Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Of course not, as the largest military spender in the world, the US is required to piss away blood and money whenever possible.

[smjjames]

Can we not go back to Iraq or Syria? The US has absolutely nothing to gain. If the US wanted to help world peace they'd support the Syrian government. Providing arms to religious extremists has never worked in our favor before, ever.

Can we just NOT try to overthrow a fragile government, just once, pretty please? It's okay to leave well enough alone?

We aren't providing arms to religious extremists, ISIS got theirs from the ones the Iraqi army abandoned.

Also, the moral high ground demands that we condemn the Syrian government, not support it.

[Strife26]

I'd argue that the moral high ground would be not blundering into more things.

[HAMMERMILL]

Can we not go back to Iraq or Syria? The US has absolutely nothing to gain. If the US wanted to help world peace they'd support the Syrian government. Providing arms to religious extremists has never worked in our favor before, ever.

Can we just NOT try to overthrow a fragile government, just once, pretty please? It's okay to leave well enough alone?

We aren't providing arms to religious extremists, ISIS got theirs from the ones the Iraqi army abandoned.

Also, the moral high ground demands that we condemn the Syrian government, not support it.

SO we take the moral highground and support 1960's styled communist Kurds in the flavors of the YPG or PDK or PKK or we provide weapons to nebulous, 'extremely trustworthy' street gangs and groups that essentially used to be the corrupt connections between the Syrian military and the local businesses that propped them up?

There isn't any high-ground to support there. I don't see how involving the US military into foriegn civil wars helps the USA at all. Besides a drain to our taxes.

[smjjames]

Can we not go back to Iraq or Syria? The US has absolutely nothing to gain. If the US wanted to help world peace they'd support the Syrian government. Providing arms to religious extremists has never worked in our favor before, ever.

Can we just NOT try to overthrow a fragile government, just once, pretty please? It's okay to leave well enough alone?

We aren't providing arms to religious extremists, ISIS got theirs from the ones the Iraqi army abandoned.

Also, the moral high ground demands that we condemn the Syrian government, not support it.

SO we take the moral highground and support 1960's styled communist Kurds in the flavors of the YPG or PDK or PKK

Only one of them is actually communist styled, and btw, that group you are talking about (PKK I think), they're trying to fight the Turkish government, an ally of ours, and are considered terrorists by the US. Also, not what I meant by moral high ground.

You seem to be trying to simplify the situation where it isn't simple and is best described as a clusterfuck.

[HAMMERMILL]

Can we not go back to Iraq or Syria? The US has absolutely nothing to gain. If the US wanted to help world peace they'd support the Syrian government. Providing arms to religious extremists has never worked in our favor before, ever.

Can we just NOT try to overthrow a fragile government, just once, pretty please? It's okay to leave well enough alone?

We aren't providing arms to religious extremists, ISIS got theirs from the ones the Iraqi army abandoned.

Also, the moral high ground demands that we condemn the Syrian government, not support it.

SO we take the moral highground and support 1960's styled communist Kurds in the flavors of the YPG or PDK or PKK

Only one of them is actually communist styled, and btw, that group you are talking about (PKK I think), they're trying to fight the Turkish government, an ally of ours, and are considered terrorists by the US.

You seem to be trying to simplify the situation where it isn't simple and is best described as a clusterfuck.

I'm exaggerating to illustrate how much of an unworkable clusterfuck it is.

The Kurdish factions are easier to work out than the many gangs fighting in the Syrian war. We think if we give weapons and money to the street gang that most likes Quentin Tarantino movies (an actual dimension the CIA uses to quantify loyalty to the US gov't) that we will somehow profit when Libya, Egypt have been ruined by their rebel movements.

The endstate the policymakers like Hiliary Clinton have been sending money and misery toward is that Syria is a shiny-pony-democracy run by social-media-adept westernized experts who want to sell the US oil companies oil and agricultural products for below-market prices.

The odds of that happening are zero but yet we still persecute this proxy war there when everyone already knows we have nothing to gain there.

[RedKing]

And the PKK has changed its ideology rather opportunistically over the years. They were Communists during the Cold War when Turkey was a US ally, and thus the Soviets were a natural sponsor of anti-Turkish activity. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they reverted to Kurdish ethno-nationalism. After 9/11, they declared themselves Islamists for a while, till they saw that wasn't working out so well for most groups.

