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

[stroopwafel]

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.

You just google searched something about the Kurds and posted an infodump on the internal political struggle of the Iraqi Kurds that is totally unrelated. That is then discredited as irrelevant to the topic and then you proceed to suggest you are able to read untranslated 'sources' in their original Syrian language that we can't understand because it isn't 'spoonfed' to us, but you are somehow fluent in?

Well fuck me. I didn't know there was an actual professor in middle-east studies here!

 

[Iron]

You just google searched something about the Kurds and posted an infodump on the internal political struggle of the Iraqi Kurds that is totally unrelated. That is then discredited as irrelevant to the topic and then you proceed to suggest you are able to read untranslated 'sources' in their original Syrian language that we can't understand because it isn't 'spoonfed' to us, but you are somehow fluent in?

Well fuck me. I didn't know there was an actual professor in middle-east studies here!

I added the sources so you could corroborate the story. Try to google the story yourself.

 

[stroopwafel]

I added the sources so you could corroborate the story. Try to google the story yourself.

None of that have anything to do with the fight against ISIS of the U.S. through their Syrian Kurdish proxy or the Turkish suppression of the Kurds in general. That is the issue here.

 

[Silvanus]

I added the sources so you could corroborate the story. Try to google the story yourself.

To corroborate an irrelevant story. You think tales of some unrelated internal conflict somehow indicate that the Kurds are uniquely unworthy of continuing an alliance? I can find about 500 stories of internal conflict in the US; are the Americans' allies now justified in reneging on any commitments they've made with them?

Furthermore, the Americans already entered into a commitment, as a partner force in the Joint Task Force. You're calling US allies untrustworthy, when they kept faith with the agreement they made with the US, and the US didn't.

 

[Iron]

None of that have anything to do with the fight against ISIS of the U.S. through their Syrian Kurdish proxy or the Turkish suppression of the Kurds in general. That is the issue here.

To corroborate an irrelevant story. You think tales of some unrelated internal conflict somehow indicate that the Kurds are uniquely unworthy of continuing an alliance? I can find about 500 stories of internal conflict in the US; are the Americans' allies now justified in reneging on any commitments they've made with them?

Furthermore, the Americans already entered into a commitment, as a partner force in the Joint Task Force. You're calling US allies untrustworthy, when they kept faith with the agreement they made with the US, and the US didn't.

I think it's very relevant, but if you can't see the connection I'll go to the issue of the Kurds in north Syria, what they called Rojava.
TL;DR The Kurds were unpredictable and divided. Parts of the forces in the region are allied and working with the PKK, which is a terrorist organization (for the US and Turkey). They were looking to replace the US months before this, and showed signs of splintering and betrayal even years back.

The U.S. joins the Turkey-PKK fight in northern Syria | Crisis Group

Directly arming one mainly Kurdish faction in Syria makes U.S. partly responsible for the fate of Syria’s Kurds. Given Ankara’s bitter opposition to the group, Washington should push its Kurdish partner to focus on regional autonomy in Syria, not its insurgency in Turkey.

www.crisisgroup.org

They were cooperating with the Assad regime of Syria, and the US had no benefits in remaining in northern Turkey.

Syrian army deploys around Manbij after Kurdish calls for protection from Turkey

The Syrian army said it had deployed forces to the Manbij frontline in northern Syria on Friday after the Kurdish YPG militia urged Damascus to protect the town, where US forces operate, from the threat…

www.france24.com

US-Allied Syrian Kurds Reportedly Sell Oil to Damascus Government

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday the U.S.-allied Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has been selling oil from fields that it controls in the east of Syria, despite U.S. economic sanctions. The Syrian government and the Kurds have been discussing possible autonomy conditions with...

www.voanews.com

PM Barzani calls on Syrian Kurds to make peace with Syrian government

Syrian Kurds should engage in a dialogue and negotiations with Damascus to find a solution within the framework of a united Syria, said the top Kurdish official of the autonomous Kurdistan Region on Thursday.

www.kurdistan24.net

Syrian Kurds accuse Putin of failing them as US role fades

A senior Kurdish official said Russia has let Syrian Kurds down by failing to support their autonomy and by negotiating a behind-the-scenes deal with Turkey.

www.stripes.com

Kurdistan24

Kurdistan 24 has set itself a challenge: to provide up-to-date, impartial, and quality information to the widest possible Kurdish-speaking public in the region. We seek to promote tolerance, democracy, and human rights. Kurdistan 24 will be at the heart of the democratization of Kurdistan.

