US betrays Kurdish Allies

[+Hammerclaw]

We have a professional military, now, made up of all volunteers. I take offense at it being described in any shape form or fashion as "mercenary". "Mercenary" is an ugly word and the most heinous of slurs.

mercenary

[ˈmərsəˌnerē]

ADJECTIVE

1. (of a person or their behavior) primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics.

   "she's nothing but a mercenary little gold digger"

   synonyms:

   money-oriented · grasping · greedy · acquisitive · avaricious · covetous · rapacious · bribable · venal · materialistic · money-grubbing

   antonyms:

   altruistic · philanthropic

NOUN

mercenaries (plural noun)

1. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

   "he had planned to seize power with the aid of a group of mercenaries"

   synonyms:

   soldier of fortune · professional soldier · hired soldier · hireling · private army · merc · hired gun · freelance · condottiere · adventurer · lance-knight

   antonyms:

   volunteer · conscript

   • a person primarily concerned with material reward at the expense of ethics.
     "the sport's most infamous mercenary"

 

ORIGIN

late Middle English (as a noun): from Latin mercenarius‘hireling’, from merces, merced-‘reward’.

[+Hammerclaw]

Meanwhile, back in the days of our Nobel Prince of Peace:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ

[+and-then]

11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

a person primarily concerned with material reward at the expense of ethics.

"the sport's most infamous mercenary"

I share the same disgust.  I never said our military were mercenary.  I said that if the day came that it could be perceived that way, the elistments would dwindle BECAUSE it was all volunteer.

[RoofGardener]

12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

The loss of soft power.

Who needs soft power when you have the US Fleet and the 101'st Airborne ?  

[+and-then]

On 10/18/2019 at 8:13 PM, Black Red Devil said:

If there's an impeachable offense, let the crook carry on and skip to the elections instead because people should decide if he's a crook or not?

The Founders created a system of checks and balances to keep any single branch of our divided government from taking total control.  These men understood human nature and worked very hard to create a system that thwarted our worst instincts where power was concerned.

Their goal was to make the people be the final arbiters of the direction the nation chose.  Impeachment was a very grave step because it would literally nullify the act of voting by the people and that is their only power.  They left the justification for Impeaching a president somewhat vague because they wanted to leave room for contingencies they didn't foresee.  

Your assumption that there had been an offense worthy of undoing an election leaves the current situation out of bounds because such an assumption would need to be supported on both sides of the aisle.  This one and the Clinton case were definitely NOT.  The biggest difference is that in Clinton's case the R's understood that the only way to remove him was by allowing the minority to have its say in the process so Americans could get the whole story.  The D's today are literally holding secret hearings and releasing only what they choose to the media.  This is the primary reason their efforts will fail.  What they are engaged in is just a continuation of the Mueller inquisition.  They are looking for something, anything that might spark public condemnation of Trump by his supporters.

As to your specific example, since Impeachment and trial by Senate is a blending of legal/political exercises the choice to just wait for an election to decide the matter is appropriate because the Founders trusted the judgment of the people over their representatives.  If a president was guilty of crimes then the case could be made when he left office.  I think your difficulty in grasping this comes from your distrust of people who support this particular president.  All 63 million of us.  

[Farmer77]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Who needs soft power when you have the US Fleet and the 101'st Airborne ?  

The kids in the US Fleet and the 101st Airborne who die needlessly when soft power could have contained a situation.

Trump supporters used to at least pretend to care about those folks.

[+joc]

16 hours ago, Kismit said:

An open question respectfully addressed to everyone, as my knowledge on such things is limited, and I may well be wrong in my own personal worries on the subject.....

How do people feel about Saudi Arabia paying for the use of the American soldiers?

My own thoughts are that this is where the real danger lies. Giving Saudi Arabia the idea that they can buy and sell the use of a foreign army at will. Or even setting a precedent for renting nationally resourced armies, not to mention I feel it is a little immoral to hire out your own soldiers to die for not life, not liberty and freedom but a dollar. And maybe I am over thinking it but the precedent sets to serve as an opening for putting the super wealthy in charge of great armies. And then I do believe we would end up on a fast track to true globalist control.

just saying, because as anyone with understanding can see I am just letting my imagination run the path I see possible.

Where in the world did you get the idea that America is renting out soldiers to Saudi Arabia?  I'm confused.  First I have heard of that.

[+Hammerclaw]

39 minutes ago, joc said:

Where in the world did you get the idea that America is renting out soldiers to Saudi Arabia?  I'm confused.  First I have heard of that.

Just the same old spin the DNC and MSM have been vomiting the last three years. It's no wonder decent folk abroad are so chagrined by the Trump Presidency--as if his personality, or lack thereof wasn't enough. It's all they hear; the other side of the story is drowned out by sheer weight of numbers. Far from starting wars, he has, systematically, been trying to disengage us from the one's he inherited, started for the most part, by the bungling, naively idealistic foreign policy of his predecessor, Afghanistan being the notable exception. Kissing Saudi backsides was alright when Obama did it; the epitome of evil as done by Trump--that's the spin.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/obama-saudi-arabia-trump-appeasement-coddle

Edited October 21, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[Kismit]

44 minutes ago, joc said:

Where in the world did you get the idea that America is renting out soldiers to Saudi Arabia?  I'm confused.  First I have heard of that.

