ISIS operations, and several ISIS militants have escaped Kurdish-run jails.

“It is important to make sure,” Mr. Putin said as Mr. Erdogan stood beside him, “that members of terrorist organizations, including ISIS, whose militants are kept by Kurdish armed formations and are trying to escape, would not use the opportunity created by the actions of Turkish forces.”

Mr. Putin also called Mr. al-Assad after the meeting to fill the Syrian leader in, the Kremlin said in a statement, and the Syrian leader “supported the decisions made.”

 
 

 

 

As American troops crossed the border from Syria into Iraq this week, the Iraqi government faced questions about whether the withdrawal was camouflage for an American buildup in Iraq. The United States military has a large camp in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and the troops are going there until arrangements are made for them to move on.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper seemed mindful of the Iraqis’ concerns on Tuesday when he said, on a stop in Saudi Arabia, “The aim isn’t to stay in Iraq interminably. The aim is to pull our soldiers out and eventually get them back home.” Mr. Esper also said he will discuss the matter with Iraqi officials when he visits Baghdad on Wednesday.

 

Anton Troianovski reported from Sochi, and Patrick Kingsley from Istanbul. Reporting was contributed by Alissa J. Rubin from Baghdad, Eric Schmitt from Washington, Ben Hubbard from Qamishli, Syria, Ivan Nechepurenko from Moscow, and Carlotta Gall from Akcakale, Turkey.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Mr. Erdogan also got most of what he wanted — a buffer zone free of a militia that Turkey regards as a terrorist threat

That's just silly. Turkey is a NATO ally with a real military. There's no way some ragtag militia can present any kind of threat. Read more gun threads and you'll learn important info like that.

Meanwhile, the "immediate" withdrawal that was announced most of a year ago turns out NOT to be about bringing troops home.
 

Quote

 

In a Sunday morning tweet that was, at first glance, most notable for how President Donald Trump had misspelled his defense secretary's last name, the president proclaimed that "USA soldiers are not in combat or ceasefire zones. We have secured the Oil. Bringing soldiers home!"

About two hours later, that tweet was deleted and replaced with a new tweet that corrected the secretary's name—Mark Esper, not Mark Esperanto—and also made another, less noticed change. Trump removed the original last three words and replaced them with "ending endless wars!"

A noble goal, to be sure. But that change is noteworthy, since it seemingly reveals how the strategy behind Trump's hasty and haphazard withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria is evolving in real-time, even within the president's own mind. Trump has spent the past two weeks facing down intense criticism from both Republicans and Democrats over his decision—announced on Twitter, naturally—to pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria and to give a green light to a Turkish military assault. In the face of that criticism, Trump has steadfastly argued that there is no compelling reason to have U.S. troops on the ground in Syria and that he withdrew those forces in order to bring them home.

The first part of that argument is true. The second part is absolutely false.

In fact, Esper's Sunday morning press conference—the one that seems to have prompted Trump's tweets—confirmed that U.S. troops aren't coming home. Instead, Esper said, the roughly 1,000 U.S. troops that have pulled back from northern Syria in recent weeks will be re-positioned across the border in Iraq to protect oil fields and monitor the situation in Syria. The Associated Press reported that the troops moved out of Syria will be used to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State, amid concerns that Turkey's attack on Kurdistan may have resulted in the release of imprisoned ISIS fighters.

"It's pretty clear that he's not bringing home the troops. He's moving troops back into Iraq. He's moving other troops into Saudi Arabia," Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) said Sunday during an appearance on NBC's Meet The Press. The former Republican and frequent Trump critic said he did not think American troops should have been deployed in Syria to begin with and believes Trump should have brought them home along ago. Still, this isn't that, Amash said.

"When you withdraw troops," observed Amash, "you have to plan in advance how to handle it."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey needs to be treated like Pakistan - I sincerely doubt that if a NATO article 5 issue arose, that they would honor their obligations to NATO if the aggressor was a nation allied with Russian.  IMHO - time to ditch them and bring in Ukraine and Hungary.   We can torch the bases in Incirlik and Izmir on our way out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

That's just silly. Turkey is a NATO ally with a real military. There's no way some ragtag militia can present any kind of threat. Read more gun threads and you'll learn important info like that.

Meanwhile, the "immediate" withdrawal that was announced most of a year ago turns out NOT to be about bringing troops home.
 

 

A terrorist threat Tom.  Or are you suggesting that we #1 don't have a real military or #2 aren't threatened by terrorism.  

