On October 18 2019 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Also like.. I don't want to be insulting. But please walk me through your logic.
Bush invades Iraq. I'm not sure if you know this, but Obama was not involved in this decision. (He wasn't even a senator at that point. ) But then Obama created ISIS? How did he create it? (My best bet is that he did it through withdrawing american troops from the region?) Now Trump, granted, inherits the middle east mess. And then you're saying that he fixed it by destroying ISIS (among other things by fighting alongside Kurds) and then withdrawing american troops from the region?
From my pov, nothing about the current situation is better than what we had 2 weeks ago, it's just that the Kurds have suffered great losses due to Americans betraying them.
Well on the larger scale people have been killing each other since the dawn of men on that area, and you can't really put it on any US President. I tought this was the argument against having US troops on the area that so many leftists believed in? Bush did invade Irak so def didn't help, but it wasn't "just him", he had international and US internal support from most republicans AND democrats after 9/11.
Nice argument. You think since there has been killing since the dawn of time that absolve's individual people from crimes? I guess you can't really put the holocaust on hitler or any gulag crimes on stalin, since it's been going on since cavemen were around. That's the logic of your argument.
Bush did not have 'international support'. Most of the world was completely opposed to it. He did not even the support of elites from most countries, as you can see from the coalition of the willing, most governments did not support it. And his invasion turned america into the most hated country in the world. Since i care about what populations think and not just elite interests (that's what we are supposed to do in a democracy), when people use words like 'international support', we should decode this terminology from it's orwellian meaning, which is 'support from elites in allied nations'.
The reason so many leftists don't want troops in the area is out of moral consideration, and this is backed up by international law, like the UN charter. I mean there are the fringe leftists 'tankies' who loco mentioned that are isolationist out of ideology, but most leftists simply don't want an aggressive war crimes being committed in other countries, without any good justification.
Name it how you want it. What I was saying was:
Bush invasion of Irak, bad thing -> Republican and Democrat support
Obama withdraw from Irak, creates Isis, bad thing too -> Democrat support, Republican opposition.
So are we in agreement Trump pulling troops out of Syria against, Republicans, Democrats, and other various elite's will is good?
On October 18 2019 14:34 Spitfiree wrote:
I wonder, are you really from Chile? Not implying anything just curious
US soldiers have been killed by people that were already at war with the US, Turkey is a part of NATO and an attack on their soldiers would mean they are thrown out of NATO, revert any talks the EU had with them and a full-blown war with the US, there is no other group there, they d have to essentially blame the Kurds, plus the US will be quite aware of who does what there
The war will probably be over, I'm assuming Assad and Erdogan " shook hands " and take control back
Yes I'm from Chile.
I clearly said the Turks wouldn't bomb americans waving their flag. What I said, is that they are at risk there, where multiple factions are fighting a military and political conflict. Anyone from any group shooting americans (even as a fringe operation) and trying to put it on someone else is not out of the question.
Who cares if the US would know who did it? Who would believe it? If a fringe kurdish group atacked the place, the US confirmed it was kurds troops, would loco believe it? Or would he say it's a US made up excuse worked with Erdogan to allow the genocide of the kurds. US troops there are a risk and a liability.
Yes, people would believe hard evidence. The reason why people don't trust the US nowadays is cause they start their wars based on claims with no proof and then ... surprise, surprise -> they were lying *cough * weapons of mass destruction *cough *
It's easy to diminish the depth of the question when you ask it like that. Obviously, in the best case scenario the US shouldn't be peacekeeping anywhere, considering what they've done there and the deals that were struck they handled the whole situation poorly
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Oct 19 2019 16:58. Posts 2226
we have a saying
the US is a pissmaker
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
I have no way to validate any of this sources.
Trump did not start any war.
Yes, you do have a way. It starts with willingness and ends with research. International media have all been covering it, along with at least two other war crimes that were committed by the Turkish army and their jihadist proxies. There is a simpler answer which is that you don't care. Just like this guy that you are so fond of:
Let me get your point straight please: US troops have to stay in Syria peacekeeping? Yes or no?
I have already answered your question. It's not my fault that you don't read my posts or have a very selective memory. I made my point clear earlier when this was announced. I made the same point clear many months ago, too. The Kurds/the SDF were made to rely on the US troops there for their safety. There has been a de facto embargo on them, preventing them from receiving the type of weaponry that they would need to defend against Turkish aggression (anti-tank and anti-air weapons). I believe they would have been fine on their own if they had this and an international no-fly zone had been established. Not just for the sake of the Kurds, but for the sake of the entire fucking world; no one is benefited from ISIS escaping and regaining power (which they are) outside of ISIS, Turkey and Assad/Putin.
Short of that, yes, US troops should have remained there, because that's the only rational and moral thing to do. Especially after you just told your allies to remove all of their heavy weaponry and fortifications from the border with the explicit agreement that you're going to keep the peace.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On October 19 2019 12:41 GoTuNk wrote:
Loco, US Troops have to stay in Syria doing peacekeeping? Yes or no? Please stop ignoring my question.
I wasn't ignoring shit. I posted the Twitter map before going to bed because it was crucially important; I didn't look at previous replies, because looking at that and replying could wait until tomorrow.
