Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 170

Trump: PKK is worse than ISIS

Trump Interview with NYT 7/2016

SANGER: You said that they could be much more helpful with ISIS. I’m sure perhaps they can. The big difference they’ve had is that we’ve been supporting Kurdish forces that have been very effective ——

TRUMP: I’m a fan of the Kurds, you understand.

SANGER: But Erdogan is not. Tell us how you would deal with that?

TRUMP: Well, it would be ideal if we could get them all together. And that would be a possibility. But I’m a big fan of the Kurdish forces. At the same time, I think we have a potentially — we could have a potentially very successful relationship with Turkey. And it would be really wonderful if we could put them somehow both together.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us...d-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html

This is a real letter from Trump to Erdogan

Hahaha
you got to love his cheap salesman style

Seriously, this is some basic door to door tactics
I mean I felt like Trump is an open book
But it just confirms he uses the same communication everywhere haha

You just know no politician does it this way, they have a face for the campaign and public and then backroom dealings with a different approach
Big reason why he got elected I guess

But feels like a naive baby in a sinister world - I wonder how even more people like Erdogan aren't taking advantage of him, maybe they are

On October 17 2019 03:54 RiKD wrote: This is a real letter from Trump to Erdogan

So Turkey will stop the offensive into Syria and will get its safezone while the Kurds will integrate into Syria. You guys might gloat over the way the current US president doesn't have others write his speeches for him but he basically ended the eight year civil war that Obama and Hilary Clinton started in less than a week. Five hundred thousand dead.
It takes a lot of balls to clean up the trail of devastation Obama left behind. Most likely this whole Turkish invasion was planned by the US, Turkey, Syria and Russia beforehand but who cares about a little political theater if it finally ends this mess.

Some guy wrote this on teamliquid so I'll just quote him and edit it a bit, could not have worded it better myself.

I will add that this comes out the day after dems had their debate railing how the US should keep troops in the middle east (except 1 candidate I remember).

The democratic party is now the socialist, anti first and second amendment, pro endless wars in foreign countries, that supports abortions on the third trimester. They also want to raise your taxes and make private health care and/our insurance illegal. I'm sure they will do great at the next election.

yes its not like Assad was killing Kurds pre this whole fiesta they will definitely integrate

gtfo GoTuNk

Also what the fuck are you talking about you can literally google and see that Trump is the president that has dropped most bombs - yes more than Obama - he didn't clean up shit '

Also there is literally no left/socialist party in the US they are all right political orientation both democrats and republicans, you have no idea what you're talking about

On October 17 2019 19:27 Spitfiree wrote: yes its not like Assad was killing Kurds pre this whole fiesta they will definitely integrate gtfo GoTuNk Also what the fuck are you talking about you can literally google and see that Trump is the president that has dropped most bombs - yes more than Obama - he didn't clean up shit ' Also there is literally no left/socialist party in the US they are all right political orientation both democrats and republicans, you have no idea what you're talking about

They settled a cease fire today

Well it wasn't really Trump or Obama, it was the US government under they leadership.
Obama set the middle east on fire, Trump has not started new wars, finished cleaning up ISIS, and pulled troops from Syria. Might get a more permanent cease fire.

Politics is relative. The democratic party is the left win party in the US.
It's arguably front runner pelosy is running on ultimate left wing, unconstitutional, non sense such as a "wealth tax" and there is no need to elaborate on comrade Bernie. They have drifted towards left dramatically since 2016.

On Abortion, which is very important to many americans, they have moved from Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" famous quote to endorsing THIRD TERM abortions.

lol..

This is basically the timeline here..? (in your spirit, I basically quote a guy from tl and edit it a little, too)

Trump tells Turkey on the phone he'll remove US forces
Turkey invades northern syria to control a zone beyond the border, and because of their desire to remove kurds from the area/kill the kurds
Turkey executes kurds
International backlash against Turkey
Trump threatens with sanctions and turkey gets sanctioned
Peace talks: Turkey promises it will stop fighting if they get to control a zone beyond the border and kurds are removed from the area
US promises sanctions get removed if this happens

a 5 day 'ceasefire' (that turkish officials aren't willing to regard as a ceasefire, but as a 'pause') is reached
Trump calls victory

This is another example of Trump creating a problem, there being backlash, him coming up with a solution that is better than the problem, but worse than the pre-problem situation, and him calling it a win.

