Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Baalzamon said:
EricHiggin said:

It's not pulling the money away, because that would mean the U.S. directly attacked the Kurds and/or free'd ISIS prisoners. It's the fact that, what good was the initial help, if it's basically useless now because of the new scenario you're stuck in, kidnapped or fighting the Turks and having ISIS prisoners being free'd? The U.S. pulling out and letting this happen to the Kurds, is like the new friend not helping with the ransom. Why not help now, if you already helped in the first place? Why is the new friend the only one who get's blamed when there's plenty of other people who are clearly to blame as well who could help but might not?

I say the new friend who paid in the first place, isn't helping with the ransom, or at least not yet, because I'm posing another example as a question, like I've been doing the entire time. I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out the possibilities from both sides, so why am I being placed on one side while others come at me from the opposing position? I'm not taking sides here, I'm just posing questions, and instead of legit answers, I'm getting spun to one side and being smeared.

Why did the man cross the road? 

OMG what's with all the toxic masculinity, Eric? 

lol

How would it mean the US directly attacked the Kurds and/or freed ISIS prisoners?

When the US was there, it wasn't an all out shit-storm. The moment we left (us being there was helping), all hell broke loose.

The US pulling out is like pulling away the initial money you borrowed in the first place. The person still needs the money they initially borrowed (The Kurds still need us present to prevent all hell from breaking loose).

That this isn't making sense to you is completely mind boggling to me.

I now understand why everybody else has /ignored you. It is literally like talking to a brick wall.

Welcome to debating with Eric. A monkey will type the works of Shakespeare before Eric manages to come up with a coherent argument.

His compulsion for endless irrelevant metaphors combined (quite fittingly) with his almost Trump-like self-belief in whatever nonsense he's spouting ensures that any time spent debating him is time forever lost...



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:
Baalzamon said:

How would it mean the US directly attacked the Kurds and/or freed ISIS prisoners?

When the US was there, it wasn't an all out shit-storm. The moment we left (us being there was helping), all hell broke loose.

The US pulling out is like pulling away the initial money you borrowed in the first place. The person still needs the money they initially borrowed (The Kurds still need us present to prevent all hell from breaking loose).

That this isn't making sense to you is completely mind boggling to me.

I now understand why everybody else has /ignored you. It is literally like talking to a brick wall.

Welcome to debating with Eric. A monkey will type the works of Shakespeare before Eric manages to come up with a coherent argument.

His compulsion for endless irrelevant metaphors combined (quite fittingly) with his almost Trump-like self-belief in whatever nonsense he's spouting ensures that any time spent debating him is time forever lost...



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Eric, imagine you had cancer. You don't have the money to pay for treatments that would save your life. But you have a friend that does have that money and offers to pay for your treatments because you've helped him in the past when he needed your help. Now imagine that friend is incredibly wealthy. Easily able to afford your treatment. And Imagine all the friends and family of your friend wants your friend to help you. Your friend pays and you fight that cancer as hard as you can. You and your friend know that the treatments are the only thing keeping you from dying of cancer and eventually you'll be in remission. But then....you friend stops paying for treatment. Now you're in relapse and the cancer has returned. And it's spreading.

And everybody is in absolute shock at your friend. Guess you'll just suffer and die then....right?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Eric, imagine you had cancer. You don't have the money to pay for treatments that would save your life. But you have a friend that does have that money and offers to pay for your treatments because you've helped him in the past when he needed your help. Now imagine that friend is incredibly wealthy. Easily able to afford your treatment. And Imagine all the friends and family of your friend wants your friend to help you. Your friend pays and you fight that cancer as hard as you can. You and your friend know that the treatments are the only thing keeping you from dying of cancer and eventually you'll be in remission. But then....you friend stops paying for treatment. Now you're in relapse and the cancer has returned. And it's spreading.

And everybody is in absolute shock at your friend. Guess you'll just suffer and die then....right?

I'll start by saying not bad. An ok comparison. A few flaws, but I'll respond in a reasonable manner anyway.

I do have to point out the friendship here is crucial. The longer the friendship, the more it matters. If it's a lifelong friend then that certainly would be shocking and I would be extremely disappointed. If it's a more recent friend, who I also would only call a friend, not a really good friend, or best friend, then that would be unfortunate, but the connection isn't all that solid, so it's certainly not seen as an obligation by any means in that case.

