We have not abandoned the Kurds

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Mach2

Like I said before, if you can get the UN, or even the other NATO allies on board, I'll listen. If you can't, them let the cards fall where they may.

I agree NATO has a role to play here and their silence is deafening , Turkey's actions and threats to Europe show why they should never have been invited into NATO but their inclusion was based on political reasons.

“We wanted Turkey in NATO because of the Cold War,” Steven A. Cook, a Turkey expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me. Back in 1952, with the alliance just a few years old, it expanded for the first time, welcoming two new members: Greece and Turkey. At the time, President Harry Truman offered membership to both as a way to contain Communist expansion—Greece’s Western-backed government had just defeated Communist forces in a civil war. It helped that Turkey also gave the alliance a foothold close to the Middle East.
www.theatlantic.com...

Erdoğan is a despot who was likely behind the supposed Coup in Turkey in an effort to strengthen his hold on power , a reevaluation of their membership is needed.

That is exactly why Turkey was admitted. Their philosophy certainly didn't align with the other members of the era. Forward based, cold war nukes. They were basically "bought" by the western allies.

I suppose you could make a case for kicking them out, though I doubt, given the circumstances, that the EU members would concur.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That’s where I’m at with it. The Kurds have been done dirty, and for the next 20 years whenever we send troops somewhere (which will happen, even if it only happens when Trump leaves office) the locals are going to remember when we left the Kurds.

Is staying there preferable to that? I don’t think it is, no. But I can’t pretend this is going to be problem-free, either.

I think it would depend on the situation. We armed the Kurds to fight ISIS, who were their common enemy. Were we using them? Yes, but they were using us as well. Both parties were just a means to an end for the other. When we (rightfully) stepped away from the philosophy of forced regime change, with respect to Assad in Syria, the writing was on the wall for the Kurds, and nothing aside from a permanent, uninvited presence there was going to change that.

As long as Assad, with Russia's backing, and Turkey keep ISIS from setting up camp in the region, we have no legitimate reason to stay.

We can't get caught up in every human rights conflict in the world, particularly when one side is just as violent, and brutal as the other. That, irrespective of US military might, is a fools errand.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not to mention we never withdrew, we just moved. 50-100 per Trump while commenting on the decision (though I take the number with a grain of salt).

I was skeptical but open minded since foreign policy in relation to our military is one of my biggest voting issues. I said I would wait for things to unfold, but I had more questions than answers.

Now we are seeing talks of increasing deployment in other areas of the region.

I'm not going to jump the gun just yet, but it's starting to look like there were miscalculations, or we weren't told of the full plan and sold the notion we were beginning the end of our involvement in the region.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not to mention we never withdrew, we just moved. 50-100 per Trump while commenting on the decision (though I take the number with a grain of salt).

I was skeptical but open minded since foreign policy in relation to our military is one of my biggest voting issues. I said I would wait for things to unfold, but I had more questions than answers.

Now we are seeing talks of increasing deployment in other areas of the region.

I'm not going to jump the gun just yet, but it's starting to look like there were miscalculations, or we weren't told of the full plan and sold the notion we were beginning the end of our involvement in the region.

I assume you are referring to the recent activity relating to S.A.

While I share some concerns there, I really see that as a completely different situation.

In the first place, we are "welcome" there by an actual recognized governing body. Syria, not so much.

Aside from that, it is apparent to me that S.A., again a recognized sovereign nation, was attacked by IRAN, who poses a stretegic threat to the region. Not so much for the Syria situation.

For all the faults of the Saudis, including the religious turmoil, I do believe their governmemt is doing what it can to drag the country, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Turkey and Syria, not so much.

My last point would be that there seems to be a coalition forming, by both European, as well as regional countries, that are in agreement in denouncing Iran's actions. Again, not the case in Syria.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That’s where I’m at with it. The Kurds have been done dirty, and for the next 20 years whenever we send troops somewhere (which will happen, even if it only happens when Trump leaves office) the locals are going to remember when we left the Kurds.

Is staying there preferable to that? I don’t think it is, no. But I can’t pretend this is going to be problem-free, either.

Obviously NOT TRUE! Why? Because the Kurds didn't even remember their own history, did they? It wasn't but around 20 years or so ago that the Kurds were hung out to dry in Iraq by the USA. So either the Kurds are retarded and don't remember their own history or something is wrong with them somehow. Don't they have people that are over, say, 30 years old that are Kurds? That should remember something as horrific as that chemical attack was, that remember it? How it came about? Guess not?

Crap, American blacks are geniuses and I never knew it. Dang. They remember slavery and that was over and done with what? Over 100 years ago now. But the Kurds can not even remember something 20 years ago. How sad.