Why don't we talk about what you have been ignoring? We could begin with a simple one: the fact that Trump's campaign promise that you keep defending was to bring the troops home. Did he do actually that? Or did he relocate them to Southeast Syria and send thousands to Saudi Arabia instead? How does that fit in with your whole isolationist narrative here?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
"18th of October, 13:51 local time. Last night, we heard of the breaking news about the vice president of the US meeting with Turkey and deciding that over northeastern Syria there would be a so-called “ceasefire,” a winning agreement that’s a “great day for civilization,” in Trump’s own words.
To me, it reminds me more of what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1938: the Munich Agreement, when Adolph Hitler from Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini from Fascist Italy, Neville Chamberlain from Great Britain, and Eduoard Daladier from France met over the table in Munich in 1938 and agreed to give Germany the Sudetenland, a 30- to 50-kilometer zone around the border of what used to be Czechoslovakia. According to the agreement, some small parts of territory went to Poland; Slovakia was cut off and became its own fascist republic run by Jozef Tiso; and the rest of what was left of Czechoslovakia, Bohemian Moravia, would be occupied by Germany as something like a protectorate, but not formally annexed as a part of Germany.
What I see happening here is you have Erdogan as Hitler, you’ve got Trump as, say, Chamberlain—or perhaps more like Mussolini, actually, the high capitalist/clear fascist asshole running his country. The Bashar al-Assad regime is kind of like a stronger Slovakia, leading the fascist section of what will form another part of the “secured” Syria; and the Sudetenland is like what Turkey is claiming for their “safe zone.” But instead of calling it the Munich Pact, they call it a ceasefire. It means that the local people, unless they are jihadist Arabs or Turks, will be moved out or “cleansed.” Or, if not, they will live under extremely terrible conditions and many of them will be killed. There will be atrocities, as happened in Afrin and in many places before.
That is what’s going to happen, what this glorious ceasefire supposedly “saving civilization” is about. It legitimizes the Turkish invasion from NATO. Basically, the proposal we rejected a week ago, and what we are fighting for and people are dying on a massive scale to defend, is now being given to Turkey by the US. That means that we can either accept this and lose, or we can keep fighting, but now the fight will now be even harder. It was already nearly impossible in my eyes; but it was a fight for dignity, for the resistance, for the future generations, if not for winning. You know, as they are always saying, “This is for the spirit of struggle, not for the spirit of victory.” And this might be an exact example of this sentence in practice on a big scale.
So we, the people and the fighters here, can either give it to them or we can fight—but this time, not only against Turkey and the jihadists, but also against the whole world, because they’ve made this agreement. The problem—and this is why I’m referring to Munich in 1938—is that in that agreement, no one asked Czechoslovakia what they thought about it; no one brought them to the table. Not that I agree with representation in the first place, but even for the majority of people who recognize democracy as the legitimate representative order or system—even the democratic representatives of Czechoslovakia weren’t brought to the table in Munich, just as they weren’t brought to Ankara yesterday. No one from the Kurds or the Syrians, Armenians, Assyrians, or other people living here was consulted at all.
[Interruption.] They brought another dead body from the front. [Shouts in the background.] This one has clearly been hit by an airstrike… OK, it was a comrade. This was not the first one today, nor the second.
So, coming back to an analysis of the situation: I see a very direct connection to these events in history, with the people who are the most affected and actually living in these areas having no voice and not even having any means of resistance in their hands. None of the means we had until now were great in the first place. To consider this so-called ceasefire as any kind of progress is really exaggerated and hypocritical."
....
The text of the agreement between Turkey and the US regarding the supposed "ceasefire". Disgusting.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On October 19 2019 12:41 GoTuNk wrote:
Loco, US Troops have to stay in Syria doing peacekeeping? Yes or no? Please stop ignoring my question.
I wasn't ignoring shit. I posted the Twitter map before going to bed because it was crucially important; I didn't look at previous replies, because looking at that and replying could wait until tomorrow.
Why don't we talk about what you have been ignoring? We could begin with a simple one: the fact that Trump's campaign promise that you keep defending was to bring the troops home. Did he do actually that? Or did he relocate them to Southeast Syria and send thousands to Saudi Arabia instead? How does that fit in with your whole isolationist narrative here?
lol "I wasn't ignoring shit" and then proceeds to not answer the question. I'll write it again. "SHOULD THE US DO PEACE KEEPING IN SYRIA?"
I think wathever Trump does moving troops is not that important, he did not start the war, has not started any new wars, and is doing his best to bring troops back home. I do not have the information to make any judgement calls.
I said before I disagreed with the President on this decision, the US should do peace keeping when it seems best, from what I know, but he has info I don't so can't pass any judgements. Will you now answer the question?
The question you are asking is somehow both loaded and meaningless. I answered the version of your question that is meaningful: the US should have stayed in Northern Syria. If the goal is to be committed to stability in this region, they should be there for as long as the Kurds don't have the means to defend themselves, logically. The US instead chose to back a murderous fascist dictator and his jihadist proxies' plan to commit genocide and destabilize the one region in the middle east where democracy was thriving. Again, I have been clear: this is an exception to the rule I think it's virtually the only place in the world where they were doing actual legitimate peacekeeping. I'm not talking about your neocon version of "peacekeeping" which is the opposite of it. The US had no control over the way Northern Syria operated as a result of being there. They were purely meat shields, which they felt like they owed to the Kurds.