www.kurdistan24.net

News of alleged agreement between Assad, Kurds followed by removal of YPG flags in Syrian north

Pro-government news outlets in Syria on Monday claimed an agreement was struck between the Kurdish authorities in the country’s north (known as Rojava) and the central government in Damascus after the former took down their flags in the cities across the region.

www.kurdistan24.net

Kurds were not loyal or anything, they were looking out for themselves as any group should naturally do. You can see here that they were looking around to replace the US with Putin and Syria way before this phonecall. I am certain the US knew this with their intelligence agencies. US should not continue to work with this group as it had showed itself to be unreliable. The story in Iraq is merely another example of this general oversimplification of events done by outlets in the west.

Note that the US remains in Syria, east of the Euphrates, in a Kurdish autonomous zone that they maintain through a small garrison and a no-fly zone over it. That's where you will find many of Syria's gas fields.

 

[Silvanus]

I think it's very relevant, but if you can't see the connection I'll go to the issue of the Kurds in north Syria, what they called Rojava.
TL;DR The Kurds were unpredictable and divided.

Unpredictable? Unlike, say, the United States, which made an agreement and then reneged on it without giving prior warning to allies? I'll ask again: as the US has been the less reliable of the two partners in this situation, is it therefore justified for the US' allies to renege on commitments they've made to the US?

Parts of the forces in the region are allied and working with the PKK, which is a terrorist organization (for the US and Turkey). They were looking to replace the US months before this, and showed signs of splintering and betrayal even years back.

The US, of course, has made numerous partnerships with terrorist organisations as well. If this relationship is grounds for reneging on commitments, then the same grounds apply to the US.

Note that the US remains in Syria, east of the Euphrates, in a Kurdish autonomous zone that they maintain through a small garrison and a no-fly zone over it. That's where you will find many of Syria's gas fields.

Coincidence, I'm sure. Trump considers warfare justifiable if he can make money from it; not so much if it's fulfilling international obligations the US has already made.

 

[Buyetyen]

Oh look, conservatives selling out US allies out of convenience! What a surprise!

 

[Iron]

Unpredictable? Unlike, say, the United States, which made an agreement and then reneged on it without giving prior warning to allies? I'll ask again: as the US has been the less reliable of the two partners in this situation, is it therefore justified for the US' allies to renege on commitments they've made to the US?



The US, of course, has made numerous partnerships with terrorist organisations as well. If this relationship is grounds for reneging on commitments, then the same grounds apply to the US.



Coincidence, I'm sure. Trump considers warfare justifiable if he can make money from it; not so much if it's fulfilling international obligations the US has already made.

You don't even want to change your mind or learn anything. I doubt you even opened a single link I provided which showed how the Syrian Kurds were going behind the american's backs.

EDIT: On second thought, this data dump is overwhelming. If you want, I can explain to you several examples and how you how the Kurds there were working behind the backs of the US and cooperating with Assad.

 

[Silvanus]

You don't even want to change your mind or learn anything. I doubt you even opened a single link I provided which showed how the Syrian Kurds were going behind the american's backs.

Nothing you've provided shows any "betrayal" anywhere close to what the US has done and continues to do. Selling oil to Damascus (from areas that would otherwise be controlled by Damascus anyway)? Is that all? When the US exports fuel and weaponry to its enemies to this day?

 

[Iron]

Nothing you've provided shows any "betrayal" anywhere close to what the US has done and continues to do. Selling oil to Damascus (from areas that would otherwise be controlled by Damascus anyway)? Is that all? When the US exports fuel and weaponry to its enemies to this day?

Stop with the whataboutism for a moment. You're truly unwilling to listen to opposing views.

Syrian army deploys around Manbij after Kurdish calls for protection from Turkey

The Syrian army said it had deployed forces to the Manbij frontline in northern Syria on Friday after the Kurdish YPG militia urged Damascus to protect the town, where US forces operate, from the threat…

www.france24.com

Kurds cooperate with Assad in Manbji.

Look, the US wanted to drop the Kurds (in that region of Syria) for over 2 years before they did but they couldn't leave the territory alone. The Turks offered to take it off their hands. They knew that if they unilaterally left that Assad could gain control over that territory. It was a good deal for the US and its allies.

 

[Buyetyen]

You're truly unwilling to listen to opposing views.

Maybe you're just wrong. Maybe Trump selling out the Kurds was a dick move and counterproductive and symptomatic of how incompetent and callous he is.

