Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I will not comment further at this time.

Hotel revenue beats genocide in Trump rock-paper-scissors.

Where is the fried cheese option?

I voted Bad.

JohnStOnge wrote:I will not comment further at this time.

Good. Keep it up.

I cant see polls on tapatalk

But I can guess the choices

1. Trump bad
2. Trump really bad
3. Trump abomination
4. I didnt care about the Kurds for the last 20 years but oddly now I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you're going to be an ally of ours you have to understand things change and sometimes our interests may be better served by you not being an ally. Nothing personal.

I chose neither. There are many pros and cons to the decision.
I understand the frustration of Turkey having to deal with 3.5 million Syrian refugees. I realize that the Kurds and the Turks have had conflicts for over 100 years. 50-100 US troops should not be positioned in the middle of them. They were essentially human shields, canaries in the coal mine. It looked as though Turkey was coming no matter what. The only course of action to prevent it would be to deploy 20K troops on foreign land to fight a NATO ally.

With regard to the Kurds being our ally, yes, they did a lot of dirty work for something that the US thought would be nice. But it was ISIS that attacked the Kurds directly. They fought them off but needed our help to prevent further attacks, and we helped them. This was a case of them needing our help more than us needing their help. They had an immediate need for survival. And they would not have likely survived without our help. The idea that we owe them complete backing from now to eternity for whatever the issue is would be ridiculous.

CID1990 wrote:I cant see polls on tapatalk

But I can guess the choices

1. Trump bad
2. Trump really bad
3. Trump abomination
4. I didnt care about the Kurds for the last 20 years but oddly now I do

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I was expecting when I opened the thread but surprisingly it wasn't.

Question: Trump's Decision Related to Current Turkish Incursion is
Possible responses: Good, Bad or Other

houndawg wrote:If you're going to be an ally of ours you have to understand things change and sometimes our interests may be better served by you not being an ally. Nothing personal.

That's called geopolitics and we've been doing it for a long time.

UNI88 wrote:

houndawg wrote:If you're going to be an ally of ours you have to understand things change and sometimes our interests may be better served by you not being an ally. Nothing personal.

That's called geopolitics and we've been doing it for a long time.

As one Canadian explained it...
Making alliances with the United States is like moving in next door to a motorcycle gang
a) This is good for you - when they get exactly what they want
b) situations change at the drop of a hat
c) you're never really important to them
d) assume you're being lied to

Chizzang wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
That's called geopolitics and we've been doing it for a long time.

As one Canadian explained it...
Making alliances with the United States is like moving in next door to a motorcycle gang
a) This is good for you - when they get exactly what they want
b) situations change at the drop of a hat
c) you're never really important to them
d) assume you're being lied to

At the end of the day, that’s going to be the case when dealing with any democracy - voters change their minds... frequently


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:I cant see polls on tapatalk

But I can guess the choices

1. Trump bad
2. Trump really bad
3. Trump abomination
4. I didnt care about the Kurds for the last 20 years but oddly now I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually I have thought for some time that the Kurds should have their own Country. Not that it's been this big important thing to me.

In this case the issue is different. Trump has bragged about defeating ISIS. My understanding is that the Kurds played a very important role in that. They've been a very big part of the ground force. They've been allies.

So we now have to ask ourselves if Trump taking an action that puts the Kurds at risk is a good thing.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
As one Canadian explained it...
Making alliances with the United States is like moving in next door to a motorcycle gang
a) This is good for you - when they get exactly what they want
b) situations change at the drop of a hat
c) you're never really important to them
d) assume you're being lied to

At the end of the day, that’s going to be the case when dealing with any democracy - voters change their minds... frequently

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not unique to democracies. Britain and France were using that approach when they were monarchies and China has been doing it for centuries.

JohnStOnge wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I cant see polls on tapatalk

But I can guess the choices

1. Trump bad
2. Trump really bad
3. Trump abomination
4. I didnt care about the Kurds for the last 20 years but oddly now I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually I have thought for some time that the Kurds should have their own Country. Not that it's been this big important thing to me.

In this case the issue is different. Trump has bragged about defeating ISIS. My understanding is that the Kurds played a very important role in that. They've been a very big part of the ground force. They've been allies.

So we now have to ask ourselves if Trump taking an action that puts the Kurds at risk is a good thing.

The alternative to abandoning the Kurds is forever war in the region at the expense of more US blood and treasure. It was going to be that way the minute we invaded Iraq. We had been protecting them from the air since 1991.

I guarantee you that I am the only person on this forum who has associated with the Kurds in Iraq. I was protected by the Peshmerga while I slept at night. Nobody here loves the Kurds more than I do.