Politics is relative. The democratic party is the left win party in the US.

no its not

On October 17 2019 22:02 Liquid`Drone wrote: lol.. This is basically the timeline here..? (in your spirit, I basically quote a guy from tl and edit it a little, too) Trump tells Turkey on the phone he'll remove US forces Turkey invades northern syria to control a zone beyond the border, and because of their desire to remove kurds from the area/kill the kurds Turkey executes kurds International backlash against Turkey Trump threatens with sanctions and turkey gets sanctioned Peace talks: Turkey promises it will stop fighting if they get to control a zone beyond the border and kurds are removed from the area US promises sanctions get removed if this happens a 5 day 'ceasefire' (that turkish officials aren't willing to regard as a ceasefire, but as a 'pause') is reached Trump calls victory This is another example of Trump creating a problem, there being backlash, him coming up with a solution that is better than the problem, but worse than the pre-problem situation, and him calling it a win.

So, on your own words, the US troops are out of Sirya, and Turks and kurds are not currently killing each other. Am I missing something?
Remeber Trump did not create the problem, it was OBAMA. He also created ISIS on his first term, which Trump finished clearing.

The assumption that the turks would have not atacked because of a small US contigent is dubious at best. Those people where sitting ducks waiting to get killed and forcing the US into a massive war vs any of the groups in Syria.

Obama did not create the turkish-kurdish problem what the fuck. And the turkish were not attacking because of the small american contigent. How is it dubious when that is what was happening? They are there, they don't attack. They leave, they immediately attack. Like you seriously think Turkey is gonna attack american troops? The stuff you say doesn't make any sense. It's blatantly incoherent and extremely ignorant, even on a short timescale. (you are a self-admitted neocon, but you blame Obama, not Bush, for ISIS?

From other posters posting what you just posted I would assume they were trolling tbh.

Edit: lol I wrote this before visiting any newspapers. Apparently the 'ceasefire' has already been broken.

Also like.. I don't want to be insulting. But please walk me through your logic.

Bush invades Iraq. I'm not sure if you know this, but Obama was not involved in this decision. (He wasn't even a senator at that point. ) But then Obama created ISIS? How did he create it? (My best bet is that he did it through withdrawing american troops from the region?) Now Trump, granted, inherits the middle east mess. And then you're saying that he fixed it by destroying ISIS (among other things by fighting alongside Kurds) and then withdrawing american troops from the region?

From my pov, nothing about the current situation is better than what we had 2 weeks ago, it's just that the Kurds have suffered great losses due to Americans betraying them.

Ras al-Ain is still being attacked right now, and Serê Kaniyê has been under attack for 9 days and it had just been completely surrounded right before Turkey agreed to pausing their assault. When you've surrounded a city -- arguably the most strategically important city in the whole of Rojava -- so that the people cannot get in or out, that is an act of war, no one can deny that. It makes this idea of a "cease fire" a disgusting joke. There are not only Kurds holding down that city, but many Turkish leftists (TIKKO) and internationalists. It's amazing that they've lasted for that long tbh, but lots of people died and many more are injured.

GoTuNk has no idea of the things he s talking about as usual. He doesn't realize its Turkey that is a sitting duck, no the US soldiers. Not many armies would be stupid enough to touch American citizens, Trump kinda crashed their economy just because of a single American citizen, imagine if they open fire against military personnel, while bordering NATO nations with US soldiers present there at all times (one of them being Greece who would love nothing more than to shit on Turks)

I can also argue that Bush wasn't the one that "created" ISIS/Al-Quida but it was Raegan since he gave the Afghani their guns in their 80s, Clinton then started pushing them into extremism and Bush just finalized the entire process.

blaming obama makes little sense, he inherited the empire and carried out serious terrorist attacks in the middle east, but he was not as bad as the previous 3 presidents in creating problems for the kurds; or in the creation of ISIS. that is to be blamed on all presidents but george bush's invasion was the main factor by far.

Bush: invaded Iraq, in 2007 let the turkish government bomb iraqi kurds.
clinton: sold arms to turkey with the knowledge that those arms would be used to massacre turkish kurds.
george bush senior: encouraged kurds to stage an uprising and told them the US military would help overthrow saddam. ended up just watching them rise up and stood by while they got massacred.

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kurds-syria-turkey-trump-betrayal/ -A short history for ppl pretending to be phd's in middle east security studies ITT.

As you can see betraying the kurds as very common and to be expected, as it's been done 8 times. They are a vital chess peice in America/British imperialist strategy, as they are fragmented across the major nations in the middle east they can be supported to create problems for any government that america has a problem with in the region. And they can have that support stopped as well.