While your argument is invalid, I agree with the premise.  The 'buffer' zone is bullshit.  See the Berlin Wall, or the Mexico Border for reference.  That buffer zone won't stop the terrorism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

A terrorist threat Tom.  Or are you suggesting that we #1 don't have a real military or #2 aren't threatened by terrorism.  

While your argument is invalid, I agree with the premise.  The 'buffer' zone is bullshit.  See the Berlin Wall, or the Mexico Border for reference.  That buffer zone won't stop the terrorism.

Sudetenland

 

1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Turkey needs to be treated like Pakistan - I sincerely doubt that if a NATO article 5 issue arose, that they would honor their obligations to NATO if the aggressor was a nation allied with Russian.  IMHO - time to ditch them and bring in Ukraine and Hungary.   We can torch the bases in Incirlik and Izmir on our way out. 

Interesting times. I cannot think of a period in history when the Turks were not deadly enemies with Russia. Would you explain a little more about the implications of NATO Art.5, as I'm not sure I understand it.

Up until last week, I'd have said that the Turks are among our best allies especially in that area. Now.... seems like Erdo has gone past a tipping point. Which is good for him, as a dictator rather than national leader, but bad for everybody else.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

A terrorist threat Tom.  Or are you suggesting that we #1 don't have a real military or #2 aren't threatened by terrorism.  

Neither, I'm suggesting that these militias are a threat to a real military, even ours and certainly Turkey's.

Do you think they're a threat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sudetenland

 

Interesting times. I cannot think of a period in history when the Turks were not deadly enemies with Russia. Would you explain a little more about the implications of NATO Art.5, as I'm not sure I understand it.

Up until last week, I'd have said that the Turks are among our best allies especially in that area. Now.... seems like Erdo has gone past a tipping point. Which is good for him, as a dictator rather than national leader, but bad for everybody else.

- DSK

Thanks for the question - happy to explain.   I think that Erdogan has decided that his local best interests lie with an alliance to Russia - they have just given him what he's always wanted, and that's support in his desire to eradicate Kurds from the Southern Turkey/northern Syria region.   Additionally - Turkey is "surrounded" by Russian nations, and knows that US support for Turkey against Russia would be very unlikely.  Turkey also imports most of its oil from Russia.  That, coupled w/the ultimatum given to the US "We're coming in no matter what"  makes me think that Turkey's recent behavior indicates a move to favor Russia over NATO allies.  

Other thoughts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Neither, I'm suggesting that these militias are a threat to a real military, even ours and certainly Turkey's.

Do you think they're a threat?

No

They're a threat to the local population, and a deployed military can only defend that local population within limits, and at a high cost... and the cost goes way way up when they're at the far end of a logistical tail.

So, does the 2nd Amendment entail ownership of weapons within the context of a militia, even if that militia might be defined by some other leadership group as "terrorists," or not?

You seem to want it both ways.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for the question - happy to explain.   I think that Erdogan has decided that his local best interests lie with an alliance to Russia - they have just given him what he's always wanted, and that's support in his desire to eradicate Kurds from the Southern Turkey/northern Syria region.   Additionally - Turkey is "surrounded" by Russian nations, and knows that US support for Turkey against Russia would be very unlikely.  Turkey also imports most of its oil from Russia.  That, coupled w/the ultimatum given to the US "We're coming in no matter what"  makes me think that Turkey's recent behavior indicates a move to favor Russia over NATO allies.  

Other thoughts? 

Well, I'd -like- to think that Turkey, as a full NATO ally, would be defended by NATO... which mean primarily the US, especially in the opening stages of a theater-wide action... with the full strength and resources that NATO would bring for defense of any others. In reality, I'm not sure that's true and given the recent political do-ings in Turkey, Erdo would not see it in the best interest of his personal power, to be bailed out by the exact same secular Western gov'ts he's been demonizing to his people.

He's certainly certainly crossed the threshold of being "leader of Turkey" under parliamentary procedure to being "Turkey's leader" whether they want him or not, making decisions best for himself rather than the country, and with an identity at least somewhat seperated from his country's.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

which mean primarily the US, especially in the opening stages of a theater-wide action

Yup, it'll be just like going to the Theater. Godzilla vs. Gargantua! Shock and awe and blood literally boiling. Trump, Hillary, Obama, the bush and Buffet moved to a safe space while you piss yourself over AGW and gender-free toilets.:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. People trying a bit to hard to find lies:

Quote

Mr Trump’s address was littered with easily disprovable falsehoods. He claimed that US military had been deployed in the region for 10 years (soldiers arrived on the ground in 2015).

