US betrays Kurdish Allies

[Setton]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

You seem to have forgotten the original point, @Setton, which was that the Kurds did NOT attack ISIS because the West asked them to, but because ISIS attacked THEM. 

Except nobody claimed they did. 

They KEPT fighting ISIS, however, in exchange for US support. 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

What's your point? 

Are trainers somehow bulletproof? 

Can't see why not.

I've got steel-toecapped trainers for working in the workshop. They're probably bulletproof ? 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Except nobody claimed they did. 

They KEPT fighting ISIS, however, in exchange for US support. 

That is an assumption on your part. 

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Leaving aside that no one has suggested you actually fight anyone it's our countries that will suffer from a resurgent ISIS as a result of YOUR cowardice. So you're damn right we'll call you out on it. 

As I recall, you were happy enough to spend the lives of our brave young men and women in your idiotic revenge campaign in Afghan. And your pointless war in Iraq. 

Whatever. Nothing compared to our casualty figures from bailing your asses out in two pointless world wars you got us in to.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Whatever. Nothing compared to our casualty figures from bailing your asses out in two pointless world wars you got us in to.

You mean the ones you wouldn't enter for years unti you were attacked? 

The US is and always has been nothing more than a fair weather friend. 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

You mean the ones you wouldn't enter for years unti you were attacked? 

The US is and always has been nothing more than a fair weather friend. 

Quite the opposite. In fair weather we had contingency plans for war with you. Yet, when weather turned inclement, we put ourselves in harms way, aiding you, then entering once attacked. If you had decisively finished the first war, a war you should never have fought in the first place, there wouldn't have been a second. 

[ThereWeAreThen]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Quite the opposite. In fair weather we had contingency plans for war with you. Yet, when weather turned inclement, we put ourselves in harms way, aiding you, then entering once attacked. If you had decisively finished the first war, a war you should never have fought in the first place, there wouldn't have been a second. 

Usually I agree with your posts but this is one of the most arrogant posts I've seen in a while. Why shouldn't have we intervened in the first world war? Surely they would've launched an invasion on the british Empire anyway?

Plus you didn't "bail our assess out'. You helped yes, but if Britain lost the Battle of the Atlantic, Nazi Germany would have starved Britain into submission.

Then you also have the Battle of Britain. Which the raf prevailed, with help of the Polish, canadians etc something brexiteers need to remember, if we lost that well they would've bombed the hell out of us even more so than they already did.

Yes, the Yanks helped, alot but you didn't bail us out.

[Jon the frog]

On 10/7/2019 at 4:00 AM, Setton said:

So the US has decided to let Turkey wipe out the men and women that died to defeat ISIS for us while Turkey sat in their hands. 

Why would anyone trust the US as an ally after this? 

Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49956698

They were more pawn in a bigger game than ally...

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jon the frog

[+Hammerclaw]

30 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Usually I agree with your posts but this is one of the most arrogant posts I've seen in a while. Why shouldn't have we intervened in the first world war? Surely they would've launched an invasion on the british Empire anyway?

Plus you didn't "bail our assess out'. You helped yes, but if Britain lost the Battle of the Atlantic, Nazi Germany would have starved Britain into submission.

Then you also have the Battle of Britain. Which the raf prevailed, with help of the Polish, canadians etc something brexiteers need to remember, if we lost that well they would've bombed the hell out of us even more so than they already did.

Yes, the Yanks helped, alot but you didn't bail us out.

You don't know your own history. The British are a heroic people, but alone in your island fortress against a Nazi unified Europe you were outmatched. You could have never mustered the men and resources to invade Europe alone. Nor could we have done it alone without you. It took our combined efforts and even then, no easy thing.  Oh, no we weren't knights in shining armor rushing to your defense. Roosevelt drug his heels getting in, despite the pleas and arguments of Mr. Churchill. Pearl Harbor and the automatic declaration of war by Japan's Ally, Nazi Germany finally forced his hand. Without our entry, Germany might have finished it's R&R and developed an atomic bomb and blackmailed you into submission and reversed their setbacks against a resurgent Red Army. Our combined bombing campaigns devastated the Wehrmacht military industrial complex curtailing much of their technological impetus  Our alliance was a marriage of convenience that worked out for the best, just don't kid yourself; you needed us to come in on your side. Your country was in dire straights.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[ThereWeAreThen]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You don't know your own history. The British are a heroic people, but alone in your island fortress against a Nazi unified Europe you were outmatched. You could have never mustered the men and resources to invade Europe alone. Nor could we have done it alone without you. It took our combined efforts and even then, no easy thing.  Oh, no we weren't knights in shining armor rushing to your defense. Roosevelt drug his heels getting in, despite the pleas and arguments of Mr. Churchill. Pearl Harbor and the automatic declaration of war by Japan's Ally, Nazi Germany finally forced his hand. Without our entry, Germany might have finished it's R&R and developed an atomic bomb and blackmailed you into submission and reversed their setbacks against a resurgent Red Army. Our combined bombing campaigns devastated the Wehrmacht military industrial complex curtailing much of their technological impetus  Our alliance was a marriage of convenience that worked out for the best, just don't kid yourself; you needed us to come in on your side. Your country was in dire straights.

Well aware of my own history thanks and I'm not sure if I'd call the uk heroic. We also committed countless atrocities over the course of the empire. We did what needed to be done regarding the war, if us and the French launched a preemptive strike on germany as they started to rearm I don't think there would have been a second world war.

And as I said, you helped significantly, I just get fed up of hearing how american won the war for us and took what you said the wrong way. Even then if you didn't join in against the nazis but upped your trade/aid to is I.e weapons, maybe a few hundred more bombers lol. I do think it's possible britain could've got a beach head somewhere in Europe.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Ya and neither the Yanks nor the Brits will give the Soviets as much credit is they deserve, either. 8.6 million troops lost. 

[+Hammerclaw]

21 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Well aware of my own history thanks and I'm not sure if I'd call the uk heroic. We also committed countless atrocities over the course of the empire. We did what needed to be done regarding the war, if us and the French launched a preemptive strike on germany as they started to rearm I don't think there would have been a second world war.

And as I said, you helped significantly, I just get fed up of hearing how american won the war for us and took what you said the wrong way. Even then if you didn't join in against the nazis but upped your trade/aid to is I.e weapons, maybe a few hundred more bombers lol. I do think it's possible britain could've got a beach head somewhere in Europe.

They tried, at Dieppe in '42. They called it a "raid" but it was more of a recon in force. It failed, but they tried. Don't conflate history with people. The British people are as brave and noble as any that walk the Earth. The only history the living are responsible for is the history they make today.

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ya and neither the Yanks nor the Brits will give the Soviets as much credit is they deserve, either. 8.6 million troops lost. 

26 million casualties military and civilian. Almost as many as Stalin killed.

[ThereWeAreThen]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

They tried, at Dieppe in '42. They called it a "raid" but it was more of a recon in force. It failed, but they tried. Don't conflate history with people. The British people are as brave and noble as any that walk the Earth. The only history the living are responsible for is the history they make today.

Well in a somewhat positive spin on war. If it wasnt for the 2 world wars...would we have the technology we have today? The only real positive outcome of war is science imo.

[DarkHunter]

16 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ya and neither the Yanks nor the Brits will give the Soviets as much credit is they deserve, either. 8.6 million troops lost. 

To be fair a lot of those casualties are from Stalin having his competent generals imprisoned at the start of the war and the whole "not a step back" military order.  There was also the people's militias where the red army tended to forcibly volunteer civilians into military service with little to no training and little to no equipment, often using them to buy time for the red army.  In Leningrad for example 135,000 people's militia were used and at least 70,000 died, wasnt uncommon for whole units of people's militia to have 100% mortality rates.

Edited October 17, 2019 by DarkHunter

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Well in a somewhat positive spin on war. If it wasnt for the 2 world wars...would we have the technology we have today? The only real positive outcome of war is science imo.

Yes, we are heirs of history--not it's authors.

[Farmer77]

Is This Real? This Can't Be Real': Stunned Reaction to Unhinged Trump Letter to Erdoğan

I heard one person describe it as sub-literate and I think thats a great descriptor.

Its also important to note the date on the letter. 

 

[DarkHunter]

The letter is no literary masterpiece but to say its unhinged, illegible, sub-literate, or any of the other things it has been called seems a bit extreme of a reaction.  

Other then people saying that its poorly written, should be mention it is almost if not completely exclusively people who have opposed/heavily criticized Trump, I havent seen anyone say or point out anything that is actually grammatically wrong with it. 

On what the letter says is there anything that is objectively wrong with it.  Just focusing on the message itself and nothing else he begins with imploring Erdogan to make a deal and says he doesnt want to harm Turkey's economy but will if he has to.  I dont see how any of that is a problem so far.  Second paragraph goes back to imploring Erdogan to make a deal and offering proof that a better deal then what Erdogan could of orginally got is possible.  Then it ends with essentially restating the threat from the start of the letter.  

The letter is short, word choice and sentence structure might not be what everyone likes but grammatically there doesnt seem to be any obvious errors and it conveys its meaning clearly, and structurally the letter is coherent in as much as he states A and B in the first paragraph, expands on A in the next paragraph, then expands on B in the last paragraph.  

Like I said it's not a literary masterpiece but it's also not what some rather biased people are claiming it to be either.

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Like I said it's not a literary masterpiece but it's also not what some rather biased people are claiming it to be either.

Dude we're talking about POTUS not a letter from the Trailer Court Home Owners Association. ....or Mr. T
 

Quote

"Dont be a tough guy. Dont be a fool"

"I will call you later"

 

 

[+and-then]

On 10/16/2019 at 12:03 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Hope you understand why I just want OUT.

I think we ALL would prefer to walk away.  That really isn't a choice ONE side in a war can unilaterally take.  Yes, we can choose to strike camp and head home.  Can we stay here though?  What happens when the next attack kills tens of thousands and poisons a city to make it uninhabitable for years?  You have more confidence in the actions of our enemies than I do.  They see retreat as an indication that they are winning and it emboldens them.  

[DarkHunter]

33 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Dude we're talking about POTUS not a letter from the Trailer Court Home Owners Association. ....or Mr. T
 

 

 

You want a letter to a foreign government which speaks another language to be long, complex, and/or written in Shakespearian english.  Be rational, what is better a short simple letter that has a clear meaning or a long complex letter with various degrees of subtlety of what America's limits are and what our responses will be.

As for your quoted part of the Trump letter way to cherry pick.

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

As for your quoted part of the Trump letter way to cherry pick.

LOL so quoting the letter itself is cherrypicking? What happened to nothing wrong with it?

7 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Be rational, what is better a short simple letter that has a clear meaning or a long complex letter with various degrees of subtlety of what America's limits are and what our responses will be.

Grown up words and a tiny bit of eloquence dont seem to be that much to ask from the most powerful office in your company does it? Now expand that company to represent 400 million people.

 

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL so quoting the letter itself is cherrypicking? What happened to nothing wrong with it?

Grown up words and a tiny bit of eloquence dont seem to be that much to ask from the most powerful office in your company does it? Now expand that company to represent 400 million people.

 

Except you didnt just quote the letter, you literally picked the last three sentences in an attempt to imply the entire letter was written in such a way.  Its exactly what cherry picking is and has nothing to do with anything being right or wrong.

What actually is enough eloquence for the president to use and what words are grown up enough and which words arent.  You dont like Trump and that's fine, but you are letting your hate cloud your ability to think even remotely rationally.  You know no matter what Trump wrote or how he wrote it you would find some fault with it.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

What actually is enough eloquence for the president to use and what words are grown up enough and which words arent.  You dont like Trump and that's fine, but you are letting your hate cloud your ability to think even remotely rationally.  You know no matter what Trump wrote or how he wrote it you would find some fault with it.

You may not be wrong. The dude is such a shitshow of a human being I think the last thing I was truly able to applaud him for was the Gorsuch appointment.

That being said honestly this is just the convergence of two major pet peeves of mine.  Poor writing skills  and the goddamned dumbing down of the expectations of the office of POTUS

3 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Except you didnt just quote the letter, you literally picked the last three sentences in an attempt to imply the entire letter was written in such a way.  Its exactly what cherry picking is and has nothing to do with anything being right or wrong.

The POTUS using the terms I quoted has everything to do with why the letter is being mocked. Call it whatever you like, if he didnt speak like a 5th grader even if in just a couple of sentences, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

You may not be wrong. The dude is such a shitshow of a human being I think the last thing I was truly able to applaud him for was the Gorsuch appointment.

That being said honestly this is just the convergence of two major pet peeves of mine.  Poor writing skills  and the goddamned dumbing down of the expectations of the office of POTUS

The POTUS using the terms I quoted has everything to do with why the letter is being mocked. Call it whatever you like, if he didnt speak like a 5th grader even if in just a couple of sentences, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

And yet... it WAS a very clear letter BECAUSE of its simplicity ? Perhaps this reflects President Trump's opinion of Erdogen ?