Sociopath Community

Of course the Kurds want their own place, they are treated like ass in every country. Nah fuck this, I stand with the Kurds.

Dima is right sadly.

heard the Russians may be involved now. Syria and the Kurds are teaming up against the Turks. wait, wern't the Syrians just killing off the Kurds? WTF.

I was wrong. The Syrian Arab Army is on the side of the Kurds. But... their army is not as strong and modern as the Turkish Army.

From Russian News:

The Syrian military will help the Kurds repel the attack of the Turkish army.

Syrian government forces will deploy units across the border with Turkey to help the Kurds repel the offensive. This was reported by RIA "Novosti" with reference to the statement of the Autonomous administration of the territories in the North-East of Syria.

As noted, the Kurds agreed with the Syrian government, concluding an agreement with it.

It is reported that Syrian Arab Army will assist the Kurdish military in their confrontation with Turkish aggression and contribute to the liberation of areas where Turkish mercenaries and military entered.

//////////

The Syrian army entered Manbij at the same time as Pro-Turkish fighters.

Syrian Arab army (SAA) troops occupied the city of Manbij shortly after American forces evacuated from there. Video with Syrian military equipment published on Twitter journalist Babak Taghvaee.

Earlier on Monday, October 14, it became known that in Manbij on the eve of the offensive of the Turkish army came fighters of the Syrian free army — FSA) - the opposition armed group. Taghvaee calls their "former al-Qaeda terrorists" (banned in Russia).

Earlier in the day, it was reported that the Kurds had agreed with Damascus to deploy government troops along Syria's Northern borders. The Syrian army is expected to occupy areas from the city of Manbij in the Northwest to the city of Derik (also known as al-Malikiya) in the northeast of the country.

Before that, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Turkish troops do not intend to enter Manbij, which is still occupied by Kurdish forces. He noted that the city will be taken under the control of "real Arab masters", whose security will be provided by Ankara.

Erdogan announced the beginning of a military operation in Syria on the afternoon of October 9. It was called " the Source of peace." Its goal is to fight against the Kurdistan Workers 'party (PKK, banned in Turkey as a terrorist) and the terrorist group "Islamic state" (banned in Russia), as well as the creation of a security zone along the entire border.

So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:

• managed to anger his own party and Nato allies
• backstabbed his own Kurdish allies, making the US seem less trustworthy
• allowed a wannabe dictator to relaunch the Ottoman empire
• greatly risked the resurgence of Daesh
• wasted billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and years of meddling
• let his geopolitical enemies Russia/Syria/Iran take home the middle east

Why couldn't the US simply stay as a guarantor for the safe-zone Turkey arguably deserves and help it be carried out with minimal bloodshed and instability?

Inquirer said: 

So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:

• managed to anger his own party and Nato allies

To avoid 1000 soldiers from being caught in the cross-fire of a conflict they cannot manage because everyone in the fight is in 'allie' - that is if we are to consider the standard being our relationship with the kurds. 

• backstabbed his own Kurdish allies, making the US seem less trustworthy

Back stab the Kurds, or back stab Turkey a Nato member and key allie in the region. 

• allowed a wannabe dictator to relaunch the Ottoman empire

The relaunching of the Ottomon Empire began before the Syrian civil war.  

• greatly risked the resurgence of Daesh

Daesh is the least of anyone's worries now. 

The paradigm has shifted away from the terror narrative, regional conflicts between states on borders of influence are back in fashion do to necessity, i.e. Russia/Ukraine, India/Pakistan, Japan/China/Taiwan/PacificIslands,  EU/Russia, Turkey/Syria/Isreal/Iran/Arabia, Turkey/Russia, U.S./China, etc

• wasted billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and years of meddling

Yes, U.S. and several E.U. states did this. 

• let his geopolitical enemies Russia/Syria/Iran take home the middle east

The contentions with these nations began before Trump came into office and the meddling in Syria is the thing that forces Russia, Iran, and Syria to respond. Why? Because if they do not respond with force the literal existence of their states is at risk. 