And besides, last time I looked around, people say that the USA is butting in to their business and don't want us in their countries messing things up. Or they call on us to repel someone they don't want running them over or that's the excuse to spill USA blood anyway. I am against any and all foreign wars that we do not have to get into. My opinion on this has NEVER changed. My opinion on the USA abandoning the Kurds in Iraq is that the USA was wrong. In Syria, my opinion is the USA was never suppose to be there in the first place. Kuwait asked us in way back in the day but Syria never did.

And Iraq was a huge screwup IMO. Afghanistan is too. Saudi Arabia and Israel did 9/11. Yet here we are, Saudi and Israel are our "allies". LMFAO Some allies. But I am digressing here.

I want the USA to remove themselves from the EU, Middle East, Africa and wherever they are that is NOT on USA soil. But I do understand why that will not happen. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

a reply to: Mach2

First off. Thank you. Thank you for voicing perfectly valid thoughts and concerns in a way that promotes healthy discussion... Unfortunately that's becoming rare these days.

To your points which I certainly see where you're coming from... I only have one disagreement.

Saudi Arabia doesn't need our help, and more importantly, they don't deserve it.

After 9/11, we protected alleged, but convincing pseudo involvement by SA. They also went out of their way to make sure they blocked any civil cases from victims and their families from seeking reperation but more importantly answers.

Iran is their problem, much of which stems from religious and ruling differences.

SA has sucked from our teet long enough.

Per Syria, I think if we're going to shift our policy, pull all the way out. The small movement of troops we saw appears to have actually put different positions in more danger by allowing Turkey to increase their operations in an already hottly contested proxy theater.

I'll end with some caveat. This is still a fluid situation, and my skeptisim has roots in some speculation at this time. So I'll concede things may not be as dire as many believe, but I think it's healthy to question it all in a pragmatic way without slinging mud or declaring good intentions as end all be all facts before the facts are known.

a reply to: sybdragon

Cool rant and all but it’s still unclear exactly which part of my opinion isn’t true.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Which is a problem created by the last administration who got involved in something halfway with no goals, no plans, no exit strategy.

Trump was left with several terrible options and went with the least terrible one.

originally posted by: Seed76

Turkey would have never attacked as long US-Forces were there only after Presidents Trump decision to give the green light for an all in assault by Turkey. The consequences are obvious to everyone.

So you claim Turkey would never attack where US forces are ....

Did i mentioned that even though Turkey has direct intel where US-Forces are, still bombed US-Forces and called it a mistake ?

Even though you know Turkey did exactly that.

a reply to: gortex

I agree with all of that. I just don't get how you know all that, know this entire operation is a cluster****, know that Trump was dealt a losing hand by the previous administration, but then blame Trump for playing the best hand he was given.

What should Trump have done? What should be the long term goal? When would 'success' be apparent and the troops ready to come home?

a reply to: Shamrock6

That the locals are going to remember anything like this. If the Kurds were expecting the USA to help them with their homeland. Crap, they thought if they rose up in Iraq, they were promised one by the USA. And instead the USA walked away and watched Iraq punish them. The rest of the world sat on their hands and bitched about how chemical weapons were illegal and still.... NO ONE did a dang thing about it. Just water under the bridge I guess.

Did the Kurds think in 20 years the USA had changed? Why did they not remember their own history? When someone screws me like I think the USA did the Kurds in Iraq, I don't have anything to do with them anymore. The Kurds don't seem to have my dislike/hatred of working with someone that screwed me royally.

And as some people remember other histories and how the USA helped them out, they won't think anything about this stuff. Now if you want to ask the Vietnamese.... Last time I looked, that was also a fast get outta town thingie and our allies there suffered also. Ancient history I know, almost 50 years old now but still.... No one remembered that did they? Nope.

I don't have much hope that people remember things past their own noses anymore. Seen too much.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I also respect good, intelligent discourse, although when things degenerate into chaos, I do occasionally stray to make a point.

I'm certainly not going to defend the Saudis with respect to 911. I'm not sure what, if any involvement the highest levels of their government had, but they did sweep a lot under the rug, and Bush/Obama let them. Was it simply to protect wealth, or did it go deeper? IDK, but I have suspicions.


I consider them an ally, in the sense that they give us free reign to have bases, troops, and air power in country, and cam be pressured to see things our way to a point. They also, for the most part, pay their own way, as it relates to buying US military hardware. How many countries can say that?

I don't consider them "trusted" allies. I reserve that designation for the Brits, Aussies, and Camadians, although with the recemt shenanigans of British intelligence, I wonder about that. I also trust the Isrealis when it comes to SHTF, but not necessarily to be truthful.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I only know what's available to know but I suspect politics is behind Trumps decision given Russia and Turkey have been buddying up recently.

What should Trump have done?