This one looks like he accidentally told to truth to me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
19 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Neither, I'm suggesting that these militias are a threat to a real military, even ours and certainly Turkey's.

Do you think they're a threat?

No

They're a threat to the local population, and a deployed military can only defend that local population within limits, and at a high cost... and the cost goes way way up when they're at the far end of a logistical tail.

So, does the 2nd Amendment entail ownership of weapons within the context of a militia, even if that militia might be defined by some other leadership group as "terrorists," or not?

You seem to want it both ways.

- DSK

Seems to me that they are the local population, both in our current foreign meddling and in our own colonial history. The British govt viewed rebellious colonists as terrorists.

Here's a militia question that never seems to be answered, care to take a shot?

On 5/13/2015 at 3:25 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round (censored) caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:
20 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
21 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Neither, I'm suggesting that these militias are a threat to a real military, even ours and certainly Turkey's.

Do you think they're a threat?

No

They're a threat to the local population, and a deployed military can only defend that local population within limits, and at a high cost... and the cost goes way way up when they're at the far end of a logistical tail.

....

Seems to me that they are the local population, both in our current foreign meddling and in our own colonial history. The British govt viewed rebellious colonists as terrorists.

 

1- not an answer

2- and totally incorrect, ISIS is not "the local population." None of them were local/native to the area they ruled. They were Iraqi Shias supported by int'l recruits

Are you ignorant (and determined to remain so) or just trying to distract?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

1- not an answer

2- and totally incorrect, ISIS is not "the local population." None of them were local/native to the area they ruled. They were Iraqi Shias supported by int'l recruits

Are you ignorant (and determined to remain so) or just trying to distract?

- DSK

Context matters, see the post that started this branch. It should be pretty obvious I was talking about Kurdish militias and how they threaten (or don't) Turkey's military. Twisting it to pretend I was talking about their opponents is a cute trick but won't work on readers. So will probably work pretty well here.

BTW, that's

1. not an answer

to this:

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round (censored) caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbefuckingleivable 

The Oil Fields discussed in my speech on Turkey/Kurds yesterday were held by ISIS until the United States took them over with the help of the Kurds. We will NEVER let a reconstituted ISIS have those fields!

I really enjoyed my conversation with General @MazloumAbdi. He appreciates what we have done, and I appreciate what the Kurds have done. Perhaps it is time for the Kurds to start heading to the Oil Region!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Unbefuckingleivable 

The Oil Fields discussed in my speech on Turkey/Kurds yesterday were held by ISIS until the United States took them over with the help of the Kurds. We will NEVER let a reconstituted ISIS have those fields!

I really enjoyed my conversation with General @MazloumAbdi. He appreciates what we have done, and I appreciate what the Kurds have done. Perhaps it is time for the Kurds to start heading to the Oil Region!

 That's a bit more than word salad. The YPG and associates have been folded into the Syrian Arab Army. They won't be Kurds coming for the oil they will be Syrians, and the sooner they get there the sooner we can pull our guys off the oil fields. Good, but I suspect it will be awhile before they get there, IMO they will concentrate on other things for a bit. The oil isn't going anywhere, and there are still some bad guys that need rounding up, and are in no rush to please The Donald, I reckon.  

 They Syrian Army is happy to have the help. They are still trying to clean up Idib, btw. This is actually working out pretty well. I would rate this as one of Putin's masterpieces, if things keep going the way they seem to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Mark, I'm sure you have a reason to think things are going well, would you mind sharing that perspective? 

The perspective is that of the Syrians, not the warmongers in Washington.

It is all horribly obvious once you realise that you are not the goody in this picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

 That's a bit more than word salad. The YPG and associates have been folded into the Syrian Arab Army. They won't be Kurds coming for the oil they will be Syrians, and the sooner they get there the sooner we can pull our guys off the oil fields. Good, but I suspect it will be awhile before they get there, IMO they will concentrate on other things for a bit. The oil isn't going anywhere, and there are still some bad guys that need rounding up, and are in no rush to please The Donald, I reckon.  

 They Syrian Army is happy to have the help. They are still trying to clean up Idib, btw. This is actually working out pretty well. I would rate this as one of Putin's masterpieces, if things keep going the way they seem to be. 

I think you miss the point of Trumps tweet.

