quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yeah, there's a clue in his forum username which says he'll come up with something.

Can't wait.

Meanwhile, this is an insight into what Southflorida-law is going through:



His gift of criticism is eating away at himself.

"I will write something above criticism but I can criticize anything I write."

A friend's son who served recently in Syria offered this thought. The Kurds are a reliable and worthy ally who are deserving of our support. But they lack much of the equipment necessary to pose a credible threat to the Turks. The Kurds need to be equipped and trained. They are fierce fighters and a properly equipped Kurdish force would make the Turks think twice before attacking. As he said, we can't and shouldn't stay forever. Equip the Kurds. Train them. It would take about a year. Then leave.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
A friend's son who served recently in Syria offered this thought. The Kurds are a reliable and worthy ally who are deserving of our support. But they lack much of the equipment necessary to pose a credible threat to the Turks. The Kurds need to be equipped and trained. They are fierce fighters and a properly equipped Kurdish force would make the Turks think twice before attacking. As he said, we can't and shouldn't stay forever. Equip the Kurds. Train them. It would take about a year. Then leave.

That seems to be the plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
A friend's son who served recently in Syria offered this thought. The Kurds are a reliable and worthy ally who are deserving of our support. But they lack much of the equipment necessary to pose a credible threat to the Turks. The Kurds need to be equipped and trained. They are fierce fighters and a properly equipped Kurdish force would make the Turks think twice before attacking. As he said, we can't and shouldn't stay forever. Equip the Kurds. Train them. It would take about a year. Then leave.

That seems to be the plan.

And there you go. Asked and answered. Endless war, killing our servive folks while tying one hand behind their backs?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

I would like the prevailing world opinion that no one wants the American Military to show up. When that happens shit is going to be destroyed and peeps killified.
None of this namby pamby police action

50 soldiers,all this hullabaloo over removing 50 soldiers??? Boggles my imagination.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:


Para. I understand the edit but I have seen so much equipment and arms left behind. Does that count as supplying their effort?

The image is superfluous to include in your reply; it clutters the page.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:....

So, Southflorida-law, please grace us from your bounty.

There is no policy regarding the Kurds. Never has been. Our policy has been to keep Turkey "happy" but that is pretty cold war thinking.

What should it be in a perfect world? Considering Iran, Turkey's current issues, Syria (which is far from stable) and the slow rebuilding of Iraq (again) "I" would put a lot more money into the Kurds in Iraq and push for a semi-autonomous region (as was on the table back during Gulf 1 and 2, so I didnt think of this) This keeps Iran and Turkey at bay with a buffer against Turkey as it destabilizes. I would also keep a small contingent of US Troops in Syria with the Kurds keeping ISIS down and keeping Turkey from coming into Syria. In essence actually have a Kurdish policy.

Obama shit the bed when he pulled us out of Iraq and created the vacuum for Russia, Iran and ISIS to grow. As Colin Powell said, you break it you buy it. Long, long term policy should be a Kurdistan and one friendly to the USA. Most Kurds are Sunni, and the US has dumped a big amount of money into the Saudi's so it would seem logical to support the Kurds the same way. Turkey will get way worse before (or if) it gets better and, as stated, Syria is a long way away from becoming stable.

Best I can do on short notice. As long as we are allies with Israel we will be in that region and Gulf 2, like it or not, made us a major player. We just cant pull up stakes and leave, history shows us when we do its twice as bad when we have to go back.

Hope this has lived up to all of your expectations!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...uVqO?ocid=spartandhp

I am surprised that this happened that quickly... Turkey should be kicked out of nato and have economic sanctions.

And I wouldn't be upset if the US dumped some oridnace on them either.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:....

So, Southflorida-law, please grace us from your bounty.

Hope this has lived up to all of your expectations!

Good answer but it left me short of awe.

What you propose seems akin to the status quo. Much like what you describe as no policy at all.

It seems like your policy is to pour endless money into supporting a semi-autonomous state (undefined and unsupported by the nations in the region) to create a state out of an ethnic identity. How is that not the act of nation-building
- and with our troops and military power ta boot?

How many generations would you propose to be there to make "Kurdistan" stick with the nations there who reject it?

Current actions seem to bolster your fears of what may happen to the Kurds but can you point to the Kurdish government who can stabilize the regional interests of the Kurds?

For generations, they haven't seemed to be able to muster that kind of leadership. They have had generations to work on it.

Have you seen a Kurdish delegation going to the affected countries in the region for talks about stabilizing a "Kurdistan" out the the other countries?

At one point do we realize that it's not the Kurds' leadership but ours that is wanting to build a nation?

And, if we do, why isn't Congress involved to commit troops and funds as a line item in the budget to produce that result?

If we are going to build a country that hasn't built itself for generations, why is the onus on our president and not Congress?

If we are going to do what you recommend, wouldn't we need a treaty for such a sweeping multi-generational commitment?

Personally, I don’t mind my tax dollars being used to help train and equip the Kurds. But I’m sick of our military being used as the world’s police force. I’ve had several friends and family members that have served or are currently serving and I wonder if the people that are so quick to send/keep our military in these sand heap countries have ever had flesh and blood relatives on the line in these places. If not, you really need to think twice before asserting your hawkish opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
...but what will the ___________ people do without the US Armed Forces boots on the ground on every street corner. (Fill in any threatened humans)


In all seriousness maybe they should invade Chicago.

Just turn it over to UN Peacekeepers

Given the shitty conditions in shitcago, I thought the UN had already taken over.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:....

So, Southflorida-law, please grace us from your bounty.

Hope this has lived up to all of your expectations!

Good answer but it left me short of awe.

What you propose seems akin to the status quo. Much like what you describe as no policy at all.

It seems like your policy is to pour endless money into supporting a semi-autonomous state (undefined and unsupported by the nations in the region) to create a state out of an ethnic identity. How is that not the act of nation-building
- and with our troops and military power ta boot?

How many generations would you propose to be there to make "Kurdistan" stick with the nations there who reject it?

Current actions seem to bolster your fears of what may happen to the Kurds but can you point to the Kurdish government who can stabilize the regional interests of the Kurds?

For generations, they haven't seemed to be able to muster that kind of leadership. They have had generations to work on it.

Have you seen a Kurdish delegation going to the affected countries in the region for talks about stabilizing a "Kurdistan" out the the other countries?

At one point do we realize that it's not the Kurds' leadership but ours that is wanting to build a nation?

And, if we do, why isn't Congress involved to commit troops and funds as a line item in the budget to produce that result?

If we are going to build a country that hasn't built itself for generations, why is the onus on our president and not Congress?

If we are going to do what you recommend, wouldn't we need a treaty for such a sweeping multi-generational commitment?

This idea is not unique. How many years have we been in Korea?

But I get it , there is no good answer to this problem but we know when we dont deal with it on their soil it ends up on our soil in the form of bombings. When we lost interest in Afghanistan, how many years did it take to come back to haunt us?

As to why the Kurds have not "done something sooner", well, we allowed them to be gas, shot and killed for years and years. Iraq was gassing the Kurds constantly, even when we were supporting Iraq against Iran. Kurds have been victims of genocide for generations. Gulf 2 was the first time pretty much since the fall of the Ottoman Empire that the Kurds had a fighting chance and they have done amazing. Dont forget that the West screwed them royally in 1920 when they reneged on a real Kurdistan making them a minority in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran.

We are handing over that whole region to Russia and Iran. And what message does it send to Iran if the US is not willing to keep a nominal amount of troops in Syria, do they really think Trump will make any move against them? Iran has taken US Sailors, shot down drones, taken oil tankers, shot drones and cruise missiles against the Saudi's and actively took part in Syria, and the US response has been what? And now we are abandoning our only ally in that area.

How long do you think it will be until we are having to decide whether or not to defend Israel? Where is the "long game" thought process?

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:....

So, Southflorida-law, please grace us from your bounty.

Hope this has lived up to all of your expectations!

Good answer but it left me short of awe.

What you propose seems akin to the status quo. Much like what you describe as no policy at all.

It seems like your policy is to pour endless money into supporting a semi-autonomous state (undefined and unsupported by the nations in the region) to create a state out of an ethnic identity. How is that not the act of nation-building
- and with our troops and military power ta boot?

How many generations would you propose to be there to make "Kurdistan" stick with the nations there who reject it?

Current actions seem to bolster your fears of what may happen to the Kurds but can you point to the Kurdish government who can stabilize the regional interests of the Kurds?

For generations, they haven't seemed to be able to muster that kind of leadership. They have had generations to work on it.

Have you seen a Kurdish delegation going to the affected countries in the region for talks about stabilizing a "Kurdistan" out the the other countries?

At one point do we realize that it's not the Kurds' leadership but ours that is wanting to build a nation?

And, if we do, why isn't Congress involved to commit troops and funds as a line item in the budget to produce that result?

If we are going to build a country that hasn't built itself for generations, why is the onus on our president and not Congress?

If we are going to do what you recommend, wouldn't we need a treaty for such a sweeping multi-generational commitment?

This idea is not unique. How many years have we been in Korea?

But I get it , there is no good answer to this problem but we know when we dont deal with it on their soil it ends up on our soil in the form of bombings. When we lost interest in Afghanistan, how many years did it take to come back to haunt us?

As to why the Kurds have not "done something sooner", well, we allowed them to be gas, shot and killed for years and years. Iraq was gassing the Kurds constantly, even when we were supporting Iraq against Iran. Kurds have been victims of genocide for generations. Gulf 2 was the first time pretty much since the fall of the Ottoman Empire that the Kurds had a fighting chance and they have done amazing. Dont forget that the West screwed them royally in 1920 when they reneged on a real Kurdistan making them a minority in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran.

We are handing over that whole region to Russia and Iran. And what message does it send to Iran if the US is not willing to keep a nominal amount of troops in Syria, do they really think Trump will make any move against them? Iran has taken US Sailors, shot down drones, taken oil tankers, shot drones and cruise missiles against the Saudi's and actively took part in Syria, and the US response has been what? And now we are abandoning our only ally in that area.

How long do you think it will be until we are having to decide whether or not to defend Israel? Where is the "long game" thought process?

It reminds me of Leviathan. Have enough money to have some poor schmuck mercenary hire themselves out to die for you.

If the Kurds can get us to pay and die for them then we're the schmucks.

The Kurds have had this problem from before the 20s. So why is it to be our problem instead of Saudi Arabia or other nations in the region? The problem ante-dated us.

It seems you get the point that there's no unassailable answer, only choices among bad alternatives.

Strategically, I'd like to see a Kurdistan that's strong and democratic but, frankly, we have not been able to pull that off.

So, strategically, the president is offering financial support, diplomatic support and weapons to help the Kurds find their own footing.

Besides, it is not clear that the Kurds would do anything but resent us no matter what we do. There is no guaranty that they would be the kind of state we want. Only hope is what we'd have no matter what we do.

Who would internationally recognize an independent Kurdistan? Who would reach out to give Kurdistan diplomatic legitimacy?

I'd like to think we'd be first in line as they found their own way with indigenous statesmanship.

Sebastian Gorka/America First on the Kurdish situation...start at the 3:00 mark.

Damn! My man S. FL Law delivers.

The fuck I'm paying (troops lives/money) to make a country and protect said country. That shit is nuts. To carve land from two or three countries and protect those borders would take a worldwide effort. We could do it on our own, but it would be expensive as fuck (lots and lots of money and caskets of kids). I'm not even sure I'd support a multinational effort to create a state and steal land to make it.

Wow, man wow, I'm glad you're not in charge of my money or national policy.

I highly encourage everyone to take 5 minutes and watch this video of the president talking about his hardest job. He made these remarks today talking about how all these 'tough guys' are in favor of endless wars and military commitments, but what it means in real world terms for so many families in this country. Very emotional.




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/BlpZihIL2nA

^^^There is not counter argument for that. If it does not serve our interests, it's not worth our boys lives. As POTUS, if he can't tell that mother or wife in good conscience that they died for their country, how do you justify it? You can't.

Send them some small arms, missiles, and MRAPs and tell them good luck. The only problem I have is the abruptness and a sense of duty to them for fighting alongside of us. That duty only stretches so far.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Damn! My man S. FL Law delivers.

The fuck I'm paying (troops lives/money) to make a country and protect said country. That shit is nuts. To carve land from two or three countries and protect those borders would take a worldwide effort. We could do it on our own, but it would be expensive as fuck (lots and lots of money and caskets of kids). I'm not even sure I'd support a multinational effort to create a state and steal land to make it.

Wow, man wow, I'm glad you're not in charge of my money or national policy.

It would seem some would like the United States to be an Empire while others would like for us to simply be a Nation. I suppose we need to decide which we want to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
What should it be in a perfect world? Considering Iran, Turkey's current issues, Syria (which is far from stable) and the slow rebuilding of Iraq (again) "I" would put a lot more money into the Kurds in Iraq and push for a semi-autonomous region (as was on the table back during Gulf 1 and 2, so I didnt think of this) This keeps Iran and Turkey at bay with a buffer against Turkey as it destabilizes. I would also keep a small contingent of US Troops in Syria with the Kurds keeping ISIS down and keeping Turkey from coming into Syria. In essence actually have a Kurdish policy.

How much money would you spend? Who would you displace for the Kurds semi-autonomous region (what, no country)? How would you push and who would you push for this semi-autonomous region? What exactly is a semi-autonomous region and how would it be governed? How many troops does a small contingent consist of and how would they be equipped? How would you stop them from being overrun if push came to shove? Most important, how long would YOU be willing to stay?