U.S. Won’t Stop Turkish Advance Into Syria in Major Policy Shift

[Ransom]

So you're throwing draftdodging Johnny-Come-Lately Bolton under the bus on this one? You've gone off your diet of small-kurd cottage cheese and nothingburgers?

So, I'm doing what? Your reading comprehension aside, what are you babbling on about?

[Ransom]

Its funny the Turks are more worried about the Kurds in Syria. Which is like a couple million. But not the 16 million in Turkey. Or the 4 mil in Iraq or the 8 mil in Iran.

Autonomy for the Kurds just not going to become a reality, too many vehemently opposed.

[PJL]

I don't know. Was there a "global consensus" on that or not?

Geostrategic deals made between Turkey and the US require no global consensus.

[MMC]

Autonomy for the Kurds just not going to become a reality, too many vehemently opposed.

Still if 16 mil in Turkey was to rise up. The Turks wouldn't have the time to worry about anything else outside of their country.

[IMPress Polly]

Should they have to do that? Should they have to leave their homes in order to avoid being slaughtered?

THANK YOU!!

I mean they only won the war against ISIS for us at a cost of some 10,000 of their soldiers, what do we owe them?

People who have followed my thoughts on this matter know that I have consistently supported the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their struggle to bring democratic socialism and women's rights to the Middle East. That support does not end for me because our president likes some Islamic (my how his relationship to political Islam has changed!) quasi-dictator better. I am not a war hawk, but I'm not a pacifist either. Without our material support, these people will be drowned in blood and that's a complete and utter betrayal that only goes to show why we are so despised and distrusted by people in that part of the world.

I'm paying close attention to which Republicans are standing up for the Kurdish people at this time because, honestly, I'm sort of expecting that we'll have a Democratic sitting president in 2024 and that, in that situation, I might actually vote in the Republican primary for the first time. The White House believes that Nikki Haley in particular has been positioning herself for a 2024 presidential run for some time now. I'm not as wholly closed-minded to someone like Nikki Haley as I guess I'm supposed to be. Or Joni Ernst. Anyway, where a politician stands on this issue at this time will definitely be relevant to what I think of you going forward. This is my #1 foreign policy concern at present.

[MMC]

THANK YOU!!

I mean they only won the war against ISIS for us at a cost of some 10,000 of their soldiers, what do we owe them?

People who have followed my thoughts on this matter know that I have consistently supported the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their struggle to bring democratic socialism and women's rights to the Middle East. That support does not end for me because our president likes some Islamic (my how his relationship to political Islam has changed!) quasi-dictator better. I am not a war hawk, but I'm not a pacifist either. Without our material support, these people will be drowned in blood and that's a complete and utter betrayal that only goes to show why we are so despised and distrusted by people in that part of the world.

I'm paying close attention to which Republicans are standing up for the Kurdish people at this time because, honestly, I'm sort of expecting that we'll have a Democratic sitting president in 2024 and that, in that situation, I might actually vote in the Republican primary for the first time. The White House believes that Nikki Haley in particular has been positioning herself for a 2024 presidential run for some time now. I'm not as wholly closed-minded to someone like Nikki Haley as I guess I'm supposed to be. Or Joni Ernst. Anyway, where a politician stands on this issue at this time will definitely be relevant to what I think of you going forward. This is my #1 foreign policy concern at present.

So what do you have to say about the French that stopped Kurdish reapproachment?

Then what do you have to say about the Syrian Rebels (SDF) stabbing the Kurds in the back and siding with Turkey against the Syrian Kurds? Even attacking the Kurds for Turkey.

[Ransom]

THANK YOU!!

I mean they only won the war against ISIS for us at a cost of some 10,000 of their soldiers, what do we owe them?

People who have followed my thoughts on this matter know that I have consistently supported the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their struggle to bring democratic socialism and women's rights to the Middle East. That support does not end for me because our president likes some Islamic (my how his relationship to political Islam has changed!) quasi-dictator better. I am not a war hawk, but I'm not a pacifist either. Without our material support, these people will be drowned in blood and that's a complete and utter betrayal that only goes to show why we are so despised and distrusted by people in that part of the world.