Hi Kurds, so sorry you lost 11,000 in our last little joint venture (to our 4 or 8) and we know you're a little disappointed that we stabbed you in the back and helped the Turks drive you off the land you fought so hard for..but hey..wanna come and protect some oil fields for us? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 5:47 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Mark, I'm sure you have a reason to think things are going well, would you mind sharing that perspective? 

Could well be going as well as it could (for the Kurds) isn't necessarily going "well". There's a lot wrong with all this. 

  The reason I think this might be the Kurds best shot is looking at the map. This imagined Kurdish state would be a carve-out of Syria, and it includes a significant portion of Syria's meager oil reserves. If such a state were to become real they would be a state with absolutely no friends on all sides. I've always felt their best shot was to become Syrians. Assad will probably grant them limited autonomy within that NE province. They will still be detested by everybody else, of course, but the Syrians know those Kurds are some of the best fighters around, specifically against jihadis and other religious monkey business...such as the Saudis like to play. The Sauds and their Gulfies are now known to be dedicated enemies of Syria...The Sauds still dream of Wahhabizing the entire Levant (al-Sham) so why would Assad not make accommodations for the Kurds? 

 I think most of the Kurds have known this was coming. Putin warned them, and the speed with which they folded into the SAA indicates this has been a contingency plan for both for some time now. 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, that and the fact that Il Cheetolini said he was pulling out all troops a year ago.  Can't have come as too big of a surprise.

Pooty poot couldn’t be that devious. We had a fella here who looked into his eyes and saw his soul, or looked into his ass and saw his hole, guaranteeing six more weeks of winter. I can’t be sure. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, that and the fact that Il Cheetolini said he was pulling out all troops a year ago.  Can't have come as too big of a surprise.

In theory the US could have negotiated this same deal out. But that theoretical US no longer exists. We no longer have the competence necessary. All the Arabists were run out of town in the 90's and aughts.

  Now we have neo-cons and their kissing cousins on the left, the "democracy must be everywhere" Sam Powers. Susan Rice gang. Saw them on the tube the other night agreeing with some cunt from the American Enterprise Institute that Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely insane to think that Assad has strong support within Syria.

 Who the hell are they thinking fought with him for all these years??  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

Could well be going as well as it could (for the Kurds) isn't necessarily going "well". There's a lot wrong with all this. 

  The reason I think this might be the Kurds best shot is looking at the map. This imagined Kurdish state would be a carve-out of Syria, and it includes a significant portion of Syria's meager oil reserves. If such a state were to become real they would be a state with absolutely no friends on all sides. I've always felt their best shot was to become Syrians. Assad will probably grant them limited autonomy within that NE province. They will still be detested by everybody else, of course, but the Syrians know those Kurds are some of the best fighters around, specifically against jihadis and other religious monkey business...such as the Saudis like to play. The Sauds and their Gulfies are now known to be dedicated enemies of Syria...The Sauds still dream of Wahhabizing the entire Levant (al-Sham) so why would Assad not make accommodations for the Kurds? 

 I think most of the Kurds have known this was coming. Putin warned them, and the speed with which they folded into the SAA indicates this has been a contingency plan for both for some time now. 

  

Thanks - I was thinking about a few perspectives, and I think you're right.  The Kurds in N Iraq are generally doing OK,  and while I dont think they'll ever have a country, the few I have spoken with in Erbil seem to be OK being left alone as citizens of their historic country.  Those conversations were superficial, and with every day folks, not policy makers, so I'm certain that there is a broad spectrum of thought.  

In N Syria?  I think that the objective could have easily been achieved with a few more months of diplomacy and with much less fallout than we are going to have to deal with in the coming decade.  I'm sick thinking about how our govt has acted in this situation, and dont see any way to mitigate it, that our credibility and influence have been greatly diminished.   To the positive?  Aside from the fact that we broke it, I think it's an OK thing for the national neighbors to work this out - I worry for the western Stans, the Kurds and Ukraine when Putin starts flexing in those directions, no regional player will want to oppose.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this situation is why Eisenhower wanted to dump the Truman doctrine; he foresaw the slow bleeding out of US resources  by getting involved in multiple small unwinnable conflicts. Perhaps abandoning the neo-Truman Doctrine of sending in the troops whenever someone yells "terrorism" and turning to a combination of containment/diplomacy/Marshall Plan would be more effective in the long run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

I think this situation is why Eisenhower wanted to dump the Truman doctrine; he foresaw the slow bleeding out of US resources  by getting involved in multiple small unwinnable conflicts. Perhaps abandoning the neo-Truman Doctrine of sending in the troops whenever someone yells "terrorism" and turning to a combination of containment/diplomacy/Marshall Plan would be more effective in the long run.

