Trump foreign policy

[keepthefaith]

11 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

1) It wasn't made quickly.

2) Which Kurds?  The KPP, PKSK, DPAK, RIK, HK, PZK, HEP, HADEP, HEPKAR, PYD, YPS, TKP/ML, or any of the other 70+ Kurdish organizations in the region?

 

If we armed and trained a group of them it would sure seem like the right thing to do would have been to cut a deal with Turkey or at least forewarn our newly armed and trained Kurdish "firends" so they could move or prepare.  Maybe that happened.  Seems though like we did neither and of course even without Turkey, Syria would likely attack these people anyway.  This to me by Trump has a very bad look and of course he will do a terrible job of explaining the details when prompted.  Personally I agree with us getting out and  war is messy. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by keepthefaith

[ALF]

How to keep 12,000 ISIS in custody in Kurdish control  and  deal with  3.6M Syrian refugees in Turkey. It is a big cost for Turkey and Europe is giving them big aid. Invading Syria will just make it worse. 

[Warcodered]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

44 also put us into an alliance w AQ in Syria. Do we now owe AQ our undying loyalty too? Honest question.

Eh, I should probably take more time looking into this before responding but I will say this when you become our enemy that's for life. You hear that England, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Italy, and Germany you're still on my ***** list.

[Bob in Mich]

14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Eh, I should probably take more time looking into this before responding but I will say this when you become our enemy that's for life. You hear that England, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Italy, and Germany you're still on my ***** list.

 

Yeah, what he said!  And, don't forget about that huge fight on the beach that we had with the Normans!  Bastards!   Never forget!

[GG]

50 troops in "Kurdistan" are too much, but 2,000 more in KSA are just right?

[Deranged Rhino]

47 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So no one then.

 

Now you're learning (and I mean that sincerely). You have to discern for yourself -- now more than ever. There IS good information out there, but you have to dig and compare. Think about the track record of all the talking heads (regardless of their partisanship or place of employment) who promised us: 

 

* Iraq had WMD (nope)

* We'd be "greeted as liberators" (oops)

* Pulling out of Iraq (under 44) wouldn't leave a vacuum (our bad) 

* Russia / Trump worked together to steal the election (just kidding!)

 

Almost universally, every single one of the pundits screaming into a camera or writing op-eds about "abandoning the Kurds!" have been wrong on these kinds of perma-war/foreign policy decisions. Almost every time. Why is that? Are they dumb? Nope. Are they on the payroll of people whose gravy train depends on using US Mil forces as leverage around the world? Yup. 

 

Think about how dangerous it is to leave 50-100 men positioned there as a buffer (against a NATO ally -- wrap your head around that) in the most unstable region on the planet. While that may keep the Turks from attacking the Kurds, it also creates leverage for many different factions, proxies, and nation states to use whenever they wish. Those 50 troops are literally hostages for the MiC (in the broadest sense) to dispose of when suitable to their agenda. What happens if a few of those soldiers are killed by Iran (or a proxy), by the Russians (or a proxy), by the Syrians (or a proxy), or any of the numerous unaffiliated terror groups active in the region? That kind of blowback could be used (and would be used) to justify yet another decade of war and occupation in a region where we have historically made things worse, not better, despite our best intentions. 

 

That's really what is being argued for by the beltway bandits and the MiC cut outs with microphones. They want hostages, US troops which they can position in regions of danger and use as a "change the narrative free" card whenever it so suits their needs or their wallets. 

 

The reality is that the Kurds have been partners in the region of late. They are tough fighters who sacrificed a ton -- fighting for their homeland. Not ours. Not our allies. Their own. And that's their right, and we have been supporting them (still are) to assure that they are better positioned today to defend their land from Turkey (or Iraq/Iran/Syria/other) ... but what can/should we truly do to preserve it when doing so means either 1) fighting a war against a NATO ally in Turkey, or 2) keeping 50-100 hostages in the region as a buffer? 

