Its so sad this needs to be explained
Generally, yeah, but Iâd put the o/u on regular posters around here who didnât already know that at zero.
The reason why liberating people from the Naziâs in WW2 went so well is that we were liberating people from the Naziâs
You do realize to some people in Iraq (especially the Kurds) the Baathist party was essentially the same thing as the Nazis? Kurds fucking got gassed by Saddamâs regime multiple times. Your take seems to not take into account a lot of issues like that and the support by segments of Iraq of US intervention.
I mean we do need to break the chain of what has been US foreign policy, buy you and others idea of isolationism is kinda lol
And yet mysteriously the Kurds still got screwed in the end. Our intervention sure has helped them. Youâre pretending like the reason why they got gassed wasnât because we induced them to rise up against Saddam and then left them holding the bag.
Obviously the Kurds should live in a country called Kurdistan that is currently split between Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Thatâs the Turks fault not ours. We are not responsible for fixing every injustice in the world. In fact if thereâs one thing Iâm close to certain on itâs that we make everything worse when we get involved.
Man i got to not read twitter comments. You libs wont even feed the homeless vets and poor American citizens!!
God damn its all so stupid⌠its the gop slashing and gutting programs that fund things which help the poor, vets and homeless.
1 Like
Youâre pretending like the reason why they got gassed wasnât because we induced them to rise up against Saddam and then left them holding the bag.
Go read the history of the Kurds. The quoted is nonsensical. Fighting between the Kurds and Iraqi govt. goes back far beyond when we started in on Saddamâs regime.
He definitely is playing the âI will be dead when the repercussions comeâ angle. I am shocked by how short sighted he is playing this but he is privy to information I am not so perhaps he feels it is their best option.
Seems stupid to me though because when regime changes happen here there will be real consequences.
Lol at trump making a deal with the taliban not to support al-qaeda.
Yes but the conflict was escalated by the Kurds thinking that they could count on us during Gulf War I.
Again Iâm not sure what point youâre trying to make? That we should have helped the Kurds more? That the war in Iraq was justified because it helped the Kurds?
Itâs the same with the squad being obvious horrible racists for their comments but Bill OâReilly claims nothing Trump has said or done can be deemed racist.
This is the go-to for a ton of deplorables on anything involving immigration. They are all about taking care of the homeless vets and poor American citizens first. I always try to then shift it into, âWeâre trying to do universal healthcare, do you support that?â And of course itâs always âSomething, something, socialism.â
Arguing with them becomes so predictable, theyâre just playing the same hits over and over again, getting dunked on, and repeating⌠But theyâre too uninformed to realize theyâre even being dunked on.
Then they start pulling out the pure propaganda âresearchâ from right wing think tanks, and I hesitate to even call them think tanks. A frequent go to is the Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS. Itâs hard to tell which of them actually thinks itâs as non-biased as the name sounds, and how many understand theyâre pushing propaganda⌠But itâs an anti-immigration think tank founded by a white nationalist eugenicist.
1 Like
Regarding our foreign policy and when itâs okay to be interventionist, I think the test should be pretty simple. First, we only intervene for two reasons:
-
Direct threats to US national security, defined as a direct threat to the safety of our citizens.
-
For moral reasons.
Not for geopolitical strategy, not for oil, not to play kingmaker. And if weâre intervening for reason #2, we should only do so if weâre able to form a strong and broad coalition of NATO and/or UN countries. No unilateral interventionist cowboy shit.
Cut our military budget to like 1.25 times whatever China spends, assuming theyâre #2 in defense spending. Of course thatâs not politically feasible at all, and Iâd be thrilled if we could just freeze defense spending for a couple decades while giving soldiers and civil servants standard cost-of-living raises over that time.
Uh no, it wasnât escalated in the first Gulf War it was status quo by then. There was genocide against the Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war. And before that there was this.
Kurds led by Mustafa Barzani were engaged in heavy fighting against successive Iraqi regimes from 1960 to 1975. In March 1970, Iraq announced a peace plan providing for Kurdish autonomy. The plan was to be implemented in four years.[187] However, at the same time, the Iraqi regime started an Arabization program in the oil-rich regions of Kirkuk and Khanaqin.[188] The peace agreement did not last long, and in 1974, the Iraqi government began a new offensive against the Kurds. Moreover, in March 1975, Iraq and Iran signed the Algiers Accord, according to which Iran cut supplies to Iraqi Kurds. Iraq started another wave of Arabization by moving Arabs to the oil fields in Kurdistan, particularly those around Kirkuk.[189] Between 1975 and 1978, 200,000 Kurds were deported to other parts of Iraq.[190]
My point is you made statements like people donât want us over there to intervene, and thatâs a not true at all. The Shiaâas and Kurds didnât mind Saddam being deposed. Neither the people who were brutalized or suppressed in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime.
The problem isnât the US or US led coalitions intervene across the world. The problem is the reasons for it. Like we didnât go to Iraq to stop Kurds from being killed either time. And the strategy of how to stabilize wherever we have intervened has been absurdly bad.
I just point and laugh that they are posting studies from a known white nationalist.
Yeah so I clearly donât know the history of the region as well as I thought I did. Iâm still very strongly of the opinion that military intervention into other parts of the world is usually super stupid. Perhaps we could have fought a just war vs Saddam by simply backing the Kurds, but I suspect that would have also triggered a war with Syria and Turkey.
Iâm sorry Iâm just not buying the idea that we have had a single good reason to ever put boots on the ground (or even drop bombs) in the middle east. Weâve done massive amounts of harm and basically no detectable good. Perhaps itâs true that this is because our reasons for involvement were totally corrupt (I can accept that argument actually) but that if anything is a good reason for us to not intervene anywhere. We obviously canât trust our politicians to use our military for good reasons.
Itâs theoretically possible that the US could have gone into Iraq and maybe Syria too, created a partition for the Kurds, supported their defense against the rest of Iraq, Syria and Turkey and left it at that without trying to dictate any particular government either in the Kurdish areas or in the rest of Iraq and Syria, but itâs magical thinking to imagine that the US had the competence to do it, the commitment to stick to that plan and that plan only for years or decades (like we did with Germany and Japan), and that that remotely resembled what the US government considered its interest in the region.
But, maybe not and maybe it wouldnât have been great. The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria is doing pretty well and is generally trying to be open to Assyrian and Arab minorities (including mandating minimum numbers of positions in elected offices), but itâs not all smooth sailing. Under explicitly Kurdish nationalist government there might be considerably more internal unrest and, if possible, even more problems with Turkey.