He should have either stood his ground or got written assurances that the offensive wouldn't happen , as it is he's melted away for no apparent reason.

a reply to: gortex

All of that is babble.

What is the goal of US forces being there? What country are they in? Who gave them permission? What does mission success look like?

The only thing I can infer from your comments is that the US should just keep US forces in Syria to help the Kurds forever until everyone agrees to leave them alone. So I want to give you a chance to actually explain what you mean.

Erdogan has always been a hot mess, imo. But aside from removing Turkey from NATO, I really don't see what the options are here.

I think we have some bad allies, that includes Turkey and S.A.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So I want to give you a chance to actually explain what you mean.

That's jolly decent of you but why would I bother when you've already called my last post "babble".
I'll save myself the bother thanks.

a reply to: gortex

You did not answer anything, and said you have an opinion it's about politics. That's babble. I know I asked you some tough questions. I am not surprised you chose not to answer.

The situation sucks, you are blaming the wrong person.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I only know what's available to know but I suspect politics is behind Trumps decision given Russia and Turkey have been buddying up recently.

What should Trump have done?

He should have either stood his ground or got written assurances that the offensive wouldn't happen , as it is he's melted away for no apparent reason.

No he should not have. Turkey was going in with or without the USA's permission. It was a matter of fighting Turkey, which would break up NATO as Turkey and the USA are both members and signed on to have each other backs. Ya know, on paper with written assurances. Or they can walk away and keep our word/promise to Turkey. The USA never promised the Kurds nothing and nothing is in writing. So the Kurds are the weak link here and the one that will break. Just the way it is.

Turkey would have never given written assurances that the offensive would not happen because after months, crap, even as far back as 2014, Turkey has been talking about taking this area. Turkey has been patient. Their patience is gone. And the USA stood by their word. They stepped down from this stage and are supporting Turkey somewhat. At least they are not standing in the way. But then, no one else is either. Not even Syria, who's land it is to protect.

Syria has called these Kurds traitors to Syria. They don't want Turkey in their land but given a choice of a small bit vs a huge chunk, Syria is willing to compromise. That is evident in the way Syria is also standing down. The USA was the ONLY holdout in this mess and finally, the USA stood down. It was going to happen anyway. Just a matter of time. The Kurds were going to fight Turkey no matter what.

I don't know about you but when I know that two enemies are fighting, even if I'm friends with both, I really try to avoid their conflict. You know how it is. You get divorced and the friends take sides in the divorce and stuff.... I try to avoid those type of messes. All it does if you try to stay friends with both is make both of them angry at you. Better to just pick one. The USA picked the one we had "written" assurances with. Turkey.

It was the only LEGAL thing we could do. If we did not, we would have broken the NATO treaty or whatever it is, all to pieces. Now I don't like NATO, but it's better than nothing. And for good or evil, Turkey, for whatever reason, was allowed to enter NATO. Take it up with NATO. Don't blame the USA for following legal international laws and such. After all the bitching about how the USA always does illegal stuff, y'all ought to be happy about this. Rule of law and all....

Wait..... Are you one of those people that think we shouldn't follow the laws like the leftists here in the USA? I really hate those people and their selective use of the law. I don't mind someone breaking the law but at least be honest about it and remember that if you do and get caught, you will suffer consequences. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not. The law doesn't care about such stuff no matter what the bleeding hearts want you to think. All their bleeding heart laws tend to make things much worse than they were. I'm telling ya now if I see a male in the female bathroom, I'm running them out of it and I don't care about what the stupid law states. I will take the consequences of that when it happens but I am going to get them out of the girl's bathroom. That's not happening if I'm in there. LOL

So are you ready to go to war with Turkey? If not... What do you want because that is what you are advocating for at this moment. I'd rather some Kurds die defending what they think is their's than Americans defending what does NOT belong to us.

a reply to: sybdragon

So your argument is that people won’t remember the US pulling out of some places but will remember that the US helped other places?

That makes sense.

I’m not talking about just the Kurds. US commitment to allies was questioned by locals in Afghanistan and Iraq both. If you're going to talk about people remembering the US helping in some situations, you’re going to have to accept that people will remember when the US didn’t help. Regardless of where we send troops, people aren’t ignorant. Our money buys loyalty though, and that helps memories.

originally posted by: 727Sky
The main thing is during the Pentagon briefing, they tried to make it quite clear, we have not abandoned the KURDS... YEAH ! Which made me feel better even if they are only words at this stage..

I'm sure that makes the dead women and children feel SO MUCH better.

Look! They are getting back up! Everything is fine now! The US says they haven't abandoned the Kurds.

Give me a freaking break.

GRAPHIC CONTENT OF DEAD KURDS

GRAPHIC CONTENT OF DEAD KURDS