Geopolitical enemies are far more likely to involve themselves in your affairs if you are involving yourself in assets that dictate their survival. 

Why couldn't the US simply stay as a guarantor for the safe-zone Turkey arguably deserves and help it be carried out with minimal bloodshed and instability?

Because the condition would be a Kurdish removal from that safe-zone do to PKK/Turkish relations and history being that of conflict and rebellion. The Kurds want a nation-state and they have been fighting to secure one for decades. They will not give up land they have secured for the Kurdish people as its literally their whole reason for war. The Turks cannot allow the Kurds to legitimize themselves because it threatens the Turkish state. 

Hence, with both sides incapable of cooperating a deal between U.S. and Turkey over a safe-zone is not possible. The only way it would have been was the forced removal of the kurds which before this current conflict would have had to been carried out by U.S. troops which would fail given the reality. We are incapable of doing this because it'd lead to us being the ones in a conflict with the Kurds. The other option is to fight Turkey with the Kurds which would lead to a actual weakening of NATO and a senseless loss of life for the U.S.

Instead we walk away. 

The reality we live in is harsh and attributing the regions issues to a single man is rather ignorant because it rejects the reality of the situation. The reality is there are no good answers and those answers on the table have been constrained by history that predates Trump.

Inquirer said: 

So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:

• managed to anger his own party and Nato allies

You dont have to make people happy all the time

• backstabbed his own Kurdish allies, making the US seem less trustworthy

This is true. 

• allowed a wannabe dictator to relaunch the Ottoman empire

Theres a difference between a full invasion and a border buffer. You must remember we have nearly 5 million refugees to offload since EU is cutting the money supply.

• greatly risked the resurgence of Daesh

With 200 prisoners? lol

• wasted billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and years of meddling

Um, hes not obama, thats the black one

• let his geopolitical enemies Russia/Syria/Iran take home the middle east

Who cares? Syria is not a big resource. America has Saudi Arabia and UAE at their hands already.

Why couldn't the US simply stay as a guarantor for the safe-zone Turkey arguably deserves and help it be carried out with minimal bloodshed and instability?

 Why would they? The US could focus its attention on a more important economy like Hong Kong or another more resourceful country like Venezuela. Plus they have a lot of problems to solve at home. I think Trumps mind is in the right place, hes putting in a higher price on Americas military support. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:

• managed to anger his own party and Nato allies

To avoid 1000 soldiers from being caught in the cross-fire of a conflict they cannot manage because everyone in the fight is in 'allie' - that is if we are to consider the standard being our relationship with the kurds.

The risk of being caught in the cross-fire wouldn't be there if Trump hadn't caved to Erdogan and instead planned his exit a little better.

Also, I'd say most nations and people will consider it a backstab regardless of the technicalities of the relationship.

• backstabbed his own Kurdish allies, making the US seem less trustworthy

Back stab the Kurds, or back stab Turkey a Nato member and key allie in the region.

Or backstab neither by taking an active part in negotiating a solution?

• allowed a wannabe dictator to relaunch the Ottoman empire

The relaunching of the Ottomon Empire began before the Syrian civil war.

So we should then just let it run its course?

• greatly risked the resurgence of Daesh

Daesh is the least of anyone's worries now. 

The paradigm has shifted away from the terror narrative, regional conflicts between states on borders of influence are back in fashion do to necessity, i.e. Russia/Ukraine, India/Pakistan, Japan/China/Taiwan/PacificIslands,  EU/Russia, Turkey/Syria/Isreal/Iran/Arabia, Turkey/Russia, U.S./China, etc

It could easily become a relevant issue again if the war in Syria turns hot and messy.

• wasted billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and years of meddling

Yes, U.S. and several E.U. states did this.

So why no try to make sure the exit is clean?

