Then why do you believe he made the choice to allow Erdogan to invade the Kurds?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Printable View
Then why do you believe he made the choice to allow Erdogan to invade the Kurds?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
He made that a campaign promise. It’s the same mistake Obama made leaving the vacuum in Iraq. Now Trump is leaving one in Syria....
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
B/c he campaigned on and has made it completely clear he thinks us being involved in permanent wars is a mistake. He said he was going to pull us out of these conflicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
or he's corrupt and on the take for a hotel in Istanbul he doesn't even own but only gets paid for his name use. Yeah, that must be it.
And as a guy on the take he's sure brilliant. They looked at taking his name off it when he started the "Muslim ban", and he's now threatening to sanction Turkey which has twitter tags of "death to trump" trending in Turkey. So boy is he sure lining his pockets with this move.
So that explains why he approves of an attack against our former allies? And actually put some of our service men and women in harms way?
One Army officer who has deployed to northeastern Syria and has knowledge of the situation said multiple rounds of 155 mm fire were launched from Turkey’s side of the border and that they had a “bracketing effect” in which shells landed on both sides of the U.S. outpost. “That’s an area weapon,” the officer said, noting its explosive effects. “That’s not something we ever would have done to a partner force.”
And I thought he was currently sending troops to Saudi Arabia? 1800 I believe.
I accept that you may believe in your answer, but, and I am sorry, but I'd find that laughable it were Obama or anyone else.
The Middle East itself is a permanent military undertaking.
To me, this would serve well as the definition of blind faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Turkey is our allie as well. Are we to take up arms against them? The USA has supported and continues to support the Kurdish people
It is an interesting narrative the the Kurds came to the USA's assistance to fight ISIS. We came to their aid and while it was beneficial to both sides, our mission was defeating ISIS and not defense of the Kurds. Yes, the Kurds assisted us in the defeat of Saddam Hussein as well but again, that was as much if not more to their benefit considering Saddams feeling towards the Kurds!
Trump has pledged to assist thru negotiations between the turks and the kurds. I am sure military support in the form of weapons will continilue as well.
The main difference between Obama's exit and Trump's is the level of threat for re-emmergence of ISIS or the Taliban. Do I think our exit is the right move? More "no" than "yes" but I also believe that if not now, when?
And I get your point that were it Obama, most would be against. Interesting concept. Now you know how the right feels about pretty much every aspect of the left approach to Trump! However most on the right are against the withdrawl. Meanwhile the left has come to the withdrawl is bad POV because they were all for withdrawl under Obama. So Trump is doing exactly what the left wanted 5 years ago but are now against it because it is championed by Trump. It reminds me of the Wall concept, where the left was for it years ago but now it is immoral. Or the need for secure borders. Or the seperation of children from families at the border. I could go on because the list is long of stances the left supported in the past that Trump now supports and the left now rejects
Show me where he's approved of Turkey's attack please. He threatened simultaneously to sanction Turkey if they attacked the Kurds and has proceeded with that threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
For you to be right Trump has to be a corrupt Machiavellian genius who is covertly manipulating the world, and frankly you think a lot more of his intelligence and maturity than I do.
And yes the Middle East is a permanent military undertaking, and Trump thinks we need to not undertake it at all. he's not alone. You can disagree with the policy, and in this case I do, but it's a valid policy alternative and not some lunatic notion and certainly doesn't require some nefarious deep covert financial or other justification.
These conspiracy theories going mainstream is tiring and disturbing. Occam's Razor people.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 6, 2019
Statement from the Press Secretary
Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.
The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.
If that dont serve as an approval (or a Go right ahead) I don't know what does.
Yet, agreeing with the President is another matter entirely.
“They didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy as an example"
..Donald Trump on the Kurds
Trump tweeted Wednesday that the withdrawal involved roughly 50 service members. An administration official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of U.S. involvement in the region described the number of soldiers involved to be between 50 and 100.
The president has repeatedly framed the decision as part of his broader goal of reducing U.S. military engagements oversees. But the same administration official rejected the idea that the soldiers involved are being withdrawn and instead said that the service members would be reassigned to other areas in Syria...USA Today
Would you prefer they be in the area when Turkey shells them? Your post above seemed to imply that was a bad thing.
So we tell Erdogan to not go in, and if he hits our troops we'll do what? Send more? Fight back and have armed conflict with a NATO ally?