Who created ISIS? The invasion of Iraq was by far the biggest cause. https://chomsky.info/20150303/

On October 18 2019 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: Also like.. I don't want to be insulting. But please walk me through your logic. Bush invades Iraq. I'm not sure if you know this, but Obama was not involved in this decision. (He wasn't even a senator at that point. ) But then Obama created ISIS? How did he create it? (My best bet is that he did it through withdrawing american troops from the region?) Now Trump, granted, inherits the middle east mess. And then you're saying that he fixed it by destroying ISIS (among other things by fighting alongside Kurds) and then withdrawing american troops from the region? From my pov, nothing about the current situation is better than what we had 2 weeks ago, it's just that the Kurds have suffered great losses due to Americans betraying them.

Well on the larger scale people have been killing each other since the dawn of men on that area, and you can't really put it on any US President. I tought this was the argument against having US troops on the area that so many leftists believed in? Bush did invade Irak so def didn't help, but it wasn't "just him", he had international and US internal support from most republicans AND democrats after 9/11. Putting it on him solely is revisionist history.
Moving foward, the war in Iraq after massive bloodshed was largely won when Obama took over and pulled 100% troops unilaterally (with Republicans going mad against it), causing the vacuum of power that ignited ISIS.

The argument about "no one would be stupid enough to attack US troops"? What? How many US soldiers have been killed on this endless wars. I'm not saying they would send a plane with a turkish flag and bomb them into oblivion, thats stupid. But the risk that any of the beligerant groups would send a missile/suicide bomber or watherver else and then try to blame another group is always there.

The event hasn't fully unfolded so we have to wait. But asserting unkowable stuff and unfolded future events so arrogantly is just pure hatred towards Donald Trump. And yes, there is something a lot better than 2 weeks ago; US troops are not there. I guess Europeans don't care at all about US soldiers safety, but americans and other people do.

Maybe the turks start a full blown civil war in Syria in 4 days and everyone starts killing each other, or worse, the kurds are obliterated. That would obviously be worse, but we can't really know if they would have done it anyway and it was really just an evacuation by Trump trying to save face.

Or maybe they all split Syria, give Turkey their buffer zone, and the war stops for a while (before they start it again because it's the middle east after all)

I wonder, are you really from Chile? Not implying anything just curious

US soldiers have been killed by people that were already at war with the US, Turkey is a part of NATO and an attack on their soldiers would mean they are thrown out of NATO, revert any talks the EU had with them and a full-blown war with the US, there is no other group there, they d have to essentially blame the Kurds, plus the US will be quite aware of who does what there

The war will probably be over, I'm assuming Assad and Erdogan " shook hands " and take control back

The US is completely psychotic when defending their territory, completely willing to launch an all out nuclear war over any sort of minor military incursion from a major foreign power. Anyone that's read their cold war plans, or even saw how they reacted to 9/11, knows this. If turkey attacked a US army base, America would be put on DEFCON 2 at the very least.

On October 18 2019 12:03 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On October 18 2019 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: Also like.. I don't want to be insulting. But please walk me through your logic. Bush invades Iraq. I'm not sure if you know this, but Obama was not involved in this decision. (He wasn't even a senator at that point. ) But then Obama created ISIS? How did he create it? (My best bet is that he did it through withdrawing american troops from the region?) Now Trump, granted, inherits the middle east mess. And then you're saying that he fixed it by destroying ISIS (among other things by fighting alongside Kurds) and then withdrawing american troops from the region? From my pov, nothing about the current situation is better than what we had 2 weeks ago, it's just that the Kurds have suffered great losses due to Americans betraying them. Well on the larger scale people have been killing each other since the dawn of men on that area, and you can't really put it on any US President. I tought this was the argument against having US troops on the area that so many leftists believed in? Bush did invade Irak so def didn't help, but it wasn't "just him", he had international and US internal support from most republicans AND democrats after 9/11.

Nice argument. You think since there has been killing since the dawn of time that absolve's individual people from crimes? I guess you can't really put the holocaust on hitler or any gulag crimes on stalin, since it's been going on since cavemen were around. That's the logic of your argument.

Bush did not have 'international support'. Most of the world was completely opposed to it. He did not even the support of elites from most countries, as you can see from the coalition of the willing, most governments did not support it. And his invasion turned america into the most hated country in the world. Since i care about what populations think and not just elite interests (that's what we are supposed to do in a democracy), when people use words like 'international support', we should decode this terminology from it's orwellian meaning, which is 'support from elites in allied nations'.

The reason so many leftists don't want troops in the area is out of moral consideration, and this is backed up by international law, like the UN charter. I mean there are the fringe leftists 'tankies' who loco mentioned that are isolationist out of ideology, but most leftists simply don't want an aggressive war crimes being committed in other countries, without any good justification.