• let his geopolitical enemies Russia/Syria/Iran take home the middle east

The contentions with these nations began before Trump came into office and the meddling in Syria is the thing that forces Russia, Iran, and Syria to respond. Why? Because if they do not respond with force the literal existence of their states is at risk. 

Geopolitical enemies are far more likely to involve themselves in your affairs if you are involving yourself in assets that dictate their survival.

I'm not blaming the meddling in the middle east on Trump. I'm saying the US, regardless of president, has a responsibility to handle its own mess and Trump is not doing nearly enough.

Why couldn't the US simply stay as a guarantor for the safe-zone Turkey arguably deserves and help it be carried out with minimal bloodshed and instability?

Because the condition would be a Kurdish removal from that safe-zone do to PKK/Turkish relations and history being that of conflict and rebellion. The Kurds want a nation-state and they have been fighting to secure one for decades. They will not give up land they have secured for the Kurdish people as its literally their whole reason for war. The Turks cannot allow the Kurds to legitimize themselves because it threatens the Turkish state. 

Hence, with both sides incapable of cooperating a deal between U.S. and Turkey over a safe-zone is not possible. The only way it would have been was the forced removal of the kurds which before this current conflict would have had to been carried out by U.S. troops which would fail given the reality. We are incapable of doing this because it'd lead to us being the ones in a conflict with the Kurds. The other option is to fight Turkey with the Kurds which would lead to a actual weakening of NATO and a senseless loss of life for the U.S.

Instead we walk away.

So you don't think the US had any way of forcing some kind of settlement, even a short-term one, between Turkey and the Kurds? Such as, for instance, tell the Kurds they'd have to give up that thin strip of safe-zone land in return for continued support.

They look desperate to me, even striking a deal with Assad despite knowing they'd probably be fucked over at the earliest convenience.

The reality we live in is harsh and attributing the regions issues to a single man is rather ignorant because it rejects the reality of the situation. The reality is there are no good answers and those answers on the table have been constrained by history that predates Trump.

Again, no one is blaming Trump for everything. But it's not unreasonable to criticize him for shirking responsibility and allowing negative developments to take place without (seemingly) trying to hinder it.

Bossroach said: 

 

Why couldn't the US simply stay as a guarantor for the safe-zone Turkey arguably deserves and help it be carried out with minimal bloodshed and instability?

 Why would they? The US could focus its attention on a more important economy like Hong Kong or another more resourceful country like Venezuela. Plus they have a lot of problems to solve at home. I think Trumps mind is in the right place, hes putting in a higher price on Americas military support. 

From a strictly self-serving and rational perspective that might be true but actions such as these risk undermining the kind of world order the US has so successfully built up since after WW2. Most of your and Alice's arguments are rooted in the idea that nations should only really care about their own interests, and there's a fair bit of 'might makes right' thrown in there too. I believe that's a mistake.

Inquirer said: 

Bossroach said: 

 

Why couldn't the US simply stay as a guarantor for the safe-zone Turkey arguably deserves and help it be carried out with minimal bloodshed and instability?

 Why would they? The US could focus its attention on a more important economy like Hong Kong or another more resourceful country like Venezuela. Plus they have a lot of problems to solve at home. I think Trumps mind is in the right place, hes putting in a higher price on Americas military support. 

From a strictly self-serving and rational perspective that might be true but actions such as these risk undermining the kind of world order the US has so successfully built up since after WW2. Most of your and Alice's arguments are rooted in the idea that nations should only really care about their own interests, and there's a fair bit of 'might makes right' thrown in there too. I believe that's a mistake.

 The WW2 order was built upon Hiroshima and alliance with powers much larger than Syria and the powerless arab shitholes. Trump, by showing a lack of interest in playing global power and pulling out of the proxy game, seems to be deescalating global tension and also strengthening position against Russia by pulling Turkey closer. In case of WW3, Kurds might not be of much help but Turkey might.

Im not sure what you mean by the mistake part, are you moralizing or talking strategically?