What's your solution if Erdogan called PResident Kingcat and said he was going to invade?
So your theory is Trump removed the troops b/c of his financial ties with Turkey, ties he almost destroyed when he called for the ban on travel, and then he's going to impose sanctions with executive order on them for invading b/c somehow that's miraculously in his interests too?
what's his covert, brilliant end game for his own gain here? To piss off the people of Turkey so completely they send him cash or something?
Whatever his end game, it is an impeachable oneQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
He may come out smelling like a rose in this end game. Cease fire in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
If he can pull this off it means he got US troops out as he promised, AND got a deal that stabilizes things (at least as much as American voters care it's stabilized) and maybe gets at least the same if not better relations with Turkey and the Kurds aren't wiped out.
We'll see if it works, the Kurds have yet to agree to pulling back, but if they do Trump could have the last laugh on this one.
In this case, for the sake of the Kurds and trying to somehow find a way to keep Turkey looking West versus East to Russia, I sure hope he gets this win.
Oh, there is no doubt that’s what Trump and team is selling.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
But, no.
Turkey already said today it’s not a “cease fire”. They are just on hold for 5 days.
On hold for what? For the Kurds to leave the area. ONLY THEN, they have said they will “cease fire” (which most don’t believe anyways).
What does it mean for the Kurds in the area? It means that for the thousands who live there, they have 5 days to pack up their homes and get out before being annihilated.
That’s not a cease fire. It’s a war ultimatum.
That’s why a Senior Military Official is “highly skeptical”:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey...ghly-skeptical
Im not naive. I get exactly what it is, and it's still a better deal than the Turks want to give b/c their last "war ultimatum" for the Kurds killed them by the basket full and many Turks still want to finish the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
But their option to leave is on the table, and unless we go back it's their best option.
But the question is how it works politically in the US, and it just may work. If US soldiers aren't there and no one is getting massacred, it may sell. Refugees arent' as big an issue for voters, we've created millions of them the last 20 years in the Middle East and you never see it poll as an issue.
We keep our troops there and tell the Turks not to invade, the Kurds don’t have to move.
This move benefits Turkey, Iran and Russia
Yes Turkey is in NATO and Along with the United States it is the only country in the organization run by a man that sees himself as a dictator
Trump green lit the Turkey move, whether he knew it or not, when Mattis resigned and reaffirmed the ok with that call last week.
And while Turkey is in NATO, they don’t seem to share the same values we used to have.
Dark day for America. Dark day for the world.
I am sure that too would be "impeachable" to some.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I'm against the move, but in truth it was a complete stalemate and I imagine that as much as anything was behind Trump's thinking. Obama and every other administration has kicked this issue down the road, and honestly I would have too, but Trump doesn't think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
It benefits Turkey, I think it's a push at best for Iran b/c they don't want Turkey established in Syria either, and anything that keeps Turkey in the fold and NOT looking to Russia is a loss for Russia. The Turks have been teasing that move as leverage, and having them friendly with Russia is far more serious than having Iran friendly with them. Neither is good, one is worse.
I just think he got played. And now its damage control.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
I doubt he got played so much as he's hard headed and just doesn't listen to differing opinions. That's not good either, but I doubt Erdogan talked him into anything b/c he was rattling his economic saber right away.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
“Cease Fire” didn’t last 24 hours.
https://twitter.com/afp/status/1185143021798592512?s=21
With regards to the Kurds, the paid the price in blood.
Turkey wanted this when Mattis resigned. Trump gave the order and we didn’t even pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Just a horribly disgraceful move. Chamberlain did better.
Chamberlain did better? Really? A pile of sand with no oil doesn't really compare to handing over the Sudatenland to Hitler. I do agree it's not wise to encourage Erdogan, but our problems with him are far more difficult than the Kurdish problem. Namely that he's threatened to build his own nukes if we withdraw ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
I agree it was the wrong decision, said so the second it was announced, but The truth is the actual outcome for the US is pretty insignificant whether we stayed or left. It's a region with almost no strategic value even in the Middle East.
I'm sure Trump saw it in simple terms. We don't want to be there, The Turks will come in and yes will stabilize the area, and we go home. I don't agree that's where the thinking should stop, but I wouldn't read more into it than that.
And in fact, we were in a stalemate where we keep troops there forever in order to keep this from happening, or until a viable Syrian government could form, which seems unlikely for years to come.