Perhaps but there are a couple of yuge bigly problems there. We don’t have coherent diplomacy at the moment. We have an all-hands-on-deck for the re-election campaign. 

Anything like the Marshall Plan would cost money and if we are going to borrow that to spend overseas, we will need a way to ensure that it is safely laundered and redistributed to the Best Americans. Otherwise it will be a Fiscal Responsibility outrage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly have an overall coherency issue at present even without the re-election campaigns. As for the Marshall Plan, the original by intention and accident benefited the American economy by "encouraging" the return of the dollars given/loaned. Part of the prosperity of the 50's and 60's came from the stimulus provided by 90% tax bracket dollars coming back in the form of machinery orders. That and the establishment of the dollar as a reserve currency/petrol currency. People forget that the Marshall plan had a rebuilding effect on us as well as Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - I was thinking about a few perspectives, and I think you're right.  The Kurds in N Iraq are generally doing OK,  and while I dont think they'll ever have a country, the few I have spoken with in Erbil seem to be OK being left alone as citizens of their historic country.  Those conversations were superficial, and with every day folks, not policy makers, so I'm certain that there is a broad spectrum of thought.  

In N Syria?  I think that the objective could have easily been achieved with a few more months of diplomacy and with much less fallout than we are going to have to deal with in the coming decade.  I'm sick thinking about how our govt has acted in this situation, and dont see any way to mitigate it, that our credibility and influence have been greatly diminished.   To the positive?  Aside from the fact that we broke it, I think it's an OK thing for the national neighbors to work this out - I worry for the western Stans, the Kurds and Ukraine when Putin starts flexing in those directions, no regional player will want to oppose.  

What is stunning to me is the utter competence of Putin and Lavrov in all this. It's a bit mind-boggling to picture anyone imagining an orchestrating this sudden US rug-yanking from under the Kurds. Lots of moving parts here. They had to have confidence in exactly what Erdo would and wouldn't do, Trump, Assad, even the Iraqis The risks appear huge. I suspect Putin was prompted by the deep unpopularity of the cost of supporting Syria within Russia, and while Putin's popularity remains very high it's not invulnerable to erosion. They must have viewed complete stabilization, regardless of the nature of that stabilization, as very important prior to getting the eff out of there.  

  Putin is guiding our FP in this area, and for the locals that might be for the best. We are currently like children compared to them.  Still dreaming of overturning Assad at this stage, as our neocons and Jacobin libereal interventionists are??  Damn silly.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

What is stunning to me is the utter competence of Putin and Lavrov in all this. It's a bit mind-boggling to picture anyone imagining an orchestrating this sudden US rug-yanking from under the Kurds. Lots of moving parts here. They had to have confidence in exactly what Erdo would and wouldn't do, Trump, Assad, even the Iraqis The risks appear huge. I suspect Putin was prompted by the deep unpopularity of the cost of supporting Syria within Russia, and while Putin's popularity remains very high it's not invulnerable to erosion. They must have viewed complete stabilization, regardless of the nature of that stabilization, as very important prior to getting the eff out of there.  

  Putin is guiding our FP in this area, and for the locals that might be for the best. We are currently like children compared to them.  Still dreaming of overturning Assad at this stage, as our neocons and Jacobin libereal interventionists are??  Damn silly.  

Wasn't Putin guiding our foreign policy when we went in?  That was FUCKING STUPID!

Do you ever wonder how an East German student ended up as chancellor of Germany and how that cosy alliance with Russia came about?  Seems almost magical.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Wasn't Putin guiding our foreign policy when we went in?  That was FUCKING STUPID!

Do you ever wonder how an East German student ended up as chancellor of Germany and how that cosy alliance with Russia came about?  Seems almost magical.

 

Have you forgotten about ISIL? Or are you saying it was FUCKING STUPID to help fight ISIL? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Have you forgotten about ISIL? Or are you saying it was FUCKING STUPID to help fight ISIL? 

No, it was FUCKING STUPID to enter Syria.  Groups like ISIL just fade away and reform with a new name in a new location.  Have you forgotten Al Qaeda?

Chasing groups around like that is pointless.  We are a greater threat to stability than they are unless you are fighting to install our form of government everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

No, it was FUCKING STUPID to enter Syria.  Groups like ISIL just fade away and reform with a new name in a new location.  Have you forgotten Al Qaeda?

