Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Setton

US betrays Kurdish Allies

475 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

joc
17 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

A whole rant on Syria and Obama and not a mention of ISIS. Replacing dictators doesn't always work out for the best. Iraq and Libya are prime examples and now Syria. If Obama had gotten rid of Assad then ISIS would be ruling in Syria. Trump had piggybacked a ride on the shoulders of a great president. 

That is ludicrous!  

17 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Bush Jr should have left Saddam in power. Blame Bush for Iraq. Instead we have Iran calling the shots today. crickets !

 

No Crickets from Trump Cap'n.  Trump was saying at the time and made a HUGE point of saying it in the first debates that Iraq was a terrible mistake.  He continues to say it in every rally he holds.  He even said in the first debates   Bush lied, people died!

17 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

FYI being the worlds policeman is what made America great. You used it a influence to increase trade. You used it to keep enemies at bay. You used it to control and use valuable resources. 

Your not really from around here are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
18 hours ago, and then said:

That's why I LONG ago stopped being bothered by the opinions of those spineless, effete snobs.  When they grow a pair and start funding their own military I will take what they say with a bit of respect.  Until then, they can pound sand.

:tsu:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, joc said:

No Crickets from Trump Cap'n.  Trump was saying at the time

Source? Other than Trump himself? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 10/19/2019 at 3:54 PM, Captain Risky said:

Wait I'm confused, So you agree with Trump surrendering top dog status or you don't ?

 

I was specifically answering this point you were making.

You used it a influence to increase trade. You used it to keep enemies at bay. You used it to control and use valuable resources. 

If you are implying that Trump is surrendering America's role as superpower then I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.  Trump is a very simple personality type and he is honest about who he is.  I'm not saying he doesn't have the capacity to lie when it suits him, just that he is never dishonest about his primary motivation.  Just because the media have created a caricature of him does not mean it is true.  Every action he has taken has ultimately accrued benefit to America.  The people who slander him and say he is enriching himself are angry and foolish.  Little more than spiteful children having a tantrum because they "heard" he wanted to steal their cookie.

If you see his actions of "America First" as an abdication of our role in the world then you are thinking of the wrong president.  That role was played by Obama.  Trump has no desire to control the world, he just wants the nation he grew in to regain respect or fear from the nations that seem to think they can spit on us without consequences.  Old fashioned, right?  Well, he IS old and grew up in a time when America was both feared and genuinely respected.  Apparently, that attitude makes him a danger to someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 hours ago, and then said:

If you are implying that Trump is surrendering America's role as superpower then I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. 

The loss of soft power.

5 hours ago, and then said:

Well, he IS old and grew up in a time when America was both feared and genuinely respected.  Apparently, that attitude makes him a danger to someone.

No its he and his base's lack of understanding of what respect actually is that makes him a danger to all of us. Even you.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 hours ago, and then said:

I was specifically answering this point you were making.

You used it a influence to increase trade. You used it to keep enemies at bay. You used it to control and use valuable resources. 

If you are implying that Trump is surrendering America's role as superpower then I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.  Trump is a very simple personality type and he is honest about who he is.  I'm not saying he doesn't have the capacity to lie when it suits him, just that he is never dishonest about his primary motivation.  Just because the media have created a caricature of him does not mean it is true.  Every action he has taken has ultimately accrued benefit to America.  The people who slander him and say he is enriching himself are angry and foolish.  Little more than spiteful children having a tantrum because they "heard" he wanted to steal their cookie.

If you see his actions of "America First" as an abdication of our role in the world then you are thinking of the wrong president.  That role was played by Obama.  Trump has no desire to control the world, he just wants the nation he grew in to regain respect or fear from the nations that seem to think they can spit on us without consequences.  Old fashioned, right?  Well, he IS old and grew up in a time when America was both feared and genuinely respected.  Apparently, that attitude makes him a danger to someone.

I just have to say how creepy you guys are becoming. This is at least the third post ive read just tonight that fawns over Trumps kind and patriotic soul while lamenting the stupidity of the unenlightened others for daring to question his actions.

"If you just saw him how we see him you would understand" coming from a third of our society is some creepy ass ****

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

The loss of soft power.

No its he and his base's lack of understanding of what respect actually is that makes him a danger to all of us. Even you.

I suppose you mean the "respect" we had from Europe while we paid the freight for their defense and Iran while we gave everything and received nothing of substance in the nuke deal?  Or maybe the apology tour where Obama wiped his ass on our Constitution and prostrated himself before our adversaries?  I'll leave you to enjoy that, I have different ideas about what respect is.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
12 minutes ago, and then said:

I suppose you mean the "respect" we had from Europe while we paid the freight for their defense and Iran while we gave everything and received nothing of substance in the nuke deal? 

