Ceasefire in Turkey-Syria

[Guest Mores]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, this is one of those situations where I was responding to something I *thought* I’d put in my post but—as it turns out—didn’t.  All I’d initially seen of Romney’s remarks were that the cease fire was “far from a victory”, and that was the spirit in which I was responding.

Yes, I saw it in the later post.  But consider that for my position, it is irrelevant.  Victory or not, safety of allies or not, my point is "What are we even doing there?"  They are NOT real allies.  They're just one bad guy we happen to be along side one day and then fight the next day.

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But as it pertains to this discussion, the comment was directed towards those who laud the cease-fire, specifically, as a “victory” or a “good deal”.  It is neither.  

Exactly.

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We just forced the Nauvoo Mormons to give their temple to the mob, and while it may have been necessary—it’s still a tragedy; and to celebrate it is frankly ghoulish.

I can see that.  And I hope you didn't think I was "celebrating".  I was agreeing with the decision to pull our troops out.  And I feel good about the decision.  But I'm also well aware of some unintended consequences not being favorable.

[anatess2]

On 10/19/2019 at 5:25 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Where do you get this idea that they want a Communist government?

all sources I had said DIFFERENTLY.  It's odd that you prop up your statement with such an idea.

You have Kurdish Communist parties, but a great majority are part of other groups.  When left to their own devices it seems more recently they established a DEMOCRATIC government (though admittedly it's more of a fragmented tribal/local leadership government with a few democratic thoughts tossed into the mix in many instances) in the regions they control which seems to go counter to your argument that they all want a Communist government.

The ones being attacked are actually the Democrat Kurds overall, not specifically the Communist Kurds.  Your are considering ALL Kurds as part of the PKK, when that is distinctly NOT true.  In fact, the PKK and it's offshoot joined with many other groups in the Region, many of which were more Democratically aligned.  In their own governance they have a more democratic system, not a communist one.  Of course, it is not over reaching, not complete, and very fragmented.  Thus, it can be hard to actually come up with what a more viable way of governing would be.

The PKK has considerable roots and influence among the Kurds, but it is NOT the only representative group there.  In addition, as I said, the government the Kurds established, at least for this brief time, was NOT a communist one.  The reason Turkey is against them has NOTHING to do with combating communism and in fact, is attacking what appears to be a more Democratic leaning regional government (though non-recognized and thus non-legitimate). 

Thus far, JAG is more correct, it would look more like an Israeli state (but without the modern power or ability, meaning we'd probably have to be there for a loooong while if we wanted it to continue to exist).

Turkey is attacking for several reasons, but Communism is NOT one of them (as far as I know).  They see them as terrorists (most of the region see Kurds as undesirables).  Turkey want's land, and wants to have a buffer state, but the buffer state is one that TURKEY controls.  (A Kurdish nation would have actually made a buffer state but Turkey has a strong element of racism against the Kurds, to many of the more conservative groups all Kurds are Terrorists in their eyes).  In many ways it is considered a fight against Terrorism and an undesired minority.  Turkey want's the land to control in the way they want overall.  They want the buffer state or area, but ONLY one that Turkey actually is in charge of.

If you have evidence that shows that they would actually form a Communist N.Korea it would be interesting to read, as the government they formed from their own coalition in Syria seemed more like a Democratic one (or at least with Democratic leanings).  In other areas such as Northern Iraq, the Kurds had Soviet Backing early on.  Left to their own devices they did not seem to hold a specific Communist government, though their roots of support started with the Soviets.  They have that background but they seemed to lean more towards a democratic way of governance when left to their own devices. With the US's involvement in the past few decades, they seem to be one of the more enthusiastic factions that supported the US's involvement and even the democratic process the US has tried to instill in Iraq.

With that thought, it would appear that even their Communist roots are more on who backed them in their original struggles after WWII, but the way they govern is more of what one would consider a Tribal Democracy based more on family and local cultural powers rather than one of a typical Communist arena.

I am interested in your evidence and sources that it would end up like a N.Korea though, especially if the US had actually been the main creator and influencer of their nation.  Even Germany had a more Democrat minded group after WWII in territories the US controlled though they had a great deal of Soviet influence.  I'd imagine with the Kurds it could turn out similarly (and that's how it seems to have gone thus far, when the US has a strong influence they seem not to turn towards communism as their main government, though without the US and with Soviet influence it seems they turn more towards a communist slant).

I'd say it depends on who is their main ally at the time and pulling the reins.  If it is the US, I'd say they'd actually be more of a local tribal democracy, but if we let them align with the Soviets (such as with what actions we have taken recently)  your commentary may turn out correct.  They seem to align with whoever will actually help them meet their goals.  Early on it tended to be the Soviets which is why you see so many of them with Communist roots in the creation of their various parties.  That does not necessarily reflect what that group is like today.  Typically they are seen more as straight up terrorists by those who do not like them rather than Communist fighters.

I am willing to listen and be shown I am wrong though.

 

Just pause for a moment here. 

In this post - whether it's the Kurds or the Saints doesn't matter...

You are actually promoting the idea that the USA has the moral standing to CREATE a nation outside of their soil...

Edited October 21, 2019 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Just pause for a moment here. 

In this post - whether it's the Kurds or the Saints doesn't matter...

You are actually promoting the idea that the USA has the moral standing to CREATE a nation outside of their soil...

Japan and West Germany.

South Korea.

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

Edited October 21, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Japan and West Germany.

South Korea.

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

The USA (or insert another country here) created Japan and West Germany?

The USA (or insert another country here) created South Korea?  Iraq?  Afghanistan?

Holy smokes, batman.

 

 

[Still_Small_Voice]

Mitt Romney will likely never get a vote from me again.  He has advocated for the citizen red flag private gun confiscation laws that completely violate the 5th and 6th Amendment rights for American citizens in due process of law.  These terrible laws that have been adopted in about twelve states also violate the 2nd Amendment at the whim of an accuser and Judge with the defendant never getting his say in court until after their private firearms are taken away.  (Good luck ever getting your property back.)

I cannot wait to replace him in the Senate.  We need more people like Mike Lee and Rand Paul in the Senate who stand up for American citizen's rights and liberty.

[anatess2]

[Guest MormonGator]

On 10/21/2019 at 9:26 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

We need more people like Mike Lee and Rand Paul in the Senate who stand up for American citizen's rights and liberty.

Amen to that. 

[NeuroTypical]

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

 @NeuroTypical-there is this, too. I guess Trump doesn't deserve much credit for killing this guy either. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 @NeuroTypical-there is this, too. I guess Trump doesn't deserve much credit for killing this guy either. 

I don’t understand.  Trump killed Obama?

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t understand.  Trump killed Obama?

 

 

Don't you love how the internet never forgets?

[NeuroTypical]

I just watched Trump's 8+ minute long statement about the thing, and I don't see him taking credit.   Compare to Obama's statement.  Listen to Obama's comments starting around 3 minutes.  Find me something similar in Trump's statement.

10 minutes googling:

"Pelosi says Trump notified Russians of Baghdadi raid before telling congressional leaders" - Washington Post
"Some analysts question U.S. ability to prevent ISIS resurgence" - Washington Post
"The 41 most shocking lines from Donald Trump's Baghdadi announcement" - CNN
"As long as Trump is in power, Baghdadi's death will not necessarily make the world a safer place" - The Independent
"Baghdadi’s death underscores what we’ve lost by abandoning Syria’s Kurds" - Washington Post
 

Edited October 28, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I just watched Trump's 8+ minute long statement about the thing, and I don't see him taking credit. 

Do you really believe that Trump doesn't take credit for this? Really? 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Do you really believe that Trump doesn't take credit for this? Really? 

Say what you want about Trump but he has been very consistent about honoring and praising the efforts and good works of the military.  He's full of braggadocio but in very serious matters he ALWAYS gives the credit to soldiers, the police, and the American people.  If you just watch one rally, this becomes clearly apparent.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Do you really believe that Trump doesn't take credit for this? Really? 

He challenged you to find where he does...  If that is the best you (or anyone else) can come up with, then it seems like he doesn't.  And this is Trump we are talking about.. he is not shy about telling people about himself...  His credit taking should be a simple matter to prove.

[NeuroTypical]

To be clear, I'm glad we rid the planet of Bin Laden, and I'm glad we rid the planet of al'Baghdadi.

One was done under Obama's command, one under Trump's command.  They both did their job as commander in chief, no matter how the back patting and public speechifiying played out.

But when folks say Trump is hogging the spotlight, and they say nothing about Obama, it makes me think they've got electrodes hooked into the base of their neck leading directly to the one-sided abomination of fake news we call the mainstream media.   If someone finds themselves in that camp, I suggest they unplug and seek to gain a healthier, more accurate perspective. They might discover they are like coal miners with no canary - they don't know they're sick.

(Not talking about you Gator, just hearing it from other places.)

Edited October 28, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

Pompeo:  "The President talked about how we were gonna get hostages back and we've done great work.  The President talked about how we were going to take down terrorism wherever we find it.  It wasn't just this mission.  He gave the tools.  He gave the intelligence team, the team that I had the chance to lead, he gave us all the authority, all the capacity.  He changed the rules of engagement so that we could develop the situations, so that we could conduct missions just like the one that was conducted this past weekend.  The President enabled us to go take down terrorists wherever we find them, to save lives, to bring back hostages.  These are all amazing things, big change from what was taking place in the previous administration."

 

This is how you run a strategic military rather than a military concerned about CNN political optics - e.g. Benghazi.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by anatess2

[estradling75]

24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

To be clear, I'm glad we rid the planet of Bin Laden, and I'm glad we rid the planet of al'Baghdadi.

One was done under Obama's command, one under Trump's command.  They both did their job as commander in chief, no matter how the back patting and public speechifiying played out.

But when folks say Trump is hogging the spotlight, and they say nothing about Obama, it makes me think they've got electrodes hooked into the base of their neck leading directly to the one-sided abomination of fake news we call the mainstream media.   If someone finds themselves in that camp, I suggest they unplug and seek to gain a healthier, more accurate perspective. They might discover they are like coal miners with no canary - they don't know they're sick.

Indeed.

The President is the Commander in Chief...  The vision, purpose and goals have to come from him.  So if someone wants to give the President (Obama or Trump) the credit for taking out a terrorist leader... I have no problem with that.

I also know that the President has to be an IDEA guy...  It takes alot of work to translate ideas into workable plans... and it ultimately takes boots on the ground to accomplish that. If someone wants to focus on giving those guys the credit... I have no problem with that either.

My problem is in the hypocrisy.  If one president did a good thing and deserved credit... so does the other.  If a person or group praises one while ignoring or condemning the other then their bias and hypocrisy is on clear display.  

It is one thing for a political operative to have biases and spin things as hard as they can.  That is kind of expected from a political operative.  One should simply take that into account.  However one should never believe someone that is acting like a political operative claims to objectivity or neutrality.  And that is the way the main stream press has been acting for a long time.

We are suppose to have a free and independent press..  What we have are bought and paid for attack dogs.

[NeuroTypical]

Two times I've been proud of two different presidents:

Trump's comments on Abu Bakr al'Baghdadi:  https://youtu.be/GYzNpv-7F7M
Obama's comments on Bin Laden:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYmK19-d0U

Edited October 28, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

He challenged you to find where he does...  If that is the best you (or anyone else) can come up with, then it seems like he doesn't.  And this is Trump we are talking about.. he is not shy about telling people about himself...  His credit taking should be a simple matter to prove.

You are probably right. After all, he's taken credit for things he hasn't done 981 times before, so the 982nd time will be different. And those bottles of whiskey you found when you helped me move? They were really just for a friend. I swear. 

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

(Not talking about you Gator, just hearing it from other places.)

No worries bud, I didn't take it that way at all!. And for the record, I disagreed with Obama on 85% of the issues but thought he was a highly decent man personally. I disagree on Trump on 25% of the issues, but I think he's a corrupt and immoral man. I think part of my issue with Trumpers is that they don't understand Bill Clinton supporters. Many, many democrats also thought that Bill Clinton was a highly corrupt and immoral man yet they voted for him because they agreed with him on the issues. Trumpers do....the exact same thing but claim not to understand why democrats supported Bill Clinton during the 90's. Basically, it all depends on your political views.

Now, I will say that most LDS Trumpers would openly admit that Trump is a very, very troubled man morally. If @MormonGator was openly cheating on his wife with a mistress, got the mistress pregnant and married her-he'd be disfellowshipped, probably excommunicated and rightly so. Virtually no LDS would talk about my high character and moral  choices. But, if I ran for office and they agreed with me on the issues, I do wonder if they'd vote for me. I know I'm stereotyping, and I apologize-but the Evangelicals I've heard about and read about seem to think Trumps behavior is irrelevant because he basically agrees with them politically. LDS have more integrity than that.  

Edited October 28, 2019 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

Why is the Middle East such an unsolvable problem?  It is not really complicated – but it is complex with several different competing interests.  Here are some:

#1.  The first problem is that Islam is in war with itself – a war that goes back about 1500 years to the origins of Islam.  When Mohamed died Islam broke into two camps, the Sunni and the Shiite.  This is not a split over doctrine but over who should replace Mohamed which was between a son of Mohamed and a cozen (son-in-law).    The Shiite believe that the Sunni murdered Mohamed’s son and the Sunni believe that the son was not a legitimate heir.   (Islam allows for polygamy)    If all other factors were removed from the Middle East – Islam would still be at war between the Sunni and Shiite.

#2.  Islam is quit raciest and there is a divide between Arabian Muslims (Decedents of Abraham that believe they are more chosen of G-d) and the rest of Islam.  For example, Iran is looked down upon because they are Persian.

#3. The Royal Saudi Family is seen as too powerful and corrupt – even the religious leaders within Saudi Arabia is at odds with the Royal Saudi Family.  The Royal family is aligned with the USA and the West and controls the oil reserves and the Oil Cartel.  Ben Laden was from Saudi Arabia and is a Sunni that was aligned with the religious opposition to the Royal Family and Wester interests.

#4. In general Islam dislikes everybody else.  The term for those that do not believe in Islam is “Infidel”.  Infidels are considered enemies of G-d and Muslims believe that there will be war (jihad) until a final war that will end wickedness and the pillars of wickedness controlled by Satan.  A possible exception is what is called “the children of the book” – which is mostly believed to be Christians and in some cases Jews.  The problem is that in a very important battle, Mohamed was betrayed by some Jews and many Muslims believe they were betrayed by all of Jewism and not a few corrupted Jews.  Some Muslims believe that the children of the book will be united with Islam near the end of the world when Jesus (a prophet) will appear with Mohamed.  The “pillars of wickedness” under the control of Satan is compound interest.  Islam in general opposes all foreign interests, governments and peoples that build economies on compound interest banking.

#5 Tribalism within Islam.  Here in the West we like to refer to War Lords and factions within Islam but these groups are best described as Tribes based on territories.  The Kurds are a good example of Shiite tribalism whereas Palestinians in Israel is a good example of Sunni tribalism.   Often Islamic tribes want independence (not really liberty but more of regional religious theocracy).  Islam does not believe in separation between church and state but rather that the law should be controlled exclusively by Islam and the clergy class.  This is called Sharia Law.  By definition anyone that opposes Sharia Law is wicked and aligned with Satan.

#6. Water.  In the Middle East drinkable water is more important than money or oil.  There is continual conflict over who controls the fresh water resources.  This problem is one of the least understood by those outside of the Middle East.

#7. Oil.  Despite the rhetoric often spouted in Western political circles – Oil is not the most controlling element of the Middle East but it is the most important element of industrialized nations outside of the Middle East.  Because of this difference in point of view it is difficult to maintain allies between societies in the Middle East with those outside of the Middle East.

I would compare Trump Middle East policies (as well as any other Western political policy) to a fall leaf blowing in the wind.  It may be pretty, depending on someone’s point of view but it will not last beyond its season.

 

The Traveler

Edited October 28, 2019 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Why is the Middle such an unsolvable problem?  It is not really complicated

It's incredibly complicated. When people say "lets meet in the middle" what they really mean "Unite under my values and ignore yours." Will pro-lifers "meet in the middle" with pro-choicers? What abortion will they allow? What restrictions would pro-choicers agree to? Would gun rights advocates agree to a handgun ban? Will gun control advocates agree to continue the gun show loopholes? What about gay marriage? What about taxes? 

I'm not saying we shouldn't compromise and work together. Just that it's extremely complicated. When Mitt Romney tries to reach out to democrats or critique Trump, right wingers go nuts. When a democrat here in Florida speaks positively about capitalism, democrats go nuts. Like it or not, the extremes run the parties and reasonable moderates like Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are a dying breed. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

Just now, MormonGator said:

It's incredibly complicated. When people say "lets meet in the middle" what they really mean "Unite under my values and ignore yours." Will pro-lifers "meet in the middle" with pro-choicers? What abortion will they allow? What restrictions would pro-choicers agree to? Would gun rights advocates agree to a handgun ban? Will gun control advocates agree to continue the gun show loopholes? What about gay marriage? What about taxes? 

I'm not saying we shouldn't compromise and work together. Just that it's extremely  complicated. Like it or not, the extremes run the parties and reasonable moderates like Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are a dying breed. 

Sorry for the typo - I should have included "Middle East" and not just "Middle"  I have made the correction.

Just because something may have multiple competing levels creating complexity - it does not have to be complicated.  Many very simple levels can appear complicated because of complexity - but the reason for conflict are almost always very simple.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

\ it does not have to be complicated. 

 @Traveler, if you think you can bridge the partisan divide in our country, then I wish you the best of luck, and I'd even vote for you if you ran for office. 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You are probably right. After all, he's taken credit for things he hasn't done 981 times before, so the 982nd time will be different. And those bottles of whiskey you found when you helped me move? They were really just for a friend. I swear.

You claim he is taking credit (justified or not)...  prove it.    It really should not be that hard to do.  Until then you are putting words in his mouth and that is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do.