But the sudden love for the Kurds is fake fake FAKE from 99% of the people talking about it. You're a bunch of feckless cunts. And you literally defend the Kurds with a straight face? You don't rate defending the Kurds. I'd say bring them all over here but they wouldn't come. They love their homelands.

Remind yourself that the Kurds were 100% in favor of our invasion of Iraq. Think of them as George W Bush supporters. That will help you and the squawk brigade feel better.

Rand Paul was just interviewed on MSNBC. He agrees with the pull out (consistency). When asked by news hottie Stephanie Reul about Lindsey Graham, Paul said Graham has been on the wrong side of FP decisions for the last 20 years.

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Actually I have thought for some time that the Kurds should have their own Country. Not that it's been this big important thing to me.

In this case the issue is different. Trump has bragged about defeating ISIS. My understanding is that the Kurds played a very important role in that. They've been a very big part of the ground force. They've been allies.

So we now have to ask ourselves if Trump taking an action that puts the Kurds at risk is a good thing.

The alternative to abandoning the Kurds is forever war in the region at the expense of more US blood and treasure. It was going to be that way the minute we invaded Iraq. We had been protecting them from the air since 1991.

I guarantee you that I am the only person on this forum who has associated with the Kurds in Iraq. I was protected by the Peshmerga while I slept at night. Nobody here loves the Kurds more than I do.

But the sudden love for the Kurds is fake fake FAKE from 99% of the people talking about it. You're a bunch of feckless cunts. And you literally defend the Kurds with a straight face? You don't rate defending the Kurds. I'd say bring them all over here but they wouldn't come. They love their homelands.

Remind yourself that the Kurds were 100% in favor of our invasion of Iraq. Think of them as George W Bush supporters. That will help you and the squawk brigade feel better.

I like George W. Bush and to this day think he made the correct decision based on the information he had. By "correct" I"m talking about in the context of having to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. As far as I could and can tell most of the world's intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs. I can remember a heavily redacted intelligence report on line (CIA I think) that said they assessed that Iraq would have nuclear weapons in a few years. Turned out that was not the case. But given that is what intelligence agencies were saying I would want any President to take action. At the time, if it seemed likely that Saddam Hussein would soon have nuclear weapons, I would want a US President to take Action to stop it.

Otherwise: I don't think the question is whether people have paid a lot of attention the Kurds historically. It's a situation in which we just had this big thing with ISIS and this group of people was very involved in helping us eliminate ISIS control of territory. Now, just like that, we are throwing that group of people to the wolves. It's kind of a general principles thing.

JohnStOnge wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The alternative to abandoning the Kurds is forever war in the region at the expense of more US blood and treasure. It was going to be that way the minute we invaded Iraq. We had been protecting them from the air since 1991.

I guarantee you that I am the only person on this forum who has associated with the Kurds in Iraq. I was protected by the Peshmerga while I slept at night. Nobody here loves the Kurds more than I do.

But the sudden love for the Kurds is fake fake FAKE from 99% of the people talking about it. You're a bunch of feckless cunts. And you literally defend the Kurds with a straight face? You don't rate defending the Kurds. I'd say bring them all over here but they wouldn't come. They love their homelands.

Remind yourself that the Kurds were 100% in favor of our invasion of Iraq. Think of them as George W Bush supporters. That will help you and the squawk brigade feel better.

I like George W. Bush and to this day think he made the correct decision based on the information he had. By "correct" I"m talking about in the context of having to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. As far as I could and can tell most of the world's intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs. I can remember a heavily redacted intelligence report on line (CIA I think) that said they assessed that Iraq would have nuclear weapons in a few years. Turned out that was not the case. But given that is what intelligence agencies were saying I would want any President to take action. At the time, if it seemed likely that Saddam Hussein would soon have nuclear weapons, I would want a US President to take Action to stop it.

Otherwise: I don't think the question is whether people have paid a lot of attention the Kurds historically. It's a situation in which we just had this big thing with ISIS and this group of people was very involved in helping us eliminate ISIS control of territory. Now, just like that, we are throwing that group of people to the wolves. It's kind of a general principles thing.

I know John - I looped you in with a group that monolithically hates GWB. It was also unfair to group you with the majority of those on the left who are pretending to give a fvck about the Kurds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you haven’t really studies up on “The Kurds”, I’d recommend you do so before jumping on a position...I accept that CID has first hand experience, and depend on that type of information in making a decision...

IMHO, we need to demand that people of Kurdish decent in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria do not suffer the same fate that the Armenians did over 100 years ago...

