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

No, that would be an attack against a NATO member. Until Turkey leaves NATO that cannot be tolerated. That would be disastrous.

You're going to have to come to grips with the fact that bad things happen all over the world. And the United States is not the world's police force.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:
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.

Amazing! The feminist, communist, atheist, non cis-gendered moderate rebels.

Kurds lived peacefully under Assad's Syria - no need for another violent regime change attempt in the Middle East.



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

You're looking at this issue in reverse. the US must protect these people, no need to go to war with Turkey.

Now if Turkey decides to go to war with the US cause they US protects these people then yes, I say beat the shit out of Turkey, NATO ally or not.



That you are arguing for what amounts to the dissolution of the largest and most effective alliance in the history of the globe really makes me wonder how personal this conflict is to you.



Megiddo said:
That you are arguing for what amounts to the dissolution of the largest and most effective alliance in the history of the globe really makes me wonder how personal this conflict is to you.

You should quote the people you reply to cause I don't know if you are replying to me or someone else.

But assuming it's me:

I'm not arguing for the dissolution of NATO, you are simply one sided in this matter. You seem to have a problem with the US going to war with Turkey over the NATO situation and technically you are right, but Turkey going to war against the US does not seem to bother your belief that NATO must be preserved. Let me remind you that the US is ALSO a NATO member, and in this example the US is not going to war against Turkey, the US would be protecting people without going to war. There's a difference between defending and attacking.

And from that point it's up to Turkey to remember that the US is a NATO member and therefore it should not attack the US.



Around the Network

The thing is, NATO does not support the Kurds and is at best neutral with the YPG. It will side with Turkey in a heartbeat in any conflict.

President Obama had even promised that he would assist so that Kurds were no longer east of the Euphrates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/biden-visits-turkey-on-mission-to-repair-strained-relations/2016/08/24/bc684904-6a04-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?utm_term=.95dab3f46bdd



Jaicee said:
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!

I guess my logic though, with why I didn't vote, is that voting for Hillary Clinton, while the lesser of two evils, is still something that I couldn't bring myself to do, and in the grand scheme of things I'm just one person, so my vote itself didn't change the outcome of the election.



Megiddo said:
That you are arguing for what amounts to the dissolution of the largest and most effective alliance in the history of the globe really makes me wonder how personal this conflict is to you.

First of all, in my mind, NATO has never exactly been much of a force for good in the world. It's just a particular branch of American imperialism focused mainly on curbing Russian influence abroad by any, and I mean ANY, means. That in the first place. But more directly to the point at hand, "NATO ally" Turkey currently enjoys a warmer relationship precisely to Russia than they do with us. Hence why they just got through meeting with Russia's Putin and Iran's Rouhani to decide the future of Syria. You'll notice there were no other NATO members involved, nor even representatives of what formally is Syria's government. Just Turkey and NATO opponents.

What I'm trying to tell you here is that Turkey these days is a NATO ally on paper only. Functionally, they are aligned with Russia's geopolitics and interests these days, in fundamental contrast to the whole purpose of NATO. I'm hence unsure of just how it is that WE would be the ones tearing up NATO were we to in any way challenge Turkey's unilateral actions in Syria against the very forces that just recently drove ISIS out of their self-declared caliphate.



So it would seem that the true goal, rather than simply griping about the US not attacking a NATO ally, would be instead for the Kurds to enlist the support of more NATO countries, enough so to oust Turkey from NATO.  Since NATO is established to thwart Russian influence and Turkey is seemingly a powerful Russian ally, surely more can be done on that front.



VGPolyglot said:

I guess my logic though, with why I didn't vote, is that voting for Hillary Clinton, while the lesser of two evils, is still something that I couldn't bring myself to do, and in the grand scheme of things I'm just one person, so my vote itself didn't change the outcome of the election.

It could be argued that many leftists thinking impractically like that is precisely why Donald Trump is our president right now.