Forums - Politics Discussion - U.S. to Abandon Syrian Kurds

Jaicee said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, essentially they were the only viable choices in the election, but not choosing either was the choice that I made. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger like Trump (despite his lies to the contrary), and I just couldn't justify voting for either of them.

Being as your profile describes you as Canadian, I'm not surprised that you decided to refrain from voting the in 2016 United States election. My guess is that you'll be sitting out the American midterm elections later this year 'in protest' as well? ;)

I guess sometimes I just don't understand the kind of simplistic, utopian lack of pragmatism described above, which is of a kind that I notice occasionally on the far left. In any event, the matter of Syria was hardly the only reason I voted the way I did anyway. But I'd rather this thread not devolve into a rehashing of the 2016 election. One will hence notice that I placed my only thereon in parentheses back in the OP.

I was born in Michigan, and still have American citizenship.



Around the Network
Megiddo said:

The US helped against ISIS. That's what it was always about. Deposing dictators and pissing off Turkey even more ain't the US's job. Especially if there isn't much in terms of resources to be taken. That's a big reason why I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary. The US doesn't have a particularly good batting average when it comes to sudden regime change, and that's exactly the way Secretary Clinton had been talking, escalating the conflict to something far greater than just eliminating the ISIS threat.

Yes well, some of care about more than just American lives and well-being. Like our comrades.

VGPolyglot said:

I was born in Michigan, and still have American citizenship.

Aaaah, that makes more sense!



Comrades like what? Do you consider Bin Laden a comrade? You are aware of the history that the US has in messing with that region, correct? The stinger missiles that Al-Qaida and the Taliban used were American, meant to be used against the Soviets. That backfired. The area is a complete mess. The more America stays away and leaves it, the better.

Last edited by Megiddo - on 05 April 2018

Megiddo said:
Comrades like what? Do you consider Bin Laden a comrade? You are aware of the history that the US has in messing with that region, correct?

I was referring, of course, to the Kurdish anarchists whose fate is the central question of this thread.

Also, Bin Laden is dead, if you hadn't noticed. I mean what on Earth are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to somehow label me a jihadist or a terrorist because I support the struggle of communalist, pro-democratic forces in another country and want what I (and they) feel is in their best interests? Are you really that lacking in your capacity for grasping nuance?

Last edited by Jaicee - on 05 April 2018

No, I'm showing what a failure U.S. intervention has had in the Middle East. Something that you have not acknowledged.

In case you do not understand that was a failure, I invite you to read and study a bit.

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html

We armed rebels who were fighting against the Soviets. They then used the US training, weapons, and money given to them to become one of history's deadliest terroist organizations.



Around the Network

That's what the world is to powerful people and governments: a chess board and the weaker people are simple pawns.
Nothing to see here folk, just business as usual. I'm way beyond being disappointed or disgusted, I'm used to this filth called humanity and when you get used to it, you just don't care anymore.



The US uses desperate people then moves on, it's a running theme in their history, don't trust power



Megiddo said:

No, I'm showing what a failure U.S. intervention has had in the Middle East. Something that you have not acknowledged.

In case you do not understand that was a failure, I invite you to read and study a bit.

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html

We armed rebels who were fighting against the Soviets. They then used the US training, weapons, and money given to them to become one of history's deadliest terroist organizations.

I believe you're doing some rhetorical gymnastics here to avoid addressing the specific situation that I've highlighted in the OP. We can talk about the immorality of American imperialism in the abstract all day long, but doing so will not stop an indisputably progressive army in Syria that cannot survive without some measure of foreign aid from being crushed and drowned in blood by various Russian-backed police states, now will it? You can comfortably deal in the abstract from the other side of the globe. I think the people on the ground prefer the concrete.

Moralizing about the impure motives of the American government won't help the Kurdish people on the battlefield. It won't save their lives or the territories they have liberated. You know good and well that there is no comparison between what these fighters stand for (participatory democracy, communalism, secularism, feminism, etc.) and what the Islamic Mujahadeen in Afghanistan stood for in their fight against egalitarian land redistribution and subsequent Soviet military occupation. I would prefer that my intelligence not be insulted by such disingenuous comparisons as that.



So would you have America go to war against Turkey and its allies to save these people?



Megiddo said:
So would you have America go to war against Turkey and its allies to save these people?

Within parameters (such as not actually invading Turkey), if need be, yes! I sincerely believe their cause to be sufficiently noble. I really don't think such a war would be required though. Realistically, a simple show of force, such as helping the Kurds expel the Turkish troops that have taken over Afrin, would be sufficient to quell the situation between Turkey and the SDF for the time being. It would cause Turkey to think twice about taking such brazen steps in the future.