Part of what you left out as well, was how everyone else who's tied to me closely plays into it financially. If some of those close people have the capability to pay for my treatment, but won't, even though they want me to live, then that has to be taken into account. Just because they don't want to pay, isn't an excuse, if they truly want me to live. If they don't care enough to help me survive, should any blame be put on them, and does it really matter much if the friend backs out then? If these close people can't pay or don't have connections to help in some way, then I'd be thankful for their prayers, but that's just the way it is in that case.

The question isn't a good one to pose to me in general, because while I obviously value my life, I'm fully aware that I'm not as special or crucial as some people make themselves out to be, and I realize the world is far from a perfect place, and never will be. If that was the situation, and there wasn't anything I could do about it, then that's just the way it would be. Would I hope they would continue to help by paying, sure, but I wouldn't expect it. I don't control them, and they don't control me, which is part of what makes us friends.

There's little reason to legitimately hate or blame that somewhat recent friend, because they didn't give me cancer. They also tried to help, instead of just letting me die much earlier. What about the time I was given due to the initial payments that I wouldn't have had otherwise? Did the help I gave that friend save their life? How much did it cost me? Have they done enough to pay me back even steven? What if I could never pay them back no matter what I did going forward? Is that fair, if they would've paid me back a thousand times over by continuing to pay? What if over time, the cancer keeps returning regardless? When does the friends status change to something else, like an informal caregiver, or my own personal philanthropist?

I seriously could just keep asking relevant questions that need to be taken into account, but I think I've made the point. If you or anyone else can't see any logic in what I've said here, then I can only assume it's because you're basing this mostly off of feelings, and feelings don't outweigh facts in the real world, at least not if you want stability anyway.

Everything that has a beginning has an end, and everything that happens in between is due to either fate, or everyone's choices, neither of which can be controlled, other than the choices we ourselves make, and we, are mere mortals.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:
Eric, imagine you had cancer. You don't have the money to pay for treatments that would save your life. But you have a friend that does have that money and offers to pay for your treatments because you've helped him in the past when he needed your help. Now imagine that friend is incredibly wealthy. Easily able to afford your treatment. And Imagine all the friends and family of your friend wants your friend to help you. Your friend pays and you fight that cancer as hard as you can. You and your friend know that the treatments are the only thing keeping you from dying of cancer and eventually you'll be in remission. But then....you friend stops paying for treatment. Now you're in relapse and the cancer has returned. And it's spreading.

And everybody is in absolute shock at your friend. Guess you'll just suffer and die then....right?

I'll start by saying not bad. An ok comparison. A few flaws, but I'll respond in a reasonable manner anyway.

I do have to point out the friendship here is crucial. The longer the friendship, the more it matters. If it's a lifelong friend then that certainly would be shocking and I would be extremely disappointed. If it's a more recent friend, who I also would only call a friend, not a really good friend, or best friend, then that would be unfortunate, but the connection isn't all that solid, so it's certainly not seen as an obligation by any means in that case.

Part of what you left out as well, was how everyone else who's tied to me closely plays into it financially. If some of those close people have the capability to pay for my treatment, but won't, even though they want me to live, then that has to be taken into account. Just because they don't want to pay, isn't an excuse, if they truly want me to live. If they don't care enough to help me survive, should any blame be put on them, and does it really matter much if the friend backs out then? If these close people can't pay or don't have connections to help in some way, then I'd be thankful for their prayers, but that's just the way it is in that case.

The question isn't a good one to pose to me in general, because while I obviously value my life, I'm fully aware that I'm not as special or crucial as some people make themselves out to be, and I realize the world is far from a perfect place, and never will be. If that was the situation, and there wasn't anything I could do about it, then that's just the way it would be. Would I hope they would continue to help by paying, sure, but I wouldn't expect it. I don't control them, and they don't control me, which is part of what makes us friends.

There's little reason to legitimately hate or blame that somewhat recent friend, because they didn't give me cancer. They also tried to help, instead of just letting me die much earlier. What about the time I was given due to the initial payments that I wouldn't have had otherwise? Did the help I gave that friend save their life? How much did it cost me? Have they done enough to pay me back even steven? What if I could never pay them back no matter what I did going forward? Is that fair, if they would've paid me back a thousand times over by continuing to pay? What if over time, the cancer keeps returning regardless? When does the friends status change to something else, like an informal caregiver, or my own personal philanthropist?

I seriously could just keep asking relevant questions that need to be taken into account, but I think I've made the point. If you or anyone else can't see any logic in what I've said here, then I can only assume it's because you're basing this mostly off of feelings, and feelings don't outweigh facts in the real world, at least not if you want stability anyway.

Everything that has a beginning has an end, and everything that happens in between is due to either fate, or everyone's choices, neither of which can be controlled, other than the choices we ourselves make, and we, are mere mortals.

