Print

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

[Dunamisdeos]

Let's try and be serious. I'm at the end of my rope with these jokes.

[wierd]

[metacomment pun about a thread about thread being thready.]

[sluissa]

Watch me wallabies feed, mate
Watch me wallabies feed
They're a dangerous breed, mate
So watch me wallabies feed
Altogether now!

[Reelya]

Let's try and be serious. I'm at the end of my rope with these jokes.

And another one joins the fray.

[Trolldefender99]

I don't see how there was a good outcome over with the Kurds. Abandoning our allies sets a bad precedent (even though with china its already been set it kinda makes it more obvious). We already let china do whatever it wants and both sides of politics don't seem to care and most people don't seem to care about the concentration camps (at least as far as the western media is concerned). So abandoning the kurds isn't more far fetched than that.

on other hand...what can be done? Direct conflict with turkey? That wouldn't end up good. Direct conflict with china? Thats obviously not good. So...the US is becoming less and less the big neighbor on earth and more the insignificant neighbor that lets others take advantage of it. But again, would a war with turkey even end good? I don't think so, and turkey has powerful allies with russia and china. So what could be done but to pull troops back without risking a massive war?

On the other side, the US and most countries on the west has been letting enemies to the US do whatever it wants. If every country on west keeps letting that happen, then allies will be lost and enemies gain ground. Again though, any solution tends to be a direct conflict with a major superpower...so...lose/lose. I waited all day to post to think of a solution and came up with none that ends up good. If turkey was going to do what it did no matter what the US did, then unless want a massive war, the only solution is to bend the knee sadly.

[Doomblade187]

The optimal outcome in my opinion is we deal with Turkey as a dictatorship and protect the Kurds.

[Trolldefender99]

The optimal outcome in my opinion is we deal with Turkey as a dictatorship and protect the Kurds.

Well I don't see a way to do that without going to war with Turkey if they were gonna do what they did even if US troops stayed. Then its another stupid middle east war like bush got us into. Don't need more stupid wars. Its a major reason why I hate the republican party so much, they always want wars as the answer to everything. I hope the democrat party never turns to that. Stupid wars. And I suppose there is non-violent methods...but how is that gonna help if turkey was gonna move their army in anyway? I just don't see a good outcome to going to war with turkey, which could easily lead to a major world conflict. And I don't see what could been done different without risking a military conflict with turkey.

(edit: Though I don't like abandoning allies. But then I don't like wars either especially ones that can turn into a global conflict. But racist republicans sure love their wars against muslims, they go to war any chance they can against islam. Thats why I'm glad the democrat party isn't the war party that supports killing muslims, and one reason I support them so much. They tend to try to find peaceful routes. But in this case, protect kurds and end up in a stupid war with powerful enemies and could lead to a global conflict or look bad abandoning an ally...again lose/lose.

But I'm actually glad no conflict with turkey. or all the islamaphobes would join the military just to kill muslims. Though I know kurds are majority islamic, but islamaphobes would work alongside them just to kill muslims. I just don't think we need to go to war against islam and have a 2nd war in the middle east like racist bigot bush put us in. Wars piss me off how racist they always end up. And I don't see how we could avoid a war of killing muslims by helping the kurds.

I know a lot of republicans hate what trump did, and I'm surprised trump wasn't excited about killing muslims because he is the #1 racist in the US. Kinda weird. A lot of republicans were/are excited about killing muslims in turkey and wanting a conflict with them so they'd get a chance for another war over there.

[Doomblade187]

Oh, when I say treat Turkey as a Dictatorship, I mean that historically when the US gets in a political disagreement with a foreign power, they can put targeted economic sanctions on the dictator and their family - minimal impact on the country's economy (starving them doesn't work, we've been trying for years elsewhere).

Now, our reasons for applying the sanctions are usually pretty shitty, but hey, I can dream.

[Trolldefender99]

Oh, when I say treat Turkey as a Dictatorship, I mean that historically when the US gets in a political disagreement with a foreign power, they can put targeted economic sanctions on the dictator and their family - minimal impact on the country's economy (starving them doesn't work, we've been trying for years elsewhere).

Now, our reasons for applying the sanctions are usually pretty shitty, but hey, I can dream.

Ah I see. But leaving troops where they were, Turkey was going to attack no matter what sanctions or not. So even with sanctions on their leader and top generals and what not, that wouldn't have solved the solution short term. Turkey was moving troops immedietly to the area and was going to attack no matter what anyone did. So they'd also kill US troops if they got left there, wouldn't care (short term) about sanctions and killing troops be a direct conflict. So turkey apparently gave little notice (though I recall a month or two ago reports of a large turkish army build up on border of syria), so there was little that could be done except to leave without getting into a conflict. And turkey even said they'd kill anyone there, US troops or not. So they seemed itching for a fight.

Long term sanctions may be good, may even been better 1-2 months ago with the army build up. but that wouldn't have made the leader of turkey change his mind about invading part of syria. That seemed like a done deal no matter what. Turkey repeatedly said they were going to get rid of "terrorists" no matter what US did.

(edit: Again I don't approve of abandoning on ally, it will only make other countries more likely to join china or russia in an alliance. But leaving troops there for turkey to kill doesn't seem very smart. I do approve of sanctions against them, but that wouldn't really help the kurds out without military backup and again that would lead to a ground conflict. But outside of sanctions, don't see a better solution to that. I just don't think turkey would care about sanctions enough to stop their plan of moving into syria. China and russia also apparently don't care about sanctions either, but at least I do agree it be something.

(edit 2: It been a bit late for sanctions by time turkey warned everyone (even though there was satellite imagery of build up from way before their warning), so was a bit late for that. But if trump wasn't racist and not so stupid, any president would have start dealing with the issue months ago. He probably hates the kurds tbh. But turkey is majority muslim too, so I dunno its weird. Trump seems to hate the kurds more for some reason. I never got a sense he cared about them over there. That is probably the real reason trump has never done anything to help them. granted I still don't think a war is good and I hate wars, but a good president would have handled it and tried more peaceful routes. Even if turkey was gonna do it no matter what, most presidents would still have tried. Trump never even tried for a peaceful route.

[Lord Shonus]

Oh, when I say treat Turkey as a Dictatorship, I mean that historically when the US gets in a political disagreement with a foreign power, they can put targeted economic sanctions on the dictator and their family - minimal impact on the country's economy (starving them doesn't work, we've been trying for years elsewhere).

Now, our reasons for applying the sanctions are usually pretty shitty, but hey, I can dream.

Ah I see. But leaving troops where they were, Turkey was going to attack no matter what sanctions or not. So even with sanctions on their leader and top generals and what not, that wouldn't have solved the solution short term. Turkey was moving troops immedietly to the area and was going to attack no matter what anyone did. So they'd also kill US troops if they got left there, wouldn't care (short term) about sanctions and killing troops be a direct conflict.

An invasion that killed US troops would have a very high chance of causing a war with the US under almost any President. If Turkey goes to war with the US, Turkey ceases to exist in any recognizable form. What you're saying is that Turkey's leader was guaranteed to look at a "if I do this and pull it off, I gain a bit of territory and prestige, but there is at least a 50 percent chance that I will lose every bit of my power and quite possibly my life" gamble and decide it was a fair bet. That's pretty unlikely.

More likely, he was pushing a "we're totally going to do this" idea while angling for some other concessions in exchange for "calling the whole thing off."

[scriver]

I also am not so sure Turkey is angling to annex any much territory. The lack of strong reaction from Syria and Russia (at least as far as I've heard from my media) hints to me that this might not be an occupational move but more of a direct anti-Kurd intervention. Erdogan wants to weaken the Kurds in Syria because the strength of the Syrian Kurds flowbacks directly to the Kurds in Turkey, in terms of both equipment, training, infrastructure, and morale (and general nationalist sentiment among the general Kurdish populace). Assad wants to weaken the Kurds in Syria because, well, he obviously wants to regain authority over Syria. Russia wants to weaken the Kurds because they benefit from a stronger ally in Assad's Syria.

Erdogan has buddied up a lot to Putin in recent years. It's not unthinkable that they feel confident enough in each other to allow such a move by Turkey.

See also the revealed plans by Erdogan of resettling Sunni Arab Syrians in the region. This is a move that would directly weaken Kurdish nationalist sentiment and capabilities as well as weaken Kurdish cultural and ethnical ties and favour Turkey's de-kurdification policies in Turkey through the weakening of Kurds over the border. It's genocide.

[Reelya]

It's genocide.

Also I'd like to point out as an aside that you sometimes get the "not really genocide" argument, as if there was some pre-existing general meaning of "genocide" that's not being met, but the term was in fact coined by a specific person in 1944, and that specific person went on to define it a certain way, and it was then picked up by the UN and encoded into law with the same definition. Genocide thus doesn't have any pre-existing definition as "killing lots of people", since the word just plain didn't exist, it is in fact mostly a legal definition.

Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Lemkin, btw, is the guy who invented the word, so he gets to define it, and others don't really get to say they know better what it means.

So, it doesn't necessarily mean you want to eradicate the living persons, but you want to eradicate the identity itself. Thus, taking children from their parents to be raised by other parents and the like is counted under 'genocide' by the original definition, even though nobody died, and trying to flood and area with your ethnicity while suppressing the original ethnicity (with the hope they'll be subsumed) is also an attempt at genocide, although an attempt to do it by slow and steady means to sneak it through.

[scriver]

As I remember it, Lemkin was disappointed in the UN because it only ratified the more "mass murdery" definition and deliberately left out anything not involving killing or direct force relocationing. Iirc Lemkin used the Holodomar and general Ukrainian situation under Soviet as something that he defined as genocide but would not be covered under the UN's definition.

Coincidentally it also didn't cover any of the West's at the time favoured practices like (by Reelya mentioned) forced re-childening and language suppression.

[smjjames]

Coincidentally it also didn't cover any of the West's at the time favoured practices like (by Reelya mentioned) forced re-childening and language suppression.

Language suppression of indengenous peoples in particular too. Not surprising that they left out the 'cultural genocide' portion of it.

Anyways, to nobodys (except maybe Trump himself) surprise, China says no to Trumps meddling request. Besides the fact that it would be a really dumb move to jump into the political buzzsaw that is happening, especially when Trump just fingered them out, they've (well, one commentator I guess) said that it'd be political blackmail for Trump to do that.

I guess maybe Trump thought China would be as subservient/desperate as Ukraine was.

[Il Palazzo]

I guess maybe Trump thought China would be as subservient/desperate as Ukraine was.

Was it, though? From what I gathered they're pissed they're being dragged into US politics, and are jumping through hoops to remain uncommitted without outright telling Trump to fuck off.