 

It's lose lose.  

39 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Eh, I should probably take more time looking into this before responding but I will say this when you become our enemy that's for life. You hear that England, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Italy, and Germany you're still on my ***** list.

 

It's a fact. It's what the last four years of 44's foreign policy in Syria were all about -- working with AQ (without publicizing it), arming them, training them, funding them, to fight Assad. "The enemy of my enemy is a friend". 

 

And going by your logic, the Kurds were an enemy before they became an ally in the 90s. 

 

Alliances change, they're fluid. But again, it's misleading to state we have abandoned the Kurds. We haven't. We've been preparing them to stand on their own -- and now they have to fight for what's theirs if they wish to keep it (and they're getting help in numerous ways out of the spotlight).

 

After our last two decades of futility in that region, we should get out of the map drawing business, don't you agree? 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Our Elite: Trump is destroying NATO!

 

Also Our Elite: Trump should fight a NATO member!

 

 

I mean... I really do wonder... is this trolling?

 

Honestly, do you truly believe this was a simple "Either/Or" choice or are you at least subconsciously aware of how stupid this is?

 

Rhetorical question obviously since I won't get an honest answer.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I mean... I really do wonder... is this trolling?

 

Honestly, do you truly believe this was a simple "Either/Or" choice or are you at least subconsciously aware of how stupid this is?

 

Rhetorical question obviously since I won't get an honest answer.

 

It's not trolling. It's exposing the shallowness of your analysis (and those screaming about it) and they hypocrisy of the past three years. We have been told since Trump started running that talking bad about NATO was "dangerously destabilizing". Yet, pushing a fellow NATO member around and dictating to them how they should handle their own borders and geopolitical realities -- even if that pushing means risking war between NATO factions -- is what we MUST do because "THE KURDS!"

 

These people think you're dumb enough to fall for that line of thinking. Stop proving them correct. This is a sectarian conflict that predates the formation of our country, let alone our involvement in the region. We are actively helping the Kurds -- as we speak -- we're just no longer providing hostages. The past three years while the media has been filling your head with fantasies about Trump/Russia (and ignoring their jobs of informing the public about the realities of the world, especially in the ME) has been spent building up a partnership with the US, GCC, Israel which will allow them to be their own security forces with our support from afar/covertly (funding, logistics, intelligence, spec ops). 

 

The Turks have no ability to wage a sustained war because of the thumping they took just last year in an incursion into Turkey which you likely never heard boo about.

[transplantbillsfan]

58 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Horseshit.

 

You're advocating for an interventionist military as foreign policy doctrine.  That’s the reality.

 

Real American lives being placed in harms way, at the cost of American treasure, to settle regional disputes and impose American diplomatic norms on counties in another hemisphere.

 

That’s empire.

 

That’s vassalism. 

 

Cry foul about the pregnancy analogy all you want, but I’m disallowing your mental gymnastics.  You want to engage in a special pleading fallacy to justify anti-Trump interventionism as moral, because “reasons”.

 

It’s a ridiculous and logically inconsistent position to take.

 

Just admit you're a neo-Cheneyite, perpetual war, boots on the ground imperialist.  You’re pregnant.  

 

They were ALREADY THERE!!!

 

You're 2nd bolded statement just proving to me what I've believed all along about this sub forum. You care more about winning rhetorical arguments than you do about seeing or even thinking about the other side of the argument.

 

Proves you are exactly what you've accused me of being:

 

Intellectually dishonest 

 

Pulling our troops out of Syria at some point in the near future was fine.

 

But not like this.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Point being, you're very underinformed on this topic -- by design. That's how they want you.

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

They were ALREADY THERE!!!

 

They were already there ... as hostages. You are advocating leaving US forces in the region to act as a police force. That's not their mission or what they're trained for. We're bad at that kind of operation as the past two decades have proven. Why invite more?  