This is my chief complaint with ALL the Kurdish players -- they are opportunistic in the extreme. It's not restricted to them, it's a cultural trait among a number of ethnicities and tribal groups from West Asia through Central Asia. It's how they've survived all these centuries, by always making sure they're on the winning side, even if that means stabbing allies in the back at the last second. It's also what prevents them from being reliable long-term allies, in my opinion.

[smjjames]

Which is probably the reason why we're supporting the Kurds, it's just a mess over there.

The odds of that happening are zero but yet we still persecute this proxy war there when everyone already knows we have nothing to gain there.

We do have something to gain there, the defeat of ISIS.

And the PKK has changed its ideology rather opportunistically over the years. They were Communists during the Cold War when Turkey was a US ally, and thus the Soviets were a natural sponsor of anti-Turkish activity. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they reverted to Kurdish ethno-nationalism. After 9/11, they declared themselves Islamists for a while, till they saw that wasn't working out so well for most groups.

This is my chief complaint with ALL the Kurdish players -- they are opportunistic in the extreme. It's not restricted to them, it's a cultural trait among a number of ethnicities and tribal groups from West Asia through Central Asia. It's how they've survived all these centuries, by always making sure they're on the winning side, even if that means stabbing allies in the back at the last second. It's also what prevents them from being reliable long-term allies, in my opinion.

Not particularily surprising given how the entire middle east has been a corridor for invading armies, from Alexander the Great, to the Mongols, to Persia, to the muslim empires.

[HAMMERMILL]

Which is probably the reason why we're supporting the Kurds, it's just a mess over there.

The odds of that happening are zero but yet we still persecute this proxy war there when everyone already knows we have nothing to gain there.

We do have something to gain there, the defeat of ISIS.

The existence of ISIS effects the USA how? ISIS makes us a good amount of money. They trade and sell from those territories they occupy far more than the old stagnate firms under the old governments ever did,

Why do we need to defeat them again? We dislike their policy in governance?

[smjjames]

Which is probably the reason why we're supporting the Kurds, it's just a mess over there.

The odds of that happening are zero but yet we still persecute this proxy war there when everyone already knows we have nothing to gain there.

We do have something to gain there, the defeat of ISIS.

The existence of ISIS effects the USA how? ISIS makes us a good amount of money. They trade and sell from those territories they occupy far more than the old stagnate firms under the old governments ever did,

Why do we need to defeat them again? We dislike their policy in governance?

If they weren't terrorists who have repeatedly done suicide attacks and are just plain barbaric, then your argument would make sense, but they aren't not-terrorists and not-barbarians.

[HAMMERMILL]

Which is probably the reason why we're supporting the Kurds, it's just a mess over there.

The odds of that happening are zero but yet we still persecute this proxy war there when everyone already knows we have nothing to gain there.

We do have something to gain there, the defeat of ISIS.

The existence of ISIS effects the USA how? ISIS makes us a good amount of money. They trade and sell from those territories they occupy far more than the old stagnate firms under the old governments ever did,

Why do we need to defeat them again? We dislike their policy in governance?

If they weren't terrorists who have repeatedly done suicide attacks and are just plain barbaric, then your argument would make sense, but they aren't not-terrorists and not-barbarians.

Whoakay, the US government conducts repeatedly, attacks in other nations, barbaric or not, that kill dozens or hundreds at a time.

The US gov't isn't non-terrorist or not-barbarian either, and I should know I receive my paycheck from them.

[smjjames]

So, when ISIS bombs <insert US city>, you're saying the US should do absolutely nothing about it?

[Loud Whispers]

Didn't the IRA (Irish Republican Army) use similar tactics?

Depends, because the IRA had many splits and many cells, some that only targeted monuments, some that targeted police, some that targeted soldiers, some that targeted politicians, some that targeted their families, some that targeted Irish or English civilians e.t.c.
Generally speaking it was a big mess

I'd argue that the moral high ground would be not blundering into more things.

Def

Trying to solve every middle east conflict by bombing it into oblivion has so far resulted in oblivion

[smjjames]

I'd argue that the moral high ground would be not blundering into more things.

Def

Trying to solve every middle east conflict by bombing it into oblivion has so far resulted in oblivion

Unfortunately, that's the kind of tactic that the republican candidates think should be used there. Obviously some of it is just rhetoric, but evidently nobody has any new ideas on how to fix the problem that doesn't involve some violence.

[Loud Whispers]

It's a fine tactic as far as tactics go but if your strategy has no plan for what happens when you succeed, even in success you've set yourself up for failure