NY Post Story on Hunter Biden quickly unraveling.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,550
Reaction score
2,847
Points
265
There is no way Turkey, as a NATO member would have attacked while US troops were stationed there and the US was giving clear security assurances. Indeed Turkey and Greece have serious disputes over territory but since Cyprus invasion Turkey is not using force against them due to NATO pressure.

And the proof is in the pudding, Turkey did not attack while the US was there, it attacked days after Trump's disgraceful withdrawal.
I never said or implied Turkey would attack US troops if we tried to guarantee or assure the Kurds they would have their own nation which is what they are after, and that frightens and angers Turkey.
So that's a red herring from you...
No. Actually, these Syrian Kurds are viewed as terrorists by NATO ally Turkey, and Turkey announced that they would not be allowed within a particular range of their border, which at the time contained both Kurds and 50 US advisors. The Kurds were not being clear about whether they would withdraw to outside the buffer zone Turkey was insisting on, and since the original mission of these 50 US advisors had been fulfilled, Trump moved them, which, the Left and the Anti-Trumpers screamed was "a sell out of the Kurds". Now personally I have no use for the leader of Turkey and I have great sympathy for the Kurds, but, these same bastards that claim Trump should have left these 50 advisors there, would also scream the loudest if they got killed, or even scream louder if they started shooting at Turkish forces.

We did not "sell out the Kurds."

About 500 U.S. troops remain in Syria. They protect the Kurds, secure the Kurd's oil and continue stamping out ISIS sleeper cells.

The Syrian regime now occupies more of it's former country, with Russian help and wants to recover control of the rest of it, which includes this land that the Kurds now occupy.

So now, in addition to the myriad dangers already present, U.S. patrols increasingly encounter regime militias and Russian convoys. The potential for conflict is high, difficult to navigate and so far, Trump has navigated about as well as could be hoped for.

The U.S. troops are typically optimistic are focused on their mission.

1604376137919.png

Protecting the Kurd's oil is a Trump stated objective. It deprives hostile actors -- Russia, Turkey, Syria and of course ISIS -- of an important resource, and it gives Kurds the means to provide for themselves in the hopes that a future political solution is reached.

1604376262105.png

Turkey has to be considered, the Syrian regime is hungry to retake more of it's former territory and the Russians back them. It's a first rate farce that the warmongering clowns think it's in our national interest to put our troops in the middle two front war for a Kurdish homeland in Syria. There are Kurds in Iran as well, so it could probably become a 3 front war, very quickly.

These same rotten bastards would immediately become anti- Trump war protestors as soon as the body bags started coming in. It's a tough position, the Kurds have my sympathy, but, this is the limit of what we can do for them at the moment. But, if anyone here wants to put their own lives on the line, or the lives of their sons or daughters, I'm sure Kurds would welcome the help. They should probably fly to Turkey and try to infiltrate from there.

Or, they should petition their Congressperson to submit a bill authorizing Trump to use force to do whatever it is that they would like to see done.

I'm no fan of Turkey, I wish Istanbul was still Constantinople, but, we operate in the real world, and Turkey occupies key real estate important for containing Russia.
 
Last edited:

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,689
Reaction score
23,663
Points
2,180
When did we promise to protect the Kurds?
We assisted them when we had common goals. I'm not aware of any agreement where we promised
to help them carve out a Kurdish nation in the middle of four hostile nations.

We never proposed to carve out a Kurdish nation but rather as we did with the Kurds in Iraq for several decades protect them until Syria settles and they can negotiate with the Syrian government.

Most of all protect them from Turkey.

Of course Pompeo pretends he does not know this, he had to sell Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.

But it was so well known as I posted a link above even many Republicans thought it a disgrace to America, as it was.
You think Americans should be stationed in a war zone for several decades so the kurds can cut a deal with Syia? Tell you what, since you are so keen on that policy, why don't you worthless Aussies send your boys over there to get shot? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,689
Reaction score
23,663
Points
2,180
No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.
One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?


I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.

If you agree good.

Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?

And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychotic

Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?

As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
No, and the 97% figure is a hoax. Belief in it is proof that you're gullible.
 

Jake Winker Frogen

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
534
Points
908
No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.
One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?