For me the relatively small troop commitment may be worth it, but Trump isn't wrong on the broader point: why are US lives being used in these ways all over the globe when other people can't solve their own problems?
Trump is basically an isolationist, and there's a case to be made. We inherited the job of the world's policeman from the Brits when they quit, but it's not clear the job is worth it. The pay is lousy (see his rants against NATO et al for not paying their own way), it costs American lives, and in many cases we don't get anything back for it.
If we're protecting ports that create trade then maybe there's a "worth it", but ever since the Gulf War we've been stuck in the Syria/Iraq region and gotten no farther with it than the day we got there.
Its a big break in thinking with traditional DC world, but Trump isn't wrong.
"Horribly discraceful" is IMO over the top, and comparing him being worse than Chamberlain is definitely hyperbole. I get your point, but this is the kind of over the top hang wringing that seems to come out with Trump and IMO isn't helpful for really analyzing what is going on, domestic or foreign.
I think it's a mistake, but not the biggest mistake I've seen prior administrations make in foreign diplomacy, If anything at least it saves American lives overall versus risking them, and that does count as a big plus for me personally.
CBBN I do not disagree with you very often and I may not be disagreeing here either, but I honestly think he made the right move to pull out. Lots of folks are bemoaning the plight of the Kurds and trying to paint the US in a bad light for leaving them to fight their own battle. History says that the Brits and French pulled out on them right after WW1 and the treaty of Severs did not even consider them important enough to carve out a piece of Syria and Turkey to build them a homeland. We do not want to see the side of the Kurds that make up the PPK and the terrorist activities they undertake in Turkey.
As I said in an earlier post in this thread. the middle east is a screwed up part of the world. Shia and Sunni hate each other which leads one country to hate another. Iranis hate Iraqis, who hates the Turks, who hates the Syrians, who hates the Jordanians, who hates the Israelis, who hates everyone else in the ME. And we have not even mentioned the Egyptians, Saudis, those in the Emerites, the Yemenis, Omanis, the Afghanis, the Pakis, or the Russians. All this hate takes place in an area about the size of 4 Alaskas. The hate has been going on for thousands of years with wars fought over land, over religions, and probably water, wealth, women, camels, and food. Now they all hate each other because that is what their ancestors have done for thousands of years.
I am sure it makes sense for Trump to fix this, right?
Dan, I can't argue with your position.
There's no solution short of propping up a Kurdish state and losing Turkey from NATO, etc. The French and English made the same calculation we did: the Kurds aren't a valuable enough ally to lose others that hate their guts.
And I'm for generally getting out of the region and all the other regions. So I can't really argue with you.
I'd have left the Kurdish troops in place simply b/c their numbers are low, but then again I don't know what's going on behind the scenes in Turkey, and given the politics we don't see I may have made the same choice as Trump.
We don't really know what the Turks laid on the table with us. They've been buying weapons from the Russians, clearly an overture they want something from us, and maybe this was it.
So maybe I make the same choice even politically.
I do think the timing is poor for Trump at home, but it's funny how when other politicians do what they think is right regardless of politics they are lauded, and Trump is condemned. Give Trump his due, he does what he thinks should be done, damned the torpedoes.
And that's a big key to his support. Any other president would at least be criticized b/c of policy, Trump is questioned as to his motives.
And if the agreement holds, and Turkey takes its chunk of land and the Kurds stay behind the line, honestly that's about the best solution we've had since Iraq collapsed.
If Trump can make this stick it's not a bad solution, and one that requires fewer American lives.
Mitch thinks Trump's actions in Syria are a grave mistake
I feel much better about my opinion now. :happy0026:
Lindsay Graham is easing up some on the issue. Seems to like the idea of a deal.
I get your position and Trump's. We're endlessly putting troops here and there to not so much solve problems as forestall solutions we don't like either politically or morally. It has gotten old after taking on that job in 1945.
I hope that when logical thinking people get over the media supported idea that the USA ran off and left a bunch of innocent kids in the wilderness surrounded by rabid wolves, we will come to a reasonable conclusion one way or the other.
Agree. The narrative that the Kurds came to the USA's aid is incorrect. More like the USA went there and it was mutually beneficial...but clearly more beneficial to the Kurds. ISIS and Turkey were both their enemies and content on destroying them. Disn't happen thanks to America.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue