US senate committee on National Security and Government Affairs Report: Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy an

[Silvanus]

I do need to look up: who initially called for regime change in Syria? Trump or before him. Because Trump ended that.

Ah yes, and how exactly did Trump end US involvement in Syria? That's right, betraying the US' Kurdish allies on the ground by abruptly abandoning them to assaults from Turkey/ the Syrian government, contrary to previous commitments and without giving any prior notice to allow them to compensate.

Removal of US presence from conflicts such as this is good. But once a country has made international commitments, and has become involved in a situation in which its allies are relying on it and have factored its presence into their tactical/strategic considerations, it cannot simply immediately pull all its forces out with no prior warning, without causing a strategic shitshow.

You want humane end to US involvement, it requires communication to your allies well in advance, followed by phased withdrawal, and with plans in place to protect your remaining allies/ honour the commitments that have already been made.

 

[gorfias]

Ah yes, and how exactly did Trump end US involvement in Syria? That's right, betraying the US' Kurdish allies on the ground by abruptly abandoning them to assaults from Turkey/ the Syrian government, contrary to previous commitments and without giving any prior notice to allow them to compensate.

From what I've read: there were no commitments to the Kurds. And the people angry at us "abruptly abandoning them"... those are the sorts of people I'm warning are pressuring Trump to expand our forever wars.
Tulsi deserved better.

EDIT: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-myths-surrounding-the-us-and-the-kurds

 

[Silvanus]

From what I've read: there were no commitments to the Kurds.

Then you've read categorically wrong. The Kurdish Peshmerga were a partner force of the US military in Operation Inherent Resolve. Both sides made commitments to the follow-through of the operation.

 

[Trunkage]

If Trump has done one invaluable thing, he has shown us that the legacy corporate media isn't just biased. They're obedient to the corporations that own them. As will be a Joe Biden administration.

Ah, no. Bush was the final straw for that over Iraq. The MSM backed him way too much. But it started Bush senior when we finally found out about the massacres Reagan orchestrated

So why is legacy corporate media still around? Because the new media is just as bad.

 

[Avnger]

Because the new media is just as bad.

I'd honestly say that a lot of it (though not all) is worse for a key reason: "Legacy" media is regularly fact-checked and analyzed.

When CNN, NBC, etc screws the pooch with their reporting, it's called out very visibly and corrections (even if oftentimes too little, too late) get issued. There's at least a chance that the viewer of the incorrect information learns that what they heard was incorrect.

This, by and large, doesn't exist for newer media. If the youtuber FaithAndFreedom or blog ProletariateRevolution.news screws the pooch, it goes entirely unnoticed and their consumers won't ever see a correction or rebuttal**. This is evidenced by the excessive amount of literal fake news that gets spread through social media. There's so much of it coming from so many different sources that staying on top of it all is impossible.

**: a caveat here is that there are likely fewer consumers for each incorrect article put out by smaller outlets compared to traditional media.

 

[Trunkage]

I'd honestly say that a lot of it (though not all) is worse for a key reason: "Legacy" media is regularly fact-checked and analyzed.

When CNN, NBC, etc screws the pooch with their reporting, it's called out very visibly and corrections (even if oftentimes too little, too late) get issued. There's at least a chance that the viewer of the incorrect information learns that what they heard was incorrect.

This, by and large, doesn't exist for newer media. If the youtuber FaithAndFreedom or blog ProletariateRevolution.news screws the pooch, it goes entirely unnoticed and their consumers won't ever see a correction or rebuttal**. This is evidenced by the excessive amount of literal fake news that gets spread through social media. There's so much of it coming from so many different sources that staying on top of it all is impossible.

**: a caveat here is that there are likely fewer consumers for each incorrect article put out by smaller outlets compared to traditional media.

To be fair, no one really fact checked legacy media In the old days. Fact checking is relative new. Presidents could get away with way more than what they can now

But yes, there is no feedback loop for Fake News in new media, other than maybe Cancel Culture. It’s the Wild West and truth is even ,ore sparse than in legacy media

Side note: Anyone else seen the Cancelling of Vaush and how Tim Pool, of all people, has defended him?

 

[Agema]

To be fair, no one really fact checked legacy media In the old days. Fact checking is relative new.

What the legacy media had and still to an extent has is a system where people are expected to have verifiable sources, and exercise judgement over reporting about what is defensible and reasonable. It's not "fact checking" in the sense of Snopes, but it's not that different either.

People who have worked for them - they seem to know all sorts of rumours going around - of course they do, through all their many contacts, moles, and so on. What they often don't do with a lot of it is report it: and one of the main reasons they don't report it is that they don't have the evidence to make it stick, and any editor worth his salt will tend to not let that pass.

The obvious downside to this is they operate as "gatekeepers" to information, deciding what it is appropriate for us to know. That's why it's healthy to read multiple news sources, to reduce bias. The plus side - at least in theory - is that what they report should be relatively verifiable. If journalism is just printing any old rumour to float through the office, we're drowned in even more information than we already are, more of which is possibly untrue.

 

[gorfias]

Then you've read categorically wrong. The Kurdish Peshmerga were a partner force of the US military in Operation Inherent Resolve. Both sides made commitments to the follow-through of the operation.

https://dod.defense.gov/OIR/ holds it was about defeating Isis. Trump says mission accomplished in Syria.

 

[Silvanus]

https://dod.defense.gov/OIR/ holds it was about defeating Isis. Trump says mission accomplished in Syria.

Yes, but 1) we know that wasn't true, and 2) regardless, if you've made an agreement with a "partner force", you cannot dramatically change your plans without giving them prior notice, leaving them in a position where they'll be attacked.

 

[Agema]

https://dod.defense.gov/OIR/ holds it was about defeating Isis. Trump says mission accomplished in Syria.

The Kurds fought and died for the West. The reason the West didn't have to put "boots on the ground" is groups like the Kurds provided them. If we want to make an argument about the wisdom of getting involved at all, we can. But apart from this, the facts we have to deal with are that we did get involved, and a bunch of people did our fighting for us, and then in a moment of utter dishonour, Trump sold them out. There was no need to let Turkey invade Syrian Kurdish territory, without so much as a word of warning to them.

We know Erdogan sent the troops in after a phone call with Trump. Shortly after, Trump sent this bizarre and hysterical letter as an objection and a State Dept. 'crisis team' to Turkey for urgent talks. There are two possibilities here, either of which paint Trump in a very poor light. Either he did want to let Turkey do as it pleased (and Trump has some awkward issues regarding Turkey) without any consideration of how this would play with his own country, or he absolutely fumbled negotiations with a foreign leader with deadly consequences. Given reports that the State Department was totally unprepared for unfolding events, I suspect Trump fumbled the phone call.

 

[Samtemdo8]

I don't think the Republicans would try to impeach Biden.

Currently the Republicans are fanatically opposed to Biden not because anything Biden did, but because of their own lust for power. Biden is not a problematic candidate for them. He's a center right white male, with a history of being easy to work with for Republicans.

But if they get rid of Biden then they exchange an old white guy for Kamala Harris. A president who's both black and a woman? That's the Republican's nightmare scenario. We saw how extreme they became merely because Obama was black so a Kamala presidency would be something that keeps them up at night.

The Bicycle part is by far the most suspect because they were comparing Obama to fucking Putin. Basically calling Obama a Virgin for riding a bike and wearing helmets and kneepads while Putin looks like a Chad without his shirt showing off his muscles and riding a horse and hunting.

Fox News was flattering PUTIN!!! Probably because he's a big strong ubermensch white man that deep down they want someone like him leading America

 

[Iron]

The Kurds fought and died for the West. The reason the West didn't have to put "boots on the ground" is groups like the Kurds provided them. If we want to make an argument about the wisdom of getting involved at all, we can. But apart from this, the facts we have to deal with are that we did get involved, and a bunch of people did our fighting for us, and then in a moment of utter dishonour, Trump sold them out. There was no need to let Turkey invade Syrian Kurdish territory, without so much as a word of warning to them.

We know Erdogan sent the troops in after a phone call with Trump. Shortly after, Trump sent this bizarre and hysterical letter as an objection and a State Dept. 'crisis team' to Turkey for urgent talks. There are two possibilities here, either of which paint Trump in a very poor light. Either he did want to let Turkey do as it pleased (and Trump has some awkward issues regarding Turkey) without any consideration of how this would play with his own country, or he absolutely fumbled negotiations with a foreign leader with deadly consequences. Given reports that the State Department was totally unprepared for unfolding events, I suspect Trump fumbled the phone call.

Kurds fought and died for themselves.

 

[Agema]

Kurds fought and died for themselves.

And us. We armed them, backed them, allied with them; encouraged and supported them to fight for our aims as well so we could minimise our own military "footprint" and personnel deaths.

Does honour mean anything or does it not? I mean, this thread is almost entirely people talking about ethics. It's a bit late to suddenly act like realpolitik is all that counts.

 

[stroopwafel]

And us. We armed them, backed them, allied with them; encouraged and supported them to fight for our aims as well so we could minimise our own military "footprint" and personnel deaths.

Does honour mean anything or does it not? I mean, this thread is almost entirely people talking about ethics. It's a bit late to suddenly act like realpolitik is all that counts.

Definitely true. There is no denying Trump abandoned the Kurds and that this decision was widely criticized by the miltary as well as former generals. It was a capital mistake that gave Turkey a foothold in the region at the expense of the Kurds that fought the entire campaign against ISIS on America's behalf. This is how they were thanked for those losses. Betraying your most loyal ally in the region like this is also a strategic blunder in itself for future conflicts and intelligence gathering. But in fairness things also escalated this far because of Obama's reluctance to back up his 'red line' claim. It's textbook ''weakness is provocative''. Assad owes his regime to Putin.

I can't blame Trump wanting to retreat from these endless, hopeless conflicts but he really did so in the most short-sighted way possible. Though there was still a skeleton crew of special forces and trainers to help the Kurds out. The U.S. endorsed the Turkish incursion into northen Syria and given Turkey's superior military there were probably some set agreements regarding the Kurds. From what I understand Turkey did not make any serious moves. If they did most likely they would have killed all the ISIS captives in the Kurdish prison camps as well.

 

[Iron]

And us. We armed them, backed them, allied with them; encouraged and supported them to fight for our aims as well so we could minimise our own military "footprint" and personnel deaths.

Does honour mean anything or does it not? I mean, this thread is almost entirely people talking about ethics. It's a bit late to suddenly act like realpolitik is all that counts.

Regardless of honor or realpolitik, I think this topic was grossly oversimplified. Here is how things went in Iraq, and you may find some interest in this.
This is a story about Kurds in Iraq. There was an autonomous region in Iraq, in the north of the country, where many Kurds lived. The region had two major political factions - in essence, two local families. The Barazani and Talabani families.

Masoud Barzani - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Barzani (tribe) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jalal Talabani - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Talabani - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Barazani family was more prone to outright conflict, militant and independent. Their powerbase is in Erbil. It became the capital of the autonomous region.

Barzani Charity Foundation

The Talabani family was more prone to negotiations and dealings with the Iraqi central government and Iran. Their powerbase is in Sulemayba.

Body of late Kurdish leader arrives in Iraq for burial

Iraq’s first Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, laid to rest in hometown near Sulaymaniyah - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

The leader of the Barazani family was the president of the autonomous region in recent years, while the leader of the Talabani family was the ceremonial president of Iraq, placed there by the Americans. The Barazani leader in Erbil declared a referendum for Kurdish independence -

2017 Kurdistan Region independence referendum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Which was a blow to the Talabani family, whose power was also in the autonomous region, but they were cooperating with the Iraqi government. They reluctantly agreed to the referendum, which passed with overwhelming support. They even freed Kirkuk, which was occupied by ISIS - and wasn't officially a part of the autonomous region. Kirkuk is home to oil fields and distillation facilities, which are a great source of income.

However the Talabani family wouldn't forget this treachery. The rival family, Barazani, positioned itself as the leader of an independent Kurdistan, and robbed them of any political power in their home. Jalal Talabani died in a German hospital in October 3rd, which was when the Barazani family decided to strike. It engineered a coup, by which they cooperated with Sulemayni (Iran's top general, responsible for many dark dealings in the Shiite crescent).

When the Iraqi shiite forces moved to occupy Kirkuk on the 16th, the Talabani family ordered its soldiers to abandon the city and retreat. Left dazed and confused, the Barazani forces had to retreat as well, when half of their own previously united forces retreated. Iraq took Kirkuk without a single shot fired.

Turkmen living in Kirkuk and surroundings resented how the Kurds took the city for themselves despite that it wasn't majority Kurdish. They ran the rest of the Kurdish militia out of the city, and had some revenge killings as well.

Kirkuk: The city that highlights Iraq's war within a war

The fall of Kirkuk reflects the struggle to control Iraq after the defeat of IS, says Michael Knights.

www.bbc.com

Clashes erupt in Iraqi city of Kirkuk over Kurdish vote

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's ethnically-mixed and contested city of Kirkuk was on a nighttime curfew on Tuesday after clashes erupted there the previous night between Kurds and Turkmen amid preparations for the controversial Kurdish independence referendum next week, a local Turkmen official said. The...

apnews.com

Here is the son of Jalal saying that the referendum was a "colossal mistake".


Trump didn't intervene in this squabble between the Kurdish families. Why would anyone? Kurdistan was divided in Iraq. If you supported either side, you alienated the other. If he had supported the independent side, he would have weakened Iraq and drew ire from both Iran and Turkey (a NATO ally). The other option was an open support for Iran. Both were bad choices. The best choice was to not intervene at all. Why would you support this group if it can't even remain united with itself.