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

If we armed and trained a group of them it would sure seem like the right thing to do would have been to cut a deal with Turkey or at least forewarn our newly armed and trained Kurdish "firends" so they could move or prepare.  Maybe that happened.  Seems though like we did neither and of course even without Turkey, Syria would likely attack these people anyway.  This to me by Trump has a very bad look and of course he will do a terrible job of explaining the details when prompted.  Personally I agree with us getting out and  war is messy. 

 

Since at least March they've been preparing the Kurds for this reality.

 

Per the bolded, very true -- and the media will make sure its incoherent even if it isn't. Because "orange man bad".  

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

I love how all these Democrats are full of fighting vigor.

 

If this was HUSSEIN getting our troops out of Syria, they'd all be fellating cunning linguisting him for it.

 

 

FIFY

[Deranged Rhino]

18 minutes ago, GG said:

50 troops in "Kurdistan" are too much, but 2,000 more in KSA are just right?

 

GCC/US alliance is strong -- being in country in KSA is much more stable than being in country in Syria. 

[B-Man]

8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I mean... I really do wonder... is this trolling?

 

Honestly, do you truly believe this was a simple "Either/Or" choice or are you at least subconsciously aware of how stupid this is?

 

Rhetorical question obviously since I won't get an honest answer.

 

 

You are correct that I usually do not reply to questions from other posters, it's a fool's errand, and not why I come to the board.

 

NO subject is strictly black/white.

 

I usually post in the simplest terms so you folks can understand them

 

The point that many on the left did exactly what I posted........

 

Criticize the President for "destroying NATO", and then just as quickly demanding we stop Turkey by leaving our 50 men there

 

 

The fact that you see this as "stupid" certainly exposes you to criticism (subconscious or conscious)

 

 

 

 

 

.

[GG]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

GCC/US alliance is strong -- being in country in KSA is much more stable than being in country in Syria. 

 

Probably a rational explanation for the move, but flies in the face of the excuses that the Syrian withdrawal is part of an overall drawdown of ME presence.

 

The administration could be better served if it wasn't run by the second incarnation of the blind epileptic squirrel.

[3rdnlng]

21 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I mean... I really do wonder... is this trolling?

 

Honestly, do you truly believe this was a simple "Either/Or" choice or are you at least subconsciously aware of how stupid this is?

 

Rhetorical question obviously since I won't get an honest answer.

TYTT accused you of being pregnant. I'm not so sure you are what with the extreme PMS you show here.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

1)Well as long as the ones attacking our Allies had a heads up I guess we're good.

 

2) ...yes. I mean I don't know if you know this but members of ISIS are in that region too so I guess it's okay if they just bomb the crap out of it I mean It's not like they can accidentally hit us anymore. Sure a bunch of civilians are being displaced and some have already died but hey they ain't us right.

 

So you're explicitly supporting terrorism.

[Warcodered]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

So you're explicitly supporting terrorism.

Clearly but now I've had a change of heart we should aggressively fight them wherever they are no matter what the cost. Hey you know I've heard rumors of people from our own country have been turned to their side. Even more recently heard about a guy explicitly supporting them here. So when do we start bombing ourselves?

[ALF]

I would think the Kurds knew that Trump wanted to pull out that caused Mattis to resign.  Where could they go in Syria that was devastated by war.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

I would think the Kurds knew that Trump wanted to pull out that caused Mattis to resign.  Where could they go in Syria that was devastated by war.

Everywhere.

[DC Tom]

Just now, Warcodered said:

Clearly but now I've had a change of heart we should aggressively fight them wherever they are no matter what the cost. Hey you know I've heard rumors of people from our own country have been turned to their side. Even more recently heard about a guy explicitly supporting them here. So when do we start bombing ourselves?

 

You haven't actually paid ang attention to a word I've written, have you?

 

You are literally too simple-minded to understand even a middling complex topic like this, even after I spelled it out for you.  That's...not even funny, just sad.