Chasing groups around like that is pointless.  We are a greater threat to stability than they are unless you are fighting to install our form of government everywhere.

I think the Iraqis and the Kurds might beg to differ on that, but am pretty sure the Yazidies will. Along with any Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Zoroastrians in the area.

 I suppose that the Nazis would have melted away too at some point though.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I think the Iraqis and the Kurds might beg to differ on that, but am pretty sure the Yazidies will. Along with any Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Zoroastrians in the area.

 I suppose that the Nazis would have melted away too at some point though.

 

 

It’s not like they were taking territory, including territory that yielded The Precious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's a bit mind-boggling to picture anyone imagining an orchestrating this sudden US rug-yanking from under the Kurds.

It would have been funny if this thread had been titled "Sudden Withdrawal from Syria" ten months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
Quote

 

“I want to get out of the endless wars, too. The problem is, the other side, even if we wanted to surrender, will not take our surrender. They hate us because of who we are, the way we live our lives, the way we worship our God,” Kelly said Saturday at a political conference hosted by the Washington Examiner.

“What was working in Syria was that for very little investment, the Kurds were doing all the fighting, the vast majority of the dying, and we were providing intelligence and fire support assistance. And we were winning,” added the retired four-star Marine general.

 

I wonder what we were winning and what the catastrophe will look like?

I think we were incubating Al Queda D'ouche ISIL ISIS by supporting mass imprisonment of women and kids in concentration camps through our proxies, not defeating them. They might care less about how we live our lives than about how our proxies abused them, assuming they agree that putting women and kids in concentration camps is sometimes bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

I think the Iraqis and the Kurds might beg to differ on that, but am pretty sure the Yazidies will. Along with any Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Zoroastrians in the area.

 I suppose that the Nazis would have melted away too at some point though.

 

 

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

Wha?? Nationalist Socialist party. or in German.. Nationalsozialistische .NAZI 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

- DSK

A WILLLING nation.  Just like Trump's base, the majority of Germans SUPPORTED National Socialism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

- DSK

But, they controlled a country, it's government and it's resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

 

But, they controlled a country, it's government and it's resources.

Indeed they did. Very good, I see you've been studying!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Indeed they did. Very good, I see you've been studying!

- DSK

And at that point, the country becomes the instrument of the party.  Look to the communiis states.

You could still attack them on the basis of their boundaries.  The likes of Al Qaeda and ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever are not dependent on boundaries.  Our foreign policy should be directed to the states that harbor them.  Sending in US troops to get rid of Assad or Hussein did nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

 

But, they controlled a country, it's government and it's resources.

Indeed they did. Very good, I see you've been studying! 

3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

And at that point, the country becomes the instrument of the party.  Look to the communiis states.

You could still attack them on the basis of their boundaries.  ....     ...    ... 

 

Uh huh.

And what seperation, in strategy and tactics, in used to distinguish between a party and the country or territory or population they control?

By relatively smart people, I mean. This is an open-book question, do more studying until you have an answer you're comfy with.

6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

...   ...   ...

You could still attack them on the basis of their boundaries.  The likes of Al Qaeda and ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever are not dependent on boundaries.  Our foreign policy should be directed to the states that harbor them.  Sending in US troops to get rid of Assad or Hussein did nothing. 

Oh yeah? NOTHING??

How do you feel about President Trump's great accomplishment assassinating ISIS leader al-Bagdadi?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes to a basic assumption or orientation; do you look at power structures top down or bottom up? That's the fundamental division in the US reaching into religion, economics and sociology and colours the way someone looks at the world. In the case of National Socialism, they had at least the acquiescence, the tacit support, of the majority of the population just as segregation did here.  There were far more supporters of segregation in '48 than registered as Dixicrats, so to there were far more supporters of National Socialism (at least until they started losing) than joined the party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

The Nazis weren't zealots? They had no new zealots? Check out some of their best divisions, the Walloon, Nordland, Wiking,  and there were about a dozen others. To this day we have people sporting SS tats.  

 "Nazi" don't sound like any nation I've ever heard of. They speak English in Nazi? 

1qujw7.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

The Nazis weren't zealots? They had no new zealots? Check out some of their best divisions, the Walloon, Nordland, Wiking,  and there were about a dozen others. To this day we have people sporting SS tats.  

 "Nazi" don't sound like any nation I've ever heard of. They speak English in Nazi? 

