Syrian Kurds Situation

a reply to: Fallingdown

Honestly, if the Kurds earned home territory anywhere, it's in the parts of ISIS conquered Iraq that they helped to retake. The Iraqis didn't do much to retake it and they wanted us out which is when ISIS was able to step in and Iraq let the whole region down at that point.

We should be talking turkey with Iraq on that, but of course, that's hard to do when we left Iraq.

a reply to: ketsuko

I would be happy to see the 4 parts of Greater Kurdistan form a Kurd nation.

The question is what business is it of theUS, and why should we go to war again in the ME to make that happen, and who is willing to sacrifice their son or daughter for it?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You said if we are not there legally why didn't they kick us out. Meaning we are there legally and they were ok with us being there.

after you said we were there illegally,

this is the legality of us being there. bold mine

The coalition of 3 December 2014 (sixty countries) that styled itself as the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)[180] agreed on a many-sided strategy against ISIL, including cutting off ISIL's financing and funding and exposing ISIL's true nature.[180] As of March 2015, the U.S.-led coalition comprised over sixty countries, that contributed in various ways to the effort.[176]

about a 1/3 of the counties of the worls said so.

They didn't kick us out because their military can't compare with the US. Either we recognize Assad as the ruler, and we are there illegally since they demand we get out, or we do not and we overthrow him with our military in yet another ME war.

that is true, and even with the second best armed forces on their side, no attempts made to stop The U.S. after we bombed that countries base in syria. plus it is known as i stated Assad can't do anything without chemical weapons.

What we can't do is recognize him, and then tell him he has no say in his country and we will do whatever want.

wrong when a global threat is present in a country killing people indiscriminately and that counntry can't or won't do anything top stop it it is up to other countries to step in.

Again, your refusal to answer the OP questions is telling.

what is it telling that i won't play one of your little games. that is true.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ketsuko

I would be happy to see the 4 parts of Greater Kurdistan form a Kurd nation.

The question is what business is it of theUS, and why should we go to war again in the ME to make that happen, and who is willing to sacrifice their son or daughter for it?

My point there was that at one time, we controlled a good deal of how the future of Iraq was going to be shaped, and that was when the best shot was to form an independent Kurdistan. But as soon as Obama pulled us entirely out of Iraq, we lost that influence.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The country belongs to Syria, if they do not agree with us being there we are there illegally. I do not know why you are having trouble understanding that.

There is no game, I was completely non partisan in my OP. Tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night but you can't find a single question in my OP that is partisan or gamey, feel free to try.

You can't keep a consistent story and think the Syrian Kurds have something to do with the Iraq region.

When you are willing to actually address the OP instead of running around and changing your story every other post let me know.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ketsuko

I would be happy to see the 4 parts of Greater Kurdistan form a Kurd nation.

The question is what business is it of theUS, and why should we go to war again in the ME to make that happen, and who is willing to sacrifice their son or daughter for it?

My point there was that at one time, we controlled a good deal of how the future of Iraq was going to be shaped, and that was when the best shot was to form an independent Kurdistan. But as soon as Obama pulled us entirely out of Iraq, we lost that influence.

I completely agree the Kurds have been screwed in the past. I kept it out of my OP but I also agree Obama has 99% of the blame of where we are today with this mess.

The question is now, where do we go from here? So far the only answer is 'protect the Kurds' without any interest in explaining what that looks like, what it will require, and what the end goal is, and what that will require, and why it should be done.

You just sourced the Kurd's of Iraq in a discussion about Syria. Then you have the nerve to claim I have no clue.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

you don't,

again you should do a little research before you bump your fingers on a keyboard, , after all the site motto is deny ignorance. again a wiki cuase it's fast. bold mine.

Contemporary use of the term refers to the following areas: southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Syria (Rojava or Western Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and northwestern Iran (Eastern Kurdistan).[6][7] Some Kurdish nationalist organizations seek to create an independent nation state consisting of some or all of these areas with a Kurdish majority, while others campaign for greater autonomy within the existing national boundaries.[8][9]

Kurdisstan,

did you notice the bold, where it said greater autonomy, you know that's kinda like a state ain't it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's the real rub.

Most people won't admit that the only way to really landscape the region the way the Kurds want at this point would be to really go to war in much the same way we went to war in WWII. Because of how we went to war then, we had the leisure to more or less remake Japan in a way we desired afterward because we utterly conquered them.