TL;DR The Kurds aren't one people, one polity. There is internal politics at play, and only a fool would lodge themselves into it. They proved that they are not independent, not unified, and not trustworthy. Good choice.

 

[gorfias]

Yes, but 1) we know that wasn't true, and 2) regardless, if you've made an agreement with a "partner force", you cannot dramatically change your plans without giving them prior notice, leaving them in a position where they'll be attacked.

From that link I left, I'm still not buying we were anything but pragmatically associated rather than a "partner force". " Washington and the Kurds are not allies in the traditional sense of the term (the media and many foreign policy analysts who should know better than to use the word “ally” far too liberally), which suggests a long-term strategic partnership. If anything, the U.S.-Kurdish relationship was precisely the opposite: a pragmatic arrangement built to combat a mutual enemy and prefaced with a specific interest in mind — wipe out ISIS’s caliphate. " https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-myths-surrounding-the-us-and-the-kurds Our actions (not staying related to the Kurds) suggest this is the correct view.

 

[Iron]

Definitely true. There is no denying Trump abandoned the Kurds and that this decision was widely criticized by the miltary as well as former generals. It was a capital mistake that gave Turkey a foothold in the region at the expense of the Kurds that fought the entire campaign against ISIS on America's behalf. This is how they were thanked for those losses. Betraying your most loyal ally in the region like this is also a strategic blunder in itself for future conflicts and intelligence gathering. But in fairness things also escalated this far because of Obama's reluctance to back up his 'red line' claim. It's textbook ''weakness is provocative''. Assad owes his regime to Putin.

I can't blame Trump wanting to retreat from these endless, hopeless conflicts but he really did so in the most short-sighted way possible. Though there was still a skeleton crew of special forces and trainers to help the Kurds out. The U.S. endorsed the Turkish incursion into northen Syria and given Turkey's superior military there were probably some set agreements regarding the Kurds. From what I understand Turkey did not make any serious moves. If they did most likely they would have killed all the ISIS captives in the Kurdish prison camps as well.

From that link I left, I'm still not buying we were anything but pragmatically associated rather than a "partner force". " Washington and the Kurds are not allies in the traditional sense of the term (the media and many foreign policy analysts who should know better than to use the word “ally” far too liberally), which suggests a long-term strategic partnership. If anything, the U.S.-Kurdish relationship was precisely the opposite: a pragmatic arrangement built to combat a mutual enemy and prefaced with a specific interest in mind — wipe out ISIS’s caliphate. " https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-myths-surrounding-the-us-and-the-kurds Our actions (not staying related to the Kurds) suggest this is the correct view.

Both of you, read my post. The western media is giving oversimplified notes out of very poor knowledge of the region and sometimes a will to disparage this or that leader.

 

[Silvanus]

From that link I left, I'm still not buying we were anything but pragmatically associated rather than a "partner force". " Washington and the Kurds are not allies in the traditional sense of the term (the media and many foreign policy analysts who should know better than to use the word “ally” far too liberally), which suggests a long-term strategic partnership. If anything, the U.S.-Kurdish relationship was precisely the opposite: a pragmatic arrangement built to combat a mutual enemy and prefaced with a specific interest in mind — wipe out ISIS’s caliphate. " https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-myths-surrounding-the-us-and-the-kurds Our actions (not staying related to the Kurds) suggest this is the correct view.

"Partner force" is literally the term used by the Combined Joint Task Force, as indicated in the official fact sheet I linked to. Both militaries are members of that task force. That's literally a formal agreement: what else can you call two militaries both signing up to a joint task force?!

Simply put, the Washington Examiner is a right-wing tabloid rag that's defending the decision because it supports the President.

 

[Agema]

Waffle

Perhaps you didn't notice but:
a) We're talking about the battle against ISIS, not an Iraqi civil war
b) Turkey was permitted to attack the Syrian Kurds, who are in an autonomous enclave called "Rojava" with their own government.

But, you know, 'grats on the info dump, even if it was profoundly irrelevant.

 

[Iron]

Perhaps you didn't notice but:
a) We're talking about the battle against ISIS, not an Iraqi civil war
b) Turkey was permitted to attack the Syrian Kurds, who are in an autonomous enclave called "Rojava" with their own government.

But, you know, 'grats on the info dump, even if it was profoundly irrelevant.

I was explaining to you why Kurds fought for themselves. They are not one politic, one people, and it's not wise to treat them as such. The story was a way to explain this to you. They weren't allies to the US but partners, and when your partner ceases to work with you, there is no reason to keep yourself attached.

I can go and write another story regarding Syria, but I feel like you don't care. The lot of you are using a lot of western sources here that don't know what is happening if it isn't being translated and spoonfed to then.