1qujw7.jpg

they started as terrorists.  It worked and they got a country out of it with armies and air forces and stuff.  Then it didn't work and Argentina didn't support the terrorism.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Uh huh.

And what seperation, in strategy and tactics, in used to distinguish between a party and the country or territory or population they control?

By relatively smart people, I mean. This is an open-book question, do more studying until you have an answer you're comfy with.

Oh yeah? NOTHING??

How do you feel about President Trump's great accomplishment assassinating ISIS leader al-Bagdadi?

- DSK

I think it was inspirational. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

The Nazis weren't zealots? They had no new zealots? Check out some of their best divisions, the Walloon, Nordland, Wiking,  and there were about a dozen others. To this day we have people sporting SS tats.  

 "Nazi" don't sound like any nation I've ever heard of. They speak English in Nazi? 

 

I didn't say the Nazi's weren't zealots.  I said " no zealots to provide new recruits ".  By that I meant that there were no NEW zealots being created to be recruited to the cause.  Once the Nazi's were the state the result was compulsion.  Faith was no longer required when mere obedience was adequate.

This is not the case today.  The Muslim Brotherhood is active throughout MENA and is based on an interesting premise.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

They are creating new zealots to follow their cause daily.  Their history in Egypt is interesting.

Of course, they now claim to have given up violence but their legacy lives on in most if not all of the radical islamists bolstered by those of Islam who lack that faith but give their obedience.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I didn't say the Nazi's weren't zealots.  I said " no zealots to provide new recruits ".  By that I meant that there were no NEW zealots being created to be recruited to the cause.  Once the Nazi's were the state the result was compulsion.  Faith was no longer required when mere obedience was adequate.

This is not the case today.  The Muslim Brotherhood is active throughout MENA and is based on an interesting premise.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

They are creating new zealots to follow their cause daily.  Their history in Egypt is interesting.

Of course, they now claim to have given up violence but their legacy lives on in most if not all of the radical islamists bolstered by those of Islam who lack that faith but give their obedience.

 

Praise Jesus that we're not like them......

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

How do you feel about President Trump's great accomplishment assassinating ISIS leader al-Bagdadi?

I think if they could suddenly whip that rabbit out of their hat then they've probably been sitting on it for months. Happy to let Syrians continue dying until it was politically convenient to knock him off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point are we going to recognize that what we doing is not working to get rid of terrorism? Every door we kick, every bomb we drop puts more people on the road to radicalization. With the exceptions of the Native Americans and the Phillipines, where we were willing to be genocidal, we have failed at stopping these types of insurgency militarily (addressing them as a law enforcement problem has been more effective) because our very actions great the destabilizing social events that make individuals more easily flipped. Even the British had to negotiate with the IRA to stop the fighting, why are we so dense we can't identify failure when we've seen it for 50 years?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You do realize you are contradicting yourself here from one sentence to the next, right?

No. 

I don't consider foreign policy as limited to military attacks on governments.  Changing the head of a state does not change the people or the culture.  It usually just creates a new guy we need to prop up for decades or die trying.

Our enemy is not a particular state or it's leader.  You could eliminate the house of Saud and Wahhabism would still control the region.  We changed governments in Afghanistan but we did not eliminate the Taliban and now they're back. 

Right now, Saudi Arabia and Iran are in conflict.  One Sunni, one Shia.  It doesn't matter which one wins.  Both want the spread of Islam throughout the world.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You said:  

So what happens when diplomacy fails, sanctions fail, etc and the terrorists are still being harbored by a particular state?  Who do you direct the remaining bits of FP left at your disposal at?

Nobody has said that military action is NEVER appropriate but military action has NEVER eliminated a tactic (terrorism) or an idea (Communism/Fascism), the point is assuming these people are nothing more than the tactic they use. It would be like using amputation to address mental illness (a real theory/practice), causes lots of pain and doesn't help the issue. The issues that drive people to support terrorism in support of X are what need to be addressed if a cure is wanted. Otherwise it's just a profitable game of whack a mole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You said:  

So what happens when diplomacy fails, sanctions fail, etc and the terrorists are still being harbored by a particular state?  Who do you direct the remaining bits of FP left at your disposal at?

Qatar

https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/qatar/how-qatar-funds-muslim-brotherhood-expansion-in-europe-1.63386835

Beirut: Ninety per cent of Qatari funds to the EU were channeled to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated projects, two French authors have confirmed, supporting claims made since the summer of 2017 by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

...