But that kind of war is ugly business. There is no blather about "winning hearts and minds". You have to tear the place down so thoroughly that you are reshaping even the culture afterward, and you are talking about occupying the place for a generation or more until the transformation is complete.

That kind of process would allow the Kurds a homeland if we desired to create it much the same way the Israelis were given one after WWII and they wound up with it for much the same reasons I outlined above.

Right now, I think the best they can hope for is to either win their own land or to make a deal with a current country leadership like Assad in Syria or whatever passes for a leadership in what's left of Iraq.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

see my last reply.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

So which group of Kurds is which? It seems Turkey has a bad-on for the PKK. I noticed on FOX they listed at least 4 different Kurdish groups and the PKK was but one of those.

This is the problem with the Middle East. There are so many factions within just one of what we think of as a faction that even they don't agree and it makes dealing with the whole very messy.

Protect the Kurds ... OK, which ones? Should we protect the ones who are willing to be violent (terrorists) for their own state? Or should we be backing the ones who simply want greater regional autonomy so as not to be oppressed by the country they live in? How do you separate which is which and what are the interlocking loyalties of those factions?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

All you do is run off topic and change your story every othe rpost.

First they have embassies and are recognized .. now you post it doesn't exist but some Kurds want it to/

Some Kurdish nationalist organizations seek to create an independent nation

It's impossible to have a discussion with you because every other post you are changing your story to something different. Go back to the OP and answer those questions, once you do, we can have a discussion because then your position is laid bare. It's hilarious you refuse to simply state what your position is. I guess once you do you can't keep changing your story.

Until you do so, there is no need to reply to you, although if you go back, read the OP, stay on topic and simply state the answers we can talk about it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Tough questions no one seems to want to answer.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I feel for the Kurds too. They're in a similar situation to people whose pension funds are failing them. The politicians made promises they couldn't keep, and now they're being bitten by it. The politicians are the ones who should suffer for it, but somehow, they never have to suffer for the consequences of their failed promises. It's always other people who end up suffering, even dying in the case of the Kurds.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What did Obama promise the Kurds that Trump is going back on?

That was the question I answered. Obama didn’t promise them nothing he kicked them to the curb .

I keep hearing that we are abandoning the Kurds.

Answer ; “ Trump backed away I don’t think to the extent Obama did . But that remains to be seen “

One thing to take into consideration is that the 20 mile buffer zone is not a new idea .

Why do you think America should or should not do what is required?

Here’s my opinion for what it’s worth .

Success of the cease-fire is going to come down to negotiations on ras- al-Ayn. It 75 miles from the border the Kurds want it and the last time I checked the Turks have it . So the only settlement in the near future is if Turkish forces withdraw to the 20 miles safety zone . They’re not gonna give up all of their gains . But the possibility of a compromise is there.

So to get to the point of your question. The US needs to do exactly what it’s doing now. Turkeys economy is just beginning to come out of the recession. Re-imposing sanctions could hurt.

So we need to hold the club of sanctions over Erdogan’s head while letting him to save his strong man face in front of his people .

For the kurds we need to let them know we aren’t going to fight for them. But don’t desert them .



Sorry I just couldn’t stop at the same thing we’re doing now . 😇

a reply to: Fallingdown

I agree, I don't like what Turkey is doing. I don't like Erdogan, I don't like their increasingly religious zeal, I don't like their abandonment of their traditionally secular government, I do like sanctions. The problem Turkey has is they don't align with anyone but Turkey. They have problems with Russian allies, they have problem with NATO, they have a problem with everyone.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think there’s one thing we could do to put the brakes on all of this turmoil . Everybody gets what they hold now. The spoils of war . Then the US enters into a mutual defense treaty with the Kurdish region. But first the Peshmerga would have to eliminate terrorist groups like the PKK .

a reply to: Fallingdown

That's assuming they consider them terrorist groups and not freedom fighters though.

The Middle East is just a mess.

a reply to: Fallingdown

That would be setting the stage for a really bad conflict. What about when Syria and Russia retake their land. Are we going to war with Russia for the Kurds?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you want to understand what is going on use Strategy. Troop movements are common is long term wars. Withdrawals and re-grouping is common. Trump gave the Kurds everything they have now. It is up to them to keep it.

a reply to: highvein

So I do not want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are saying it would require too much commitment and sacrifice on the US behalf, and you feel it is better we leave.