Which is what the whole concept of "allies" is based upon. Mutual self interest and a promise (via treaty, word or deed) to support the other.Originally Posted by wsr
A promise made is a promise kept.
Which is what the whole concept of "allies" is based upon. Mutual self interest and a promise (via treaty, word or deed) to support the other.
A promise made is a promise kept.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Depends on if hotels are involved.
Not what I was talking about but still a good point, so here’s some questions...what promises were made by the US? What actions were those promises contingent on? What did the Kurds promise the US? Did the Kurds fulfill their promises?
Honest questions...the answers to all of that play into “a promise made is a promise kept”
(On fire with the Snatch vids today... Sorry 'bout the language)
US promised to protect them if they removed their defensive fortifications facing the Turkish border. Kind of like the US promised to protect Ukraine if they gave up their nukes.
Last edited by Zincwarrior; 10-10-2019 at 10:33 AM.
Which we did. We supplied cash, arms, vehicles, training, CAS, beans, bullets, and band-aids. In pursuit of a common enemy, ISIS. We also had 50 US troops on the border as a stop check to keep Turkey restrained up to now.
Those who think we should have carved out a piece of Syria for the Kurd's, it isn't our country to carve out, and the Kurd's could never hold it with out our help. Which means boots on the ground forever.
Remember how well spreading all that Democracy worked out in Iraq? I would like to think we may have learned our lesson on nation building.
Our alliance with the Kurd's was based on convenience toward a mutual goal, nothing more.
All the faux moral outage is pretty titillating, considering that it is based on cherry picked snippets, conveniently omitting the rest of the statement, which if included would go a long way towards providing context.
Perhaps Russia will save the Kurd's, they have been quite "cozy" in the past.
Last edited by wvincent; 10-10-2019 at 11:04 AM.
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
For those critical of the decision to pull our token presence out of the area, I’ll ask what was the alternative IF, and I recognize it’s an if, it was clear that Turkey was going to make a move regardless?
Negotiations with Turkey over the specifics of the safe zone had faltered. I’d imagine that we would’ve had a pretty clear image of the Turkish build up on the border.
So if we have an indication that Turkey’s going to make a move, regardless of the presence of 50-100 American troops present, which of the following options would you prefer:
- Blind hope that the thought of harming American personnel deters Erdogan from green lighting this operation.
- We reinforce our positions, substantially, to offer a legitimate deterrent to protect our personnel, and by extension, the Kurds. This presents the real possibility of a kinetic engagement between between two NATO allies. (Turkey’s a shitty ally, but still).
- In either of the above scenarios, what number of American casualties do you find acceptable?
Any time a use of force is discussed on this forum, the fact that “the bad guy gets a vote” in how things go down is always acknowledged.
Why do we not acknowledge the fact that in this situation, the bad guy (Turkey) gets a vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Was the promise as simple as that? I doubt if it was that straight forward.
Again not saying we should abandon them, just trying to weed through the chaff
The French helped us during the Revolution even though we weren't there for them during the Hundred Years' War.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
55 years old, but still good:
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Reply With Quote