I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.

If you agree good.

Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?

And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychotic

Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?

As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
No, and the 97% figure is a hoax. Belief in it is proof that you're gullible.

There we go, no wonder you post long winded jibberish that has no science in it.

I think I will go with the majority of climate scientists thank you.
 

Jake Winker Frogen

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
534
Points
908
When did we promise to protect the Kurds?
We assisted them when we had common goals. I'm not aware of any agreement where we promised
to help them carve out a Kurdish nation in the middle of four hostile nations.

We never proposed to carve out a Kurdish nation but rather as we did with the Kurds in Iraq for several decades protect them until Syria settles and they can negotiate with the Syrian government.

Most of all protect them from Turkey.

Of course Pompeo pretends he does not know this, he had to sell Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.

But it was so well known as I posted a link above even many Republicans thought it a disgrace to America, as it was.
You think Americans should be stationed in a war zone for several decades so the kurds can cut a deal with Syia? Tell you what, since you are so keen on that policy, why don't you worthless Aussies send your boys over there to get shot? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
We did go into both Afghanistan and Iraqi with you. If we knew how incompetent American planning would be we would not have.

Still the Kurdish protection plan was clear with the Iraqi Kurd blueprint.
The Kurds did most of the heavy lifting against ISIS for the US, losing 12.000 fighters and the US betrayed them.

The region noticed.

It is not a good look for a world power to turn tail, betray allies and run. Especially when the fight was won.

Even many Republicans felt shame on this one.

Though we all know Trump does not do shame.

 

Jake Winker Frogen

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
534
Points
908
The Greatest Generation of Americans would not do this, but like I said your generation is a long way from great, or even competent when it comes to war and the aftermath.
 

Jake Winker Frogen

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
534
Points
908
There is no way Turkey, as a NATO member would have attacked while US troops were stationed there and the US was giving clear security assurances. Indeed Turkey and Greece have serious disputes over territory but since Cyprus invasion Turkey is not using force against them due to NATO pressure.

And the proof is in the pudding, Turkey did not attack while the US was there, it attacked days after Trump's disgraceful withdrawal.
I never said or implied Turkey would attack US troops if we tried to guarantee or assure the Kurds they would have their own nation which is what they are after, and that frightens and angers Turkey.
So that's a red herring from you...
No. Actually, these Syrian Kurds are viewed as terrorists by NATO ally Turkey, and Turkey announced that they would not be allowed within a particular range of their border, which at the time contained both Kurds and 50 US advisors. The Kurds were not being clear about whether they would withdraw to outside the buffer zone Turkey was insisting on, and since the original mission of these 50 US advisors had been fulfilled, Trump moved them, which, the Left and the Anti-Trumpers screamed was "a sell out of the Kurds". Now personally I have no use for the leader of Turkey and I have great sympathy for the Kurds, but, these same bastards that claim Trump should have left these 50 advisors there, would also scream the loudest if they got killed, or even scream louder if they started shooting at Turkish forces.

We did not "sell out the Kurds."

About 500 U.S. troops remain in Syria. They protect the Kurds, secure the Kurd's oil and continue stamping out ISIS sleeper cells.

The Syrian regime now occupies more of it's former country, with Russian help and wants to recover control of the rest of it, which includes this land that the Kurds now occupy.

So now, in addition to the myriad dangers already present, U.S. patrols increasingly encounter regime militias and Russian convoys. The potential for conflict is high, difficult to navigate and so far, Trump has navigated about as well as could be hoped for.

The U.S. troops are typically optimistic are focused on their mission.

Protecting the Kurd's oil is a Trump stated objective. It deprives hostile actors -- Russia, Turkey, Syria and of course ISIS -- of an important resource, and it gives Kurds the means to provide for themselves in the hopes that a future political solution is reached.


Turkey has to be considered, the Syrian regime is hungry to retake more of it's former territory and the Russians back them. It's a first rate farce that the warmongering clowns think it's in our national interest to put our troops in the middle two front war for a Kurdish homeland in Syria. There are Kurds in Iran as well, so it could probably become a 3 front war, very quickly.