“The Muslim Brotherhood philosophy is to encompass people’s lives from birth to death. All of the Qatar-financed projects tried to do just that, surrounding mosques with schools, swimming pools, restaurants, and even morgues.”

“When we spoke with people administering these centers, they would say: ‘We are not members of the Brotherhood. All of our funding is 100 per cent legal.”

“Yet, when we entered the libraries of these mosques and schools, we found the books of Shaikh Yousuf Al Qaradawi (the Doha-based Egyptian mentor of the Brotherhood). His books were everywhere, and so were those of Sayyid Qutob (one of the historic leaders of the Egyptian Brotherhood).”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

"Both want the spread of Islam throughout the world."

And how is the different, in intent and impact" from wanting to spread Christianity throughout the world?

 

Because the evangelicals who are spreading Christianity aren't using violent Jihad to force conversion, perhaps? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what do y'all mean "fight terrorism"?  The US CREATES terrorism, at times purposefully - like Alpha 66 or the MEK in Iran or the Contra 

And don't forget where ISIS came from - the sowing of dragons' teeth 

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/28/us-militarism-having-provoked-isil-being-kills-cult-leader-baghdadi

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because the evangelicals who are spreading Christianity aren't using violent Jihad to force conversion, perhaps? 

Not now but looking at the whole of the the history of Christianity it's difficult to conclude they DIDN'T use violence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
3 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Not now but looking at the whole of the the history of Christianity it's difficult to conclude they DIDN'T use violence. 

No argument - but now's what counts, isn't it? 

Now that they are restrained by secular governments? Yeah, exactly

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Oh sure they are.  Just ask any of the Jesus-haters here - Christianity is the bane of modern man.

Oh and to pick nits.... there is no real such thing as "conversion" to islam.  They feel that EVERYONE on the planet is born into Islam.  Those that don't actively embrace the faith are just misguided.  Those that finally wake up and join islam later on are just "reverting" back to their natural state.  Just saying.

 

The Japanese feel the same way about Shinto. But they don't actively seek converts, they're just smug about how it makes them superior to recognize the actual spiritual plane of existence instead of all the childish made-up shit of every other religion.

As for hating Christianity, that's ridiculous.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but now's what counts, isn't it? 

The past indicates possible futures, I don't think the mindsets go away because a calendar page has flipped. It's probable that the intolerance that fostered the violence is a part of what's pushing intolerance today. Islam carries with it the same fundamental intolerance that Christianity has, "There's only one God and he's mine!".  An example on the Christian side would be the Christian Identity groups killing doctors who perform abortions, religious killings to inspire conformity to The Truth. That said, without looking into it, I suspect Islam get far more converts from peaceful persuasion than violence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/10/27/trump-baghdadi-raid.html

Trump’s abrupt and unplanned decision to withdraw from Northern Syria almost wrecked months of planning and ruined the Baghdadi raid.

Armed with that initial tip, the C.I.A. worked closely with Iraqi and Kurdish intelligence officials in Iraq and Syria to identify Mr. al-Baghdadi’s more precise whereabouts and to put spies in place to monitor his periodic movements, allowing American commandos to stage an assault Saturday in which President Trump said Mr. al-Baghdadi died.

But Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria disrupted the meticulous planning and forced Pentagon officials to press ahead with a risky, night raid before their ability to control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared, according to military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials. Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death, they said, occurred largely in spite of Mr. Trump’s actions.

Trump racist chinese

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it only last week that Trump didn't want to strain the desert with US troops blood , to protect people lives ,

But it's OK to send troops in to protect the profits of Exxon Oil.

the man is such a scum bag ( to use his on words) guess he was looking in a mirror

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-wants-to-make-a-deal-with-exxon-or-others-to-tap-syrian-oil.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

The past indicates possible futures, I don't think the mindsets go away because a calendar page has flipped. It's probable that the intolerance that fostered the violence is a part of what's pushing intolerance today. Islam carries with it the same fundamental intolerance that Christianity has, "There's only one God and he's mine!".  An example on the Christian side would be the Christian Identity groups killing doctors who perform abortions, religious killings to inspire conformity to The Truth. That said, without looking into it, I suspect Islam get far more converts from peaceful persuasion than violence. 

So are you suggesting that "Islam is peace, and Christianity is evil"?   Or is this comment coming from a perspective that if a few nuts use religion to justify their actions, that all religion deserves condemnation?   

To the bolded part?  You don't think that attitudes have changed in Christianity since the Crusades?  Please clarify your intent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites