Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

America under President Trump

Recommended Posts

For those of you keeping score at home, here is what foreign interventions in Syria looks like.   

So where are all the other NATO "allies" that should be protecting the Kurds ??

 

450px-Participants_in_Syrian_Civil_War-e

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#United_Kingdom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:
Sanctions are coming....I wonder how this will play out.  Will u.s. go to war with the turks?  Will eu and nato follow suit and place sanctions?  

 

No...the United States will not "go to war" with ally Turkey.

Why would the EU or NATO be waiting to follow Trump ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No...the United States will not "go to war" with ally Turkey.

Why would the EU or NATO be waiting to follow Trump ?

EU is already talking about them and suspending arms exports to turkey.  I would think that they would wait to see what u.s. does first, given the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

EU is already talking about them and suspending arms exports to turkey.  I would think that they would wait to see what u.s. does first, given the situation. 

 

Who made the U.S. leader on the "situation" ?   Where was the EU before ?  Where is the UN ?

Trump is not talking about sanctions....he has already ordered them.

The EU was far more concerned about Turkey sending millions more refugees to Europe.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Who made the U.S. leader on the "situation" ?   Where was the EU before ?  Where is the UN ?

Trump is not talking about sanctions....he has already ordered them.

The EU was far more concerned about Turkey sending millions more refugees to Europe.

I guess the u.s. made the u.s. the leader of the situation since they made the situation by pulling out their troops.  

Sanctions are not ordered yet, but they are being laid out.  Semantics, I know.  

The refugees cannot get to europe unless they go through turkey or russia.  Good luck with that lol.  

Share this post


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

I guess the u.s. made the u.s. the leader of the situation since they made the situation by pulling out their troops.  

Sanctions are not ordered yet, but they are being laid out.  Semantics, I know.  

The refugees cannot get to europe unless they go through turkey or russia.  Good luck with that lol.  

 

The U.S. troops were not there to fight Turkey.   Congress never approved them anyway for Obama or Trump.

If "troops" are so important, where were the troops from other NATO/EU "allies" ?

Erdogan has threatened the EU with more refugees before this as leverage...because it works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone fought to keep isis contained.  French, germans, english, canadians, etc.  And now that's all been for nothing thanks to the u.s. giving turkey a green light to invade syria.  

I hope that when the day comes that the u.s. asks some other country for a favour and they flip him the bird,  I am still around to see it.  

 

Share this post


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

Everyone fought to keep isis contained.  French, germans, english, canadians, etc.  And now that's all been for nothing thanks to the u.s. giving turkey a green light to invade syria. 

 

"Everyone" did not fight to keep ISIS contained, and some fought a lot more than others.  Canada walked away from the Kurds two years ago because of fighting over oil fields.    Where were the other NATO/EU troops ?

The U.S. has no "green light".     I ask again, where is the UN ?  

 

Quote

I hope that when the day comes that the u.s. asks some other country for a favour and they flip him the bird,  I am still around to see it.  

 

Go for it....the U.S. has been declined in the past and just found another way.

It was Canada that begged Trump for an oil pipeline after Obama said no.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

"Everyone" did not fight to keep ISIS contained, and some fought a lot more than others.  Canada walked away from the Kurds two years ago because of fighting over oil fields.    Where were the other NATO/EU troops ?

The U.S. has no "green light".     I ask again, where is the UN ?  

 

 

Go for it....the U.S. has been declined in the past and just found another way.

It was Canada that begged Trump for an oil pipeline after Obama said no.

Actually there should be a UN resolution to protect the Kurds.  Bring in the white personnel carriers and peacekeepers/peacemakers.  It should actually be NATO-led.  Oh...Turkey is part of NATO.  Why is Turkey part of NATO again?   Deal with the devil and this is what you get.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


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

Actually there should be a UN resolution to protect the Kurds.  Bring in the peacekeepers/peacemakers.  

 

Agreed, but nobody is volunteering "boots on the ground" to do that.    Far easier to claim it was "America's job".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed, but nobody is volunteering "boots on the ground" to do that.    Far easier to claim it was "America's job".

I agree with you.  Let’s see if the UN is worth anything.  

Share this post


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

I agree with you.  Let’s see if the UN is worth anything.  

They went through this before in Rwanda.  The un would not allow clinton to describe it as a genocide because they would be mandated to intervene.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

They went through this before in Rwanda.  The un would not allow clinton to describe it as a genocide because they would be mandated to intervene.  

Right the UN is a problem, which is why we move to NATO led or coalition of the willing setups.   NATO is problematic because of Turkey’s membership.  They let in a dictator.  Turkey can be brutal to non-Turks.   We can’t let there be a bloodbath in Kurd dominated territory.   It’s another humanitarian crisis.  

“The Armenian Genocide (ArmenianՀայոց ցեղասպանություն,[note 3] Hayots tseghaspanutyunTurkishErmeni Soykırımı/Ermeni KırımıFrenchGénocide arménien), also known as the Armenian Holocaust,[10] was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 700,000 to 1.5 million Armenians,[note 2] mostly citizens of the Ottoman Empire.”  Wikipedia 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


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

They went through this before in Rwanda.  The un would not allow clinton to describe it as a genocide because they would be mandated to intervene.  

 

Clinton did not want another Mogadishu/Somalia disaster for U.S. troops, and neither does Trump.

 

Share this post


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

Right the UN is a problem, which is why we move to NATO led or coalition of the willing setups.   NATO is problematic because of Turkey’s membership.  They let in a dictator.  Turkey can be brutal to non-Turks.   We can’t let there be a bloodbath in Kurd dominated territory.   It’s another humanitarian crisis.  

NATO needs turkey as a last resort if the russians take the middle east.  Gateway to europe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Turks on the right are mostly ethnonationalists.   This could be another Tutsis over Hutus or the reverse.   The Kurds need protection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Clinton did not want another Mogadishu/Somalia disaster for U.S. troops, and neither does Trump.

 

I'm sure the u.s. would have been able to stop guys armed with machetes.  Heck all you need is some citizens with nra cards.  When clinton gave the speech he kept dodging the term "genocide" because the u.n. laws mandate that they intervene in that case.  

Share this post


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

I'm sure the u.s. would have been able to stop guys armed with machetes.  Heck all you need is some citizens with nra cards.  When clinton gave the speech he kept dodging the term "genocide" because the u.n. laws mandate that they intervene in that case.  

Well there should be UN monitoring to ensure there is no genocide.  If the killing starts, it’s use of force to protect.  

Share this post


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

Well there should be UN monitoring to ensure there is no genocide.  If the killing starts, it’s use of force to protect.  

Well that's just it...who will go in?  Out of the 5 permanent members in the u.n. council china and russia stand on one side of this while france and uk stand on the other.  Seems now the us is on the side of russia and china for some reason.  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...