Trump defends decision to abandon Kurds, sends 1800 troops to Saudi Arabia

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
74,269
52,989
USA
i disagree with your premise, reject it outright. I am anti wars of choice after having both experienced it and working with my charity where we work with severely disabled and disfigured veterans.
In a sense you are rejecting the world order that the US created after WWII, and that has helped us become the dominant nation of the world, to the benefit of all Americans. It has allowed us to press our greatest advantage, which is our moral sense. It's attractive to people around the world, even if they don't want to mimic our system. It has also allowed us to appear as relatively reliable and consistent actors in a world that tends toward chaos and is driven by ancient hatreds. It's a major question in US foreign policy--policy that drove "containment" and that still would aim to contain our greatest rivals. If anything we should pivot East with that same policy, since that's where the new challenges will come from.

"America First" isolationism gives us the illusion of safety, but over the long term makes the whole world more dangerous. If that's what we want to do, we should have a thorough conversation about its implications. If we really want to go it alone, then we give up a chance to shape the world's alliances for our future. We weaken ourselves in relationship to Russia and China. Maybe that's okay--maybe you envision a world in which 1) Russia dominates Europe, 2) China dominates most of Asia with India holding its own but too distracted by Pakistan to be much help, and 3) Africa belong to China because they bought it. In that scenario we get Latin America, but we're making a bad name for ourselves there, so I'm not sure we end up with anything. That's bad news in the "Great Game."

As for the risks to American lives, I agree with you, but any capitalist knows about using a small investment to leverage a much larger one, and that's what we were doing in Syria.
I supported the iraq war the. During the ovama admin when I had started my charity i quickly grew dissousioned with the wars of choice.
But part of that scenario was...it was a BAD choice. A choice unsupported by evidence of any near term threat to our country.

i would if I could do it all over again, join thr anti war protests of the iraq war.
You and me both. I supported that foolishness too.

any other insinuation , including that “im a con” seems more than simple debate from your end.
I don't believe everyone is responsible for the opinions of everyone on their "side," but it is a fair point that you side with the right more often than the left.

please respect my opinion and what I say instead of insinuating positions I have that I have never uttered, as well as calling me things which I am not.

You’ll get better debate from me that way.
I think we have to make assumptions until we're proven wrong. We waste a lot of time otherwise. And I'll call your claim about debate...dubious...since so much of what you do here isn't about debate.
 
Apr 2014
40,217
26,757
Maryland
Dictators don't get elected to office, presidents do thou.

The Kurds were using the US as a shield between them and Turkey so they could carry out, as Turkey has put it, carry out terrorist raids into Turkey.
But dictators help presidents get elected as we have seen. The very people who have been protecting us from Isys are the very people that we have abandoned and you think that’s OK
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasselas

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
74,269
52,989
USA
But dictators help presidents get elected as we have seen.
Funny about that. Some have suggested that Putin's efforts to elect Trump were more about his hatred for Clinton, who had attempted to interfere in Russian elections--against Putin. Obama also came down pretty hard against Netanyahu--in a way that some in Israel saw as illegitimate. What we see now isn't nations openly attempting to influence people in other countries, but doing it anonymously. It's like political privaterering--an old tactic in which government-(secretly)-backed pirates would raid the ships of other nations, but provide deniability to the privateer's monarch (looking at you, Queen Elizabeth I). It was a very successful tactic and helped lead to the UK's dominance of the world for 300 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: orangecat

Rev. Hellh0und

Former Staff
Jul 2011
74,016
15,298
Somewhere below 14th and East.
In a sense you are rejecting the world order that the US created after WWII, and that has helped us become the dominant nation of the world, to the benefit of all Americans. It has allowed us to press our greatest advantage, which is our moral sense. It's attractive to people around the world, even if they don't want to mimic our system. It has also allowed us to appear as relatively reliable and consistent actors in a world that tends toward chaos and is driven by ancient hatreds. It's a major question in US foreign policy--policy that drove "containment" and that still would aim to contain our greatest rivals. If anything we should pivot East with that same policy, since that's where the new challenges will come from.

"America First" isolationism gives us the illusion of safety, but over the long term makes the whole world more dangerous. If that's what we want to do, we should have a thorough conversation about its implications. If we really want to go it alone, then we give up a chance to shape the world's alliances for our future. We weaken ourselves in relationship to Russia and China. Maybe that's okay--maybe you envision a world in which 1) Russia dominates Europe, 2) China dominates most of Asia with India holding its own but too distracted by Pakistan to be much help, and 3) Africa belong to China because they bought it. In that scenario we get Latin America, but we're making a bad name for ourselves there, so I'm not sure we end up with anything. That's bad news in the "Great Game."
I do not advocate a total isolationist stance, I think we should be as involved in world affairs, especially the middle east, especially with American military members, as much as sweden. I can't argue against your points as they are not the positions I hold.


As for the risks to American lives, I agree with you, but any capitalist knows about using a small investment to leverage a much larger one, and that's what we were doing in Syria.
But part of that scenario was...it was a BAD choice. A choice unsupported by evidence of any near term threat to our country.
The whole thing was a bad choice, And your positions are the same as those Neocons ramping us up for war in iraq. What are we investing, American lives, for what? Muslim wars of choice, What's our return?

No, I am asking you, what is the ROI here?


You and me both. I supported that foolishness too.
We hide the results of war and that's wrong, if we were to laud not only the personel POG as a "salute to our soldiers" but those who are disfigured you would see far less cavalier attitudes towards war.

I don't believe everyone is responsible for the opinions of everyone on their "side," but it is a fair point that you side with the right more often than the left.
yes I do on certain issues. Other issues I side with the left. What i find myself mostly doing these days is tamping down the hysterics, exaggerations and outright lies about trump..There are SO MANY serious issues about trump we should be discussing, but we no longer investigate ourselves and form our own opinions, we post tweets with no response and call people cult members.

(general we of).

I think we have to make assumptions until we're proven wrong. We waste a lot of time otherwise. And I'll call your claim about debate...dubious...since so much of what you do here isn't about debate.
Oh really? Then what is it about?

wow.