These same rotten bastards would immediately become anti- Trump war protestors as soon as the body bags started coming in. It's a tough position, the Kurds have my sympathy, but, this is the limit of what we can do for them at the moment. But, if anyone here wants to put their own lives on the line, or the lives of their sons or daughters, I'm sure Kurds would welcome the help. They should probably fly to Turkey and try to infiltrate from there.

Or, they should petition their Congressperson to submit a bill authorizing Trump to use force to do whatever it is that they would like to see done.

I'm no fan of Turkey, I wish Istanbul was still Constantinople, but, we operate in the real world, and Turkey occupies key real estate important for containing Russia.

The Syrian Kurds are viewed as terrorists by Turkey, all Kurds are.

NATO refused stating they are allies.

The the Kurdish PKK in Turkey is not the YPG Kurds who defeated ISIS in Syria.

 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,944
Reaction score
1,335
Points
185
No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.
One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?


I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.

If you agree good.

Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?

And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychotic

Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?

As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
You want a scientific link for thermodynamics? Pretty sure it falls under the realm of common knowledge. OooKay.

Without even reading the link I can tell you that energy is neither created or destroyed, only transferred into another form. Remember this very important point as you’re reading. Point being it takes a fuck ton of photons (light particle from the sun), in the way we receive them from the sun, to heat up water. Since we don’t have a giant magnifying glass in space to help direct photons, instead we need to use both massive amounts of surface area, as well as highly toxic chemicals in order to catch and TRANSFER (where the highly environmental toxic chemicals come into place) enough photons into useable energy on the same scale as traditional methods of power generation which involve using a fuel (not to mean gasoline, but something to burn for energy)to boil water in order to spin a turbine attached to an alternator (a coil of wires around a line with electrical current that generates power when spun). Power generation done in the form of using an alternator is a very simple and effective method to create a current, with many ways to maximize mechanical energy into electrical energy. If you were to buy one of those emergency solar panel chargers to charge your phone, it’d take all day to charge it before the sun goes down, as long as it’s sunny all day, and as long as your holding the panel at the right angel to maximize the amount of photons the panel catches. Just to paint a picture on how ineffective a method that is. I can’t put that in any more simple terms.

The second law of thermodynamics is ENTROPY, meaning that all systems devolve, break down, and shed precious energy, usually in the form of heat. This is where solar runs into its second problem. Solar uses a chemical reaction between 2 chemicals to transfer 1 electron from one molecule to another (oxidation and reduction), creating an electrical current. This is a highly entropic system to use, and there is no realistic way to maintain the equipment involved in solar in order to fight the entropy based on the nature of it. Once enough electrons have transferred from one chemical to the other, there is no more oxidation or reduction available to either chemical. The chemicals are useless. They are useless but still very environmentally toxic, and need to be dumped somewhere (usually a third world country that we pay to take it and turn a blind eye too). The best we can make solar panels longevity wise, while still producing enough power, is 10 years. Mind you the more power you want to generate with solar, the more surface area you need to use (consequently the more trees and environment you need to destroy) the more panels you need to create (consequently the more toxic waste you need to create). Let’s not forget, the process of producing panels itself is very costly, both monetarily and energy wise. There is a steep carbon cost in manufacturing the panels, placing the panels, refining the chemicals, mining the chemicals and materials, etc. Especially when compared to a one time build of a power plant that uses minimal land, and can easily be maintained for 80 years (really longer if it wasn’t for the fact technology would make it obsolete). Granted all except nuclear use carbon in the process to heat water. Which is precisely why anyone who is fighting against climate change, and is against nuclear is a complete fraud, and completely anti-science. But this is where MJ/kg come into the equation. MJ is basically a measure of the amount of stored energy in a substance. The more stored energy in a substance, the less needed to be consumed (by fire) in order to heat up water. This is why natural gas is a great alternative to coal. It’s also incredibly abundant thanks to fracking, which is a very novel method (meaning still has a long way to go), but even at its current state is still way cleaner than traditional mining. Hopefully nuclear and fusion (We have a fusion plant coming very soon) can completely replace the need for any type of carbon based fuel.