So....you'll die then.  Got it.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Republicans just cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing after investigating her again on the email issue.

May #Butheremails finally rest in peace.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

The_Yoda said:

First off let me say I am in the camp (aka the seeming majority) that doesn't like that we screwed our allies .  That being said we have been meddling in that part of the world for decades.  PERHAPS if we had stayed the hell out of it all along we wouldn't be viewed as the Great Satan by some in the region and we would have no ISIS today.

In this instance as you have pointed out we weren't imposing ourselves in the region but we have many times before this which has created a great deal of hate for our country by many in that oil rich part of the world.  The middle east also is very rich in Hate not just oil. Not saying they are bad individuals but you have many "neighbors/groups" there that can't stand each other.

Let me preface this by saying:  Although I doubt it would have played out this way had we stood by our allies against Turkey ... Would you have rather been in full blown war with Turkey right now? Committing more American lives and resources, generating more hate?  I can understand DarthMettaliCube's position and more than a little of me wishes things were simple and we just minded our own business in that part of the world.  Alas things are rarely simple ...

I think you're imagining more disagreement than actually exists between us here.

I don't think we should be just imposing ourselves on other peoples without provocation either. I was against always against the Iraq War, for example. The fact is though that we did invade Iraq, that ISIS does exist, and that something had to be done in response, not just nothing like Tulsi Gabbard believes. If anything, the fact that we in many ways created that particular mess in the first place imposed a particular moral responsibility on us to play a role in cleaning it up, I believe. I also believe that, frankly, the SDF's cause was just enough to be worth aiding anyway. One does not commonly run across a force like them fighting for democratic principles, secular government, the rights of women, etc., in that part of the world. I for one sure like and respect the SDF a lot better than Turkey's current government.

I'm not anxious for more warfare in the Middle East than there must be, but I am saying that we sold these people who gave their lives for us out completely and utterly and that that's not okay.

Frankly, in the hypothetical instance you propose wherein Turkey might have invaded Northern Syria anyway, even if we didn't withdraw our forces standing in the way, I believe that would have constituted Turkey initiating war against us. You might ask them whether that would be justified rather than asking Americans whether defending, in this hypothetical alternative situation, both our allies and ourselves from a direct military attack from a "NATO ally" is acceptable. Why is the onus on us to prevent Turkey from launching a war on our forces rather than on Turkey not to do so in this hypothetical alternative universe you propose?

Last edited by Jaicee - on 19 October 2019

I apologize for the deluge of "agree" notifications, Jaicee, but I've been out of the thread for a while and you've been the strongest voice of reason in here on the Kurds, as well as the strongest voice of justice, so I couldn't help myself.

Everyone is making a big deal out of that letter like it isn't at the same level of maturity and command of the English language as everything else that comes out of his mouth.

The first instance of this being called what it is, genocide, by a member of Congress that I've seen so far:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/10/18/turkeys-war-syrian-kurds-approaching-genocide-blumenthal-says/4021680002/

Here is the commander in chief of the SDF, calling it a genocide, and explaining why they feel forced to turn to Russia and Assad for help now:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/

From that latter article:
"President Donald Trump has been promising for a long time to withdraw U.S. troops. We understand and sympathize. Fathers want to see their children laughing on their laps, lovers want to hear the voices of their partners whispering to them, everyone wants to go back to their homes.

We, however, are not asking for American soldiers to be in combat. We know that the United States is not the world police. But we do want the United States to acknowledge its important role in achieving a political solution for Syria. We are sure that Washington has sufficient leverage to mediate a sustainable peace between us and Turkey.

We believe in democracy as a core concept, but in light of the invasion by Turkey and the existential threat its attack poses for our people, we may have to reconsider our alliances. The Russians and the Syrian regime have made proposals that could save the lives of millions of people who live under our protection. We do not trust their promises. To be honest, it is hard to know whom to trust.

What’s clear is that the threat of the Islamic State is still present in a network of sleeper cells capable of mounting an insurgency. The large number of Islamic State prisoners in inadequate confinement are like a ticking time bomb that might explode at any time.

We know that we would have to make painful compromises with Moscow and Bashar al-Assad if we go down the road of working with them. But if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life for our people."

Edit: Also, fun fact, this isn't the Kurdish people's first genocide, so they're not going to throw that term around lightly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_genocide

Last edited by HylianSwordsman - on 19 October 2019

HylianSwordsman said:

I apologize for the deluge of "agree" notifications, Jaicee...

You're NOT forgiven!! How dare you agree with me?!