The Kurds were suppose to get their own country after WW I , but someone screwed them, and they were left as the predominant ethnic group in small sections of the four countries listed above...

If you look at the list of Kurdish political groups, they range from Communist to Islamic to militias ...

So, when people say we walked away from “The Kurds”, we had walked away from the majority of the Kurds decades ago...

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I like George W. Bush and to this day think he made the correct decision based on the information he had. By "correct" I"m talking about in the context of having to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. As far as I could and can tell most of the world's intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs. I can remember a heavily redacted intelligence report on line (CIA I think) that said they assessed that Iraq would have nuclear weapons in a few years. Turned out that was not the case. But given that is what intelligence agencies were saying I would want any President to take action. At the time, if it seemed likely that Saddam Hussein would soon have nuclear weapons, I would want a US President to take Action to stop it.

Otherwise: I don't think the question is whether people have paid a lot of attention the Kurds historically. It's a situation in which we just had this big thing with ISIS and this group of people was very involved in helping us eliminate ISIS control of territory. Now, just like that, we are throwing that group of people to the wolves. It's kind of a general principles thing.

I know John - I looped you in with a group that monolithically hates GWB. It was also unfair to group you with the majority of those on the left who are pretending to give a fvck about the Kurds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if you were saying I am on the left. But I am not on the left. I am someone on the right that realizes that the overwhelming majority of the people who think of themselves as being on the right are doing the wrong thing right now. And who realizes that there is an awful lot of intellectual dishonesty coming from what has historically been my "side."

Col Hogan wrote:If you haven’t really studies up on “The Kurds”, I’d recommend you do so before jumping on a position...I accept that CID has first hand experience, and depend on that type of information in making a decision...

IMHO, we need to demand that people of Kurdish decent in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria do not suffer the same fate that the Armenians did over 100 years ago...

The Kurds were suppose to get their own country after WW I , but someone screwed them, and they were left as the predominant ethnic group in small sections of the four countries listed above...

If you look at the list of Kurdish political groups, they range from Communist to Islamic to militias ...

So, when people say we walked away from “The Kurds”, we had walked away from the majority of the Kurds decades ago...

That’s all definitely true.

The PKK is an actual Maoist organization and definitely a security problem for Turkey and others

One of our most wanted terrorist members of the Al Zarqawi cell in Iraq was a Kurd

The Turks are going to use the PKK as and excuse for everything they do to the Kurds.. and if they get their way it won’t be much different than what they did to the Armenians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Col Hogan wrote:If you haven’t really studies up on “The Kurds”, I’d recommend you do so before jumping on a position...I accept that CID has first hand experience, and depend on that type of information in making a decision...

IMHO, we need to demand that people of Kurdish decent in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria do not suffer the same fate that the Armenians did over 100 years ago...

The Kurds were suppose to get their own country after WW I , but someone screwed them, and they were left as the predominant ethnic group in small sections of the four countries listed above...

If you look at the list of Kurdish political groups, they range from Communist to Islamic to militias ...

So, when people say we walked away from “The Kurds”, we had walked away from the majority of the Kurds decades ago...

From who will we be demanding that?

Erdowan?

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:If you haven’t really studies up on “The Kurds”, I’d recommend you do so before jumping on a position...I accept that CID has first hand experience, and depend on that type of information in making a decision...

IMHO, we need to demand that people of Kurdish decent in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria do not suffer the same fate that the Armenians did over 100 years ago...

The Kurds were suppose to get their own country after WW I , but someone screwed them, and they were left as the predominant ethnic group in small sections of the four countries listed above...

If you look at the list of Kurdish political groups, they range from Communist to Islamic to militias ...

So, when people say we walked away from “The Kurds”, we had walked away from the majority of the Kurds decades ago...

From who will we be demanding that?

Erdowan?

Maybe a plane load of cash to Ankara would work

Send a plane load of cash, get the Turks to agree to leave the Kurds alone, declare victory, easy peasy

Voted good. Need to get out of others business.

Not happy when I hear soldiers are dismayed at our leaving.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
From who will we be demanding that?

Erdowan?

Maybe a plane load of cash to Ankara would work

Send a plane load of cash, get the Turks to agree to leave the Kurds alone, declare victory, easy peasy

The Kurds are already dead, move on.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
From who will we be demanding that?

Erdowan?

Maybe a plane load of cash to Ankara would work

Send a plane load of cash, get the Turks to agree to leave the Kurds alone, declare victory, easy peasy

Sounds good, Erdogan can be bought.