You talk about troops remaining in "Syria" as if it doesn't matter where they are located, when this is what matters the most. It's baffling. You also contradict yourself within just a couple lines. It's not important where the troops move? Yet it's important to you that he brings the troops back home? Huh. Pick one. Fact: the troops are still in Syria, they just moved to allow atrocities to happen. This is what matters and while you pretend like you can't verify facts on the internet, you also pretend like you know that that such a small number of troops wouldn't have prevented Turkey from invading. Somehow you have knowledge about something you "can't verify" there. Funny how that works.
"He has not started new wars" -- that's a cool rhetorical trick. Ramping up existing wars isn't an issue since he didn't start them -- okay dude. The logic is the following: killing more people isn't a big deal when you have the option to not do so, the only thing that matters is that you weren't the one who started killing them.
And yes he has literally just started a new war by relocating troops and making an agreement with Turkey effectively granting Kurdish territory to them, without consulting the Kurds. He has also said that they are more of a threat than ISIS along with a bunch of other lies. This is new chapter in a very long history of oppression of the Kurds. Equivocating, denying and distracting from it makes you complicit in it. The very least that anyone can do is inform themselves and say: this isn't right.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On October 20 2019 22:21 Loco wrote:
The question you are asking is somehow both loaded and meaningless. I answered the version of your question that is meaningful: the US should have stayed in Northern Syria. If the goal is to be committed to stability in this region, they should be there for as long as the Kurds don't have the means to defend themselves, logically. The US instead chose to back a murderous fascist dictator and his jihadist proxies' plan to commit genocide and destabilize the one region in the middle east where democracy was thriving. Again, I have been clear: this is an exception to the rule I think it's virtually the only place in the world where they were doing actual legitimate peacekeeping. I'm not talking about your neocon version of "peacekeeping" which is the opposite of it. The US had no control over the way Northern Syria operated as a result of being there. They were purely meat shields, which they felt like they owed to the Kurds.
You talk about troops remaining in "Syria" as if it doesn't matter where they are located, when this is what matters the most. It's baffling. You also contradict yourself within just a couple lines. It's not important where the troops move? Yet it's important to you that he brings the troops back home? Huh. Pick one. Fact: the troops are still in Syria, they just moved to allow atrocities to happen. This is what matters and while you pretend like you can't verify facts on the internet, you also pretend like you know that that such a small number of troops wouldn't have prevented Turkey from invading. Somehow you have knowledge about something you "can't verify" there. Funny how that works.
"He has not started new wars" -- that's a cool rhetorical trick. Ramping up existing wars isn't an issue since he didn't start them -- okay dude. The logic is the following: killing more people isn't a big deal when you have the option to not do so, the only thing that matters is that you weren't the one who started killing them.
And yes he has literally just started a new war by relocating troops and making an agreement with Turkey effectively granting Kurdish territory to them, without consulting the Kurds. He has also said that they are more of a threat than ISIS along with a bunch of other lies. This is new chapter in a very long history of oppression of the Kurds. Equivocating, denying and distracting from it makes you complicit in it. The very least that anyone can do is inform themselves and say: this isn't right.
The question you are asking is somehow both loaded and meaningless. I answered the version of your question that is meaningful: the US should have stayed in Northern Syria
Took you 10 posts to answer.
I'm a neocon, I agree with your assesment mostly BUT I don't think can assert it so strongly. It's a really complex situation from a place I know nothing about and there is too much information for me to acknowledge with certainty what would or would not happen had Trump done certain things. I place the onus of the responsability on the ones who started US prescence on the area.
Is there any substance whatsoever to that sentence? I have talked about re-education camps where? Or is this just a blanket sort of accusation that suggests that you are on some kind of moral high ground versus anarchists with your right-wing fetish for disciplinarism?
Why don't you actually put some fucking substance in your posts once in a while? Tell us what is wrong with his position instead of assuming that everyone thinks exactly like you and will be offended in the same way you have been when you heard his perspective. (Did you even hear what he said, or were you just too triggered when you heard the term "re-education", because you personally felt like that can only ever be authoritarian?) Do you believe you should always be entitled to be anti-social and harm others without consequences?
Secondly, tell us what the alternative is.What happens to anti-social people in that "Libertarian Republic" of yours? Really curious to hear your program. What he's describing in that video which you (hilariously) think is incriminating in some way is exactly how the Kurds have approached ISIS prisoners. So, if that's wrong, what's the more humane alternative?
Keep in mind that I disagree with his including the word "capitalists" in there, I don't think it makes sense at all in that context. He's talking about an already existing anarchist society, yet this gives the impression that private property would still exist and that you could just remove people from there and put them in a center to teach them how they shouldn't want to own property and exploit workers.... but the very society that they are in already would prevent that from happening without force.
~18:30 gets into re-education:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