Joc, firstly, I love you man. And secondly it's in the Fox video I posted of Trump talking. Saudi Arabia is paying for the use of American soldiers and other things.

 

[Kismit]

29 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Just the same old spin the DNC and MSM have been vomiting the last three years. It's no wonder decent folk abroad are so chagrined by the Trump Presidency--as if his personality, or lack thereof wasn't enough. It's all they hear; the other side of the story is drowned out by sheer weight of numbers. Far from starting wars, he has, systematically, been trying to disengage us from the one's he inherited, started for the most part, by the bungling, naively idealistic foreign policy of his predecessor, Afghanistan being the notable exception. Kissing Saudi backsides was alright when Obama did it; the epitome of evil as done by Trump--that's the spin.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/obama-saudi-arabia-trump-appeasement-coddle

I evidenced the President speaking and on a conservative friendly news source. And that is also where I get my evidence from, no left wing spinning required. Just the actual words out of Donald Trumps mouth.

[+Hammerclaw]

16 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I evidenced the President speaking and on a conservative friendly news source. And that is also where I get my evidence from, no left wing spinning required. Just the actual words out of Donald Trumps mouth.

Yes, it's your "interpretation" that's in error. I pointed that out to you, but it was water off a duck's back. The Saudis are going to reimburse us for any expense incurred by us in their defense. That's a first, to state it openly. They've been doing that all along, neatly swept under the rug of diplomacy. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[Kismit]

16 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, it's your "interpretation" that's in error. I pointed that out to you, but it was water off a duck's back. The Saudi's are going to reimburse us for any expense incurred by us in their defense. That's a first, to state it openly. They've been doing that all along, neatly swept under the rug of diplomacy. 

So when Donald trump says,(verbatim) " Are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us, for everything that we are doing. That's a first." He means to say  that his saying it openly is a first? Or is he just bragging about something he didn't actually do first? Because it sounds very much like. I have negotiated a deal where we are financially reimbursed for the use of these troops and other things, and that has never been done before.

[+Hammerclaw]

13 minutes ago, Kismit said:

So when Donald trump says,(verbatim) " Are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us, for everything that we are doing. That's a first." He means to say  that his saying it openly is a first? Or is he just bragging about something he didn't actually do first? Because it sounds very much like. I have negotiated a deal where we are financially reimbursed for the use of these troops and other things, and that has never been done before.

Yes, one of Trump's "firsts" as if he personally invented the concept of financial reimbursement and quid pro quo. He negotiated nothing; his staff did it at his direction and, of course, he had to brag and take credit for it. The Saudis have agreed to allow U.S. troops to be stationed on their soil, with other military assets, to monitor and respond to any further Iranian aggression. It fleshes out our military posture vis-a-vis Iranian adventurism.Trump's problem is that he is not a professional politician, has no experience in international diplomacy and doesn't have a single bone of diplomatic finesse and circumspection in his body. He says or blurts out anything about anything and anyone any time he wants to. For a "stable genius" he's remarkably shallow in his oratory skills, or lack thereof. On the diplomatic stage he's like a bull in a china shop. Personally, I'd have preferred any Republican and a select few others to have been elected. Unfortunately, were stuck with him for the foreseeable future--possibly the next five years. Lord willing, if I'm still around then, we'll chat about how the world didn't come to an end.

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, Kismit said:

So when Donald trump says,(verbatim) " Are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us, for everything that we are doing. That's a first." He means to say  that his saying it openly is a first? Or is he just bragging about something he didn't actually do first? Because it sounds very much like. I have negotiated a deal where we are financially reimbursed for the use of these troops and other things, and that has never been done before.

Very Interesting!  But he also said, Mexico is going to pay for the wall.  Well...they have 24,000 troops guarding the border....

I guess my question is:  Why should America foot the bill for the Saudi's defense?  I know your concerns....but I do think that this is unique to Saudi Arabia because they can afford it and well....they can afford it! 

 

 

[Kismit]

4 hours ago, joc said:

Very Interesting!  But he also said, Mexico is going to pay for the wall.  Well...they have 24,000 troops guarding the border....

I guess my question is:  Why should America foot the bill for the Saudi's defense?  I know your concerns....but I do think that this is unique to Saudi Arabia because they can afford it and well....they can afford it! 

 

 

That is one of my greater concerns. They can afford it, and the Prince is not an honourable, honest or forgiving man if he feels he has been wronged, he does bad things. I hope the Saudi Prince does not begin to feel he is paying for more than the US is willing to give.

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

For a "stable genius" he's remarkably shallow in his oratory skills,

His audience seem to understand what he means because his popularity comes from them feeling he understands what they want.  He'll never be a traditional diplomat but his skill set and attitude are exactly what was needed to stop the Globalist coup de grace that HRC represented.  My guess is that he only postponed it but who knows what inspiration he'll e able to lend to a movement once he's out of office.  He has always been able to surprise the Dems and if he gets defeated next year he may well draw bigger crowds and raise more of a warchest than their winner.  America may well be positioned for an opposition government in "exile" and he could lead it.  We are in totally uncharted waters and half of the population are in no mood to go back to the same old BS regime where they say jump and we just ask, how high?  Those days may well be over.  A lot of angry Americans are ready to be led and he'd love to be the leader.

Edited October 22, 2019 by and then

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

That is one of my greater concerns. They can afford it, and the Prince is not an honourable, honest or forgiving man if he feels he has been wronged, he does bad things. I hope the Saudi Prince does not begin to feel he is paying for more than the US is willing to give.

You aren't wondering if he could somehow harm our interests are you?  As in, he could threaten us?  I must misunderstand.

[Kismit]

1 hour ago, and then said:

You aren't wondering if he could somehow harm our interests are you?  As in, he could threaten us?  I must misunderstand.

I think he is capable of things that defy my imagination. The attack on the Twin towers defied my imagination and many other people never imagined it could happen, before it did. I mean the man very clearly had a US citizen murdered recently, lied about it to keep his military deals and got away with it, some might say, scott free.. I can see issues with that kind of personality type emboldened to feel as though he has ownership Or Iother even less scrupulous world leaders thinking about creating mercenary armies for people who can afford it.

[+joc]

5 hours ago, Kismit said:

I think he is capable of things that defy my imagination. The attack on the Twin towers defied my imagination and many other people never imagined it could happen, before it did. I mean the man very clearly had a US citizen murdered recently, lied about it to keep his military deals and got away with it, some might say, scott free.. I can see issues with that kind of personality type emboldened to feel as though he has ownership 

I would be inclined to just let them all fight it out amongst themselves...except for that little fact that there is sooooo much money in the middle east because of the oil.  A winner takes all  scenario is what we must avoid if possible. 

I kind of see it as a wash....if you pay us to help you...we will help you.  If you harm us...we will take away ...not only protection from the bully who wants your lunch money...we will take your lunch money as well!  

5 hours ago, Kismit said:

Or other even less scrupulous world leaders thinking about creating mercenary armies for people who can afford it.

But that already happens and has been happening for a long, long, time!    What really concerns me are the people in our Government....i.e.  Congressional Leaders who skim off the top of that Military Money Pile....and don't really give too much of a damn who gets the weapons and manpower or why.  

We could end all wars in a short time if we just stopped selling arms to the people fighting them.  They would just be throwing rocks at each other after a while.

 

[zygote]

It seemed, to me, to be just a marriage of convenience anyway. And now that ISIS is gone, the pretense has gone, too. 

[Setton]

18 minutes ago, zygote_myles said:

It seemed, to me, to be just a marriage of convenience anyway. And now that ISIS is gone, the pretense has gone, too. 

ISIS is in no way, shape or form 'gone'. 

Only an idiot would think so. Oh, he's president... 

[zygote]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

ISIS is in no way, shape or form 'gone'. 

Only an idiot would think so. Oh, he's president... 

Well, they don't have the power to control entire regions and cities anymore so they're effectively neutralized. But, yes, there are other extremist factions all over the place. It's all the same to me anyway. Just one big evil fools game. Power struggle under any flag at any cost. Terrible.

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, zygote_myles said:

Well, they don't have the power to control entire regions and cities anymore so they're effectively neutralized. But, yes, there are other extremist factions all over the place. It's all the same to me anyway. Just one big evil fools game. Power struggle under any flag at any cost. Terrible.

Isis has been totally decimated by the 'idiot'.

[Tatetopa]

On 10/21/2019 at 9:02 AM, Hammerclaw said:

It's not being done for dollars, Kismit, anymore than it was done for dollars when Australia and New Zealand hosted huge contingents of U.S. troops to defend them from aggression by a foreign power. In both cases it was and is in defense of allies and in this case of a strategic waterway and resources vital to the wellbeing of Western Democracies. The only alternative, if we are not going to be proactive in that defense,, is to withdraw, create yet another power vacuum and let the place go to hell in a handbasket. I rather doubt under any other President we'd be having this conversation. 

No other President would have said in such a gloating and prideful fashion, "And they are paying for it,"  as if that makes it a sound business deal.

That becomes the concern for those of us that don't know the patriotic loving side of Trump as well as you do.  It makes it sound as if there were no world issues or strategy or patriotism involved, just that they are paying for it  and he thought that was good business.

[Tatetopa]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:45 AM, and then said:

the Founders trusted the judgment of the people over their representatives.

Ah.  That must be the reason for the electoral college, the founders great trust in the intelligence and maturity of the populace.  The founders were the best educated and in some cases the elite of their day.  I do not think they has unrestrained faith in the population doing the right thing.  Or maybe that is why we have representatives governing us rather than voting on every issue  as a plebiscite.  The founders were also aware of what they called the tyranny of the majority and tried to write in some minority view rights.