Now, if you can use a little bit of critical thinking, you could put two and two together, and can see exactly where I stand on AGW. Boiling water is our only renewable resource. Why the fuck would I be for the side that is pushing solar? I’m also not apocalyptic on the science, BECAUSE THE SCIENCE ITSELF IS NOT APOCALYPTIC. According to the Nobel prize winning report a mere 3 years ago, as financed by the UN, AT WORST (and least likely scenario), we’re looking at a 5% GDP cost globally in fighting climate change if we were to continue down the path were on. 5% isn’t nothing, it’s also not even close to the goddamn apocalypse, and does not justify a complete imposition of poverty on the global citizenry, like the climate alarmist suggest in so many words. 5% cost GDP globally is also NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Technology is constantly evolving for the better/more efficient. Humans are constantly adapting for the better/more efficient. That prediction, based on those parameters (continuing down the path were on), would be like predicting in the 90s that blockbusters stock price is going to be waaaay up there in 30 years. Like I stated earlier were building a fusion reactor (something we should’ve been building at least 30 years ago). The people in the way of our progress in eliminating carbon emissions are the climate alarmist fucks pushing for solar energy, and actively fighting things like nuclear power, and hydrogen combustible engines (another whole topic I don’t have the patience to explain to you). There is no way to look at the science, and see what the left is pushing, and not come to the conclusion that they’re using climate alarmism as a power grab. Their particular form of climate alarmism will actually cause more harm to the environment than the worst caricature of an evil oil magnate that you could conceive.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,689
Reaction score
23,663
Points
2,180
No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.
One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?


I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.

If you agree good.

Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?

And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychotic

Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?

As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
No, and the 97% figure is a hoax. Belief in it is proof that you're gullible.

There we go, no wonder you post long winded jibberish that has no science in it.

I think I will go with the majority of climate scientists thank you.
Yeah, let's vote on it. That's real science!

The 97% Hoax: It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game - Dr. Rich Swier
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,689
Reaction score
23,663
Points
2,180
The Greatest Generation of Americans would not do this, but like I said your generation is a long way from great, or even competent when it comes to war and the aftermath.
You don't know my generation. I'm certainly not from the generation of foriegners who believe Americans are supposed to fight and die so they won't have to get off their sorry asses.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,689
Reaction score
23,663
Points
2,180
When did we promise to protect the Kurds?
We assisted them when we had common goals. I'm not aware of any agreement where we promised
to help them carve out a Kurdish nation in the middle of four hostile nations.

We never proposed to carve out a Kurdish nation but rather as we did with the Kurds in Iraq for several decades protect them until Syria settles and they can negotiate with the Syrian government.

Most of all protect them from Turkey.

Of course Pompeo pretends he does not know this, he had to sell Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.

But it was so well known as I posted a link above even many Republicans thought it a disgrace to America, as it was.
You think Americans should be stationed in a war zone for several decades so the kurds can cut a deal with Syia? Tell you what, since you are so keen on that policy, why don't you worthless Aussies send your boys over there to get shot? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
We did go into both Afghanistan and Iraqi with you. If we knew how incompetent American planning would be we would not have.
Don't ask me to defend George W Bush's stategy. I could spend all day attacking that fiasco.

Still the Kurdish protection plan was clear with the Iraqi Kurd blueprint. The Kurds did most of the heavy lifting against ISIS for the US, losing 12.000 fighters and the US betrayed them.
The Kurdish protection plan? Where is this document? Please post a link to it. We saved the Kurds from ISIS. We made no agreements with the Kurds. We just had a bunch of neocons insisting that we do.

The region noticed.
What form did this "notice" take

It is not a good look for a world power to turn tail, betray allies and run. Especially when the fight was won.

Even many Republicans felt shame on this one.

Though we all know Trump does not do shame.

Tell you what, why don't you Aussies send your boys over to Kurdistan so they can die in the thousands. Put your money where your mouth is.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
17,305
Reaction score
7,839
Points
400
This "outrage" is over a year old now and it must be seen as political posturing which is exactly what it is.
Removing US troops from the equation as Turkey began a campaign of military reprisals kept us out
of a complex web of long time grievances between Turkey and the Kurds and, necessarily, war..

.

Not being engaged in a long grudge filled war between ethnic enemies used to be seen as a
good thing. In the age of Trump anything is fodder for senseless animosities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top