I'm paying close attention to which Republicans are standing up for the Kurdish people at this time because, honestly, I'm sort of expecting that we'll have a Democratic sitting president in 2024 and that, in that situation, I might actually vote in the Republican primary for the first time. The White House believes that Nikki Haley in particular has been positioning herself for a 2024 presidential run for some time now. I'm not as wholly closed-minded to someone like Nikki Haley as I guess I'm supposed to be. Or Joni Ernst. Anyway, where a politician stands on this issue at this time will definitely be relevant to what I think of you going forward. This is my #1 foreign policy concern at present.

I'm sorry....without our "material support?" What would be defined as "material support"......given your argument that "these people will be drowned in blood" I would think 'material support' would include military weapons, training on how to use them, and ammunition......yes?

Polly highlights my utter confusion on this issue here on tpf. Because it used to be our "material support" our interference/involvement in the ME that was supposedly causing us to be "despised and distrusted." I've been told for nearly 10 years on this forum right f'n here that US presence in the ME was the destabilizing factor. That the United States if it would just mind its own beeswax, if it would withdraw, if it would quit involving us in strife abroad, especially in the ME....then all would be well.

I'm suddenly hearing the opposite. That it is in fact US troops that are providing stability in the region. That without us......people will be "drowned in blood."

@The Sage of Main Street telling me I'm the lone dinosaur...….when I'm looking up at the Neoconville Avenue with hordes of people on it now taking the John Bolton/Ransom freeway in belief that the US is a stabilizing force in the region. We're right......again.

Why not y'all amateurs move over and let us handle these situations. Y'all eventually come running to our side of the issues anyway, we lead, you follow. Just the way it is.

[Ransom]

By the way... @IMPress Polly those are question marks there...the little ? things. Let me give you that first paragraph again

I'm sorry....without our "material support?" What would be defined as "material support"......given your argument that "these people will be drowned in blood" I would think 'material support' would include military weapons, training on how to use them, and ammunition......yes?

There are 2 questions there for you as I'm trying get unconfused. This is your "#1 foreign policy concern at present" thus why I asked these 2 questions, you seem to have done your homework and reached a conclusion. Your 2 answers will help me a great deal.

[FindersKeepers]

THANK YOU!!

I mean they only won the war against ISIS for us at a cost of some 10,000 of their soldiers, what do we owe them?

People who have followed my thoughts on this matter know that I have consistently supported the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their struggle to bring democratic socialism and women's rights to the Middle East. That support does not end for me because our president likes some Islamic (my how his relationship to political Islam has changed!) quasi-dictator better. I am not a war hawk, but I'm not a pacifist either. Without our material support, these people will be drowned in blood and that's a complete and utter betrayal that only goes to show why we are so despised and distrusted by people in that part of the world.

I'm paying close attention to which Republicans are standing up for the Kurdish people at this time because, honestly, I'm sort of expecting that we'll have a Democratic sitting president in 2024 and that, in that situation, I might actually vote in the Republican primary for the first time. The White House believes that Nikki Haley in particular has been positioning herself for a 2024 presidential run for some time now. I'm not as wholly closed-minded to someone like Nikki Haley as I guess I'm supposed to be. Or Joni Ernst. Anyway, where a politician stands on this issue at this time will definitely be relevant to what I think of you going forward. This is my #1 foreign policy concern at present.

I fear you are right about the potential outcome here. Turkey is just itching to get rid of the Kurds. I'm not too familiar with Nikki Haley, but I'll check her out.

[Mister D]

By the way... @IMPress Polly those are question marks there...the little ? things. Let me give you that first paragraph again

I'm sorry....without our "material support?" What would be defined as "material support"......given your argument that "these people will be drowned in blood" I would think 'material support' would include military weapons, training on how to use them, and ammunition......yes?

There are 2 questions there for you as I'm trying get unconfused. This is your "#1 foreign policy concern at present" thus why I asked these 2 questions, you seem to have done your homework and reached a conclusion. Your 2 answers will help me a great deal.

This is all rather shocking, no?