Well i meant from every nation on earth that isnt run by a dictator. The rude, insulting, semi literate temper tantrum thing really only resonates with that crowd but of course most of them have actually done things in their lives to kinda earn their "tough guy" status so I cant imagine even they actually respect a spoiled brat who is only famous because he was born rich. (see Erdogans response to Trumps "tough guy" letter for an example)

Yes however backing out of the Iran deal, the Paris deal, and screwing the Kurds didnt help. Neither did getting played by Kim Jong Un nor has looking like Putins lap dog on the world stage repeatedly.  Hell we know for a fact that endangering an Israeli asset by giving classified info to the Russians damaged our standing on the world stage.

Oh and the constant lies man. No one respects a liar but more importantly no one respects the dupes who keep falling for the lies (thats US the American people in the worlds eyes BTW) 

He still has the might of the US military backing him and he is clearly unstable so he definitely has the fear thing still going for him. Respect however?

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit

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.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
15 minutes ago, Kismit said:

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

It is stunningly horrific and immoral.

In a strange way it actually has the potential to screw military folks over twice. Not only are they now fighting for money and not freedom the very act of them being there is potentially taking at least 2000 high dollar contracting jobs away from ex us military members. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
15 minutes ago, Kismit said:

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

In Trumps world everything and everyone is a commodity to be bought and sold.

The military should think long and hard on this. This week SA, next week Israel, following week Texas?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
Just now, Farmer77 said:

It is stunningly horrific and immoral.

In a strange way it actually has the potential to screw military folks over twice. Not only are they now fighting for money and not freedom the very act of them being there is taking at least 2000 high dollar contracting jobs away from ex us military members. 

I can see that would be an issue. Mercenaries choose to get paid to fight for other countries and that is their individual right, wether they do it for the money or belief in a cause they have a say in it. And they are small non Government sanctioned groups at best. Not 1800 Government sanctioned armies. There is a lot more at risk as a future issue geopolitically.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
4 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

In Trumps world everything and everyone is a commodity to be bought and sold.

The military should think long and hard on this. This week SA, next week Israel, following week Texas?

I don't know. I can see small problems in other countries with leaders and rich folk emboldened by the idea. And eventually becoming greater world wide problems.

I am Not so much laying blame on Donald Trump, just amazed at the lack of foresight in the decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

There is a lot more at risk as a future issue geopolitically.

It is potentially a huge issue. Certainly worth further pondering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
1 minute ago, RAyMO said:

It is potentially a huge issue. Certainly worth further pondering.

The issues I see opening up could write the sequel to 1984 if I am honest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
9 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.

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. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
6 minutes ago, 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. 

You mean this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, Kismit said:

You mean this?

 

If PM Curtin had offered to pay for our help, December 27th, '41, would that have been wrong? Was defending countries with which we and the West had billions in reciprocal trade and their adjacent waterways, wrong, too? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

If PM Curtin had offered to pay for our help, December 27th, '41, would that have been wrong? Was defending countries with which we and the West had billions in reciprocal trade and their adjacent waterways, wrong, too? 

I see a slippery slope with this new style of Army for hire, that is all I am saying.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I see a slippery slope with this new style of Army for hire, that is all I am saying.

We've been doing this sort of thing since WW2. You're just disconcerted by Trump's open honesty about the reasons. Funny how alright it was when Clinton bombed a European Capital and Obama bowed to Saudi Sheiks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We've been doing this sort of thing since WW2. You're just disconcerted by Trump's open honesty about the reasons. Funny how alright it was when Clinton bombed a European Capital and Obama bowed to Saudi Sheiks.

Then why does Donald Trump claim in the short unedited video I posted that is,”A First”?

 I am not sure we are discussing the same issue.

My specific concern is with the hire of the military for another countries purposes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Kismit said:

Then why does Donald Trump claim in the short unedited video I posted that is,”A First”?

 I am not sure we are discussing the same issue.

A first that an "Ally" openly offered to pay. Usually, it's assumed we do it "gratis" which, of course, is rarely true. There's always some manner of "quid pro quo" to use diplomatic parlance, in almost every situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
28 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

If PM Curtin had offered to pay for our help, December 27th, '41, would that have been wrong? 

Yes, you should have been there since 1939.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Setton said:

Yes, you should have been there since 1939.

They didn't ask for us in '39--there was no reason to. Besides, it was part of the Empire then and at peace. Sure, the Phony War was going on, far around the world at the time, but no bullets were flying, yet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

 

9 hours ago, RAyMO said:

The military should think long and hard on this. This week SA, next week Israel, following week Texas?

"The military" is fully under the control of the Commander in Chief.  He gets his position because the majority of people in the majority of states choose him for it.  This particular one has been very circumspect about risking the blood of that military while at the same time rebuilding force capacity. 

The idea of an ally (however wrong one might think the relationship to be) helping to pay the cost of deployment in their interests is somehow foreboding, mystifies me a bit.  I'll admit the possibility for abuse could crop up at some point but the fail-safe element to keep it from being an issue is the fact that our military is all volunteer.  If Americans felt that the military had become a mercenary force the enlistments would dwindle in short order.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.