 

[Silvanus]

Stop with the whataboutism for a moment. You're truly unwilling to listen to opposing views.

Syrian army deploys around Manbij after Kurdish calls for protection from Turkey

The Syrian army said it had deployed forces to the Manbij frontline in northern Syria on Friday after the Kurdish YPG militia urged Damascus to protect the town, where US forces operate, from the threat…

www.france24.com

Kurds cooperate with Assad in Manbji.

Do you have any understanding of how the civil war unfolded? Short-term alliances of opportunity like that were commonplace.

It's not whataboutism to point out that a double-standard is being applied. If the US is condemning its allies for this behaviour, and using it to justify reneging on its commitments, then it is acting with astounding hypocrisy.

A third time: Are the US' allies justified in reneging on their commitments to the US, since the US has taken part in all these behaviours?

Look, the US wanted to drop the Kurds (in that region of Syria) for over 2 years before they did but they couldn't leave the territory alone. The Turks offered to take it off their hands. They knew that if they unilaterally left that Assad could gain control over that territory. It was a good deal for the US and its allies.

Depends on who those allies are, doesn't it? The Peshmerga were an ally, after all, and a partner in the Joint Task Force.

 

[Iron]

Maybe you're just wrong. Maybe Trump selling out the Kurds was a dick move and counterproductive and symptomatic of how incompetent and callous he is.

Everything that disagrees with you is wrong. I find it increasingly difficult to have a conversation with people that refuse to even entertain opposing views.

 

[Buyetyen]

Everything that disagrees with you is wrong. I find it increasingly difficult to have a conversation with people that refuse to even entertain opposing views.

It's not enough to have an opposing view, bro. You have to be right. You're not entitled to others' credulity just because you disagree.

 

[Iron]

It's not enough to have an opposing view, bro. You have to be right. You're not entitled to others' credulity just because you disagree.

*several sources and examples supporting my claims in this thread*
Have you tried to look at them? I can answer any questions you have about them to the best of my ability.

Do you have any understanding of how the civil war unfolded? Short-term alliances of opportunity like that were commonplace.

It's not whataboutism to point out that a double-standard is being applied. If the US is condemning its allies for this behaviour, and using it to justify reneging on its commitments, then it is acting with astounding hypocrisy.

A third time: Are the US' allies justified in reneging on their commitments to the US, since the US has taken part in all these behaviours?



Depends on who those allies are, doesn't it? The Peshmerga were an ally, after all, and a partner in the Joint Task Force.

*third time*
I don't make sweeping remarks like this. To each situation its own considerations.

Who are the Peshmarga? It is the name for the militant group of the Kurds in Iraq.

Peshmerga - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is the connection here with the Syrian Kurds? Isn't this irrelevant?

 

[Buyetyen]

*several sources and examples supporting my claims in this thread*
Have you tried to look at them? I can answer any questions you have about them to the best of my ability.

I agree with the assessment that it's irrelevant and a post-hoc justification for a shitty decision. I am in the camp that believes Trump's decision to sell the Kurds out was because Erdogan out-smarted him.

 

[Iron]

I agree with the assessment that it's irrelevant and a post-hoc justification for a shitty decision. I am in the camp that believes Trump's decision to sell the Kurds out was because Erdogan out-smarted him.

I don't understand. What is irrelevant, and is a post-hoc justification for a shitty decision?

I think that "selling out the Kurds", or in this case, removing the protection from this specific group of Kurds was beneficial to both the US and Turkey. I showed here that this group of Kurds cooperated with Assad and looked for a different patron. They were unreliable and their interests no longer coincided with the US - they'd rather have allied themselves with Syria. Syrian forces were already inside several of those Kurdish cities when the US retreated. Should the US have kept by that group even if it allied itself with Assad?

Turkey moved its troops inside the territory to fight against Assad, and the Kurds either fled to eastern Syria (which was and still is controlled by the US), Iraq (autonomous region of Kurds in the north) or into Assad'd Syria and joined with Assad. In this territory Erdogan established control and had already moved Syrian refugees there to be resettled in refugee camps inside Syria. Erdogan is fighting against Assad. US no longer had any need to be there, and allowed its NATO ally to pick up the responsibilities there.

 

[Agema]

snip

Look, this is all well and good, but none of it fits the pattern of what went on here. What you're essentially proposing is that stable genius and master of intricate policy detail Donald Trump devised a brilliant plan based on incisive and in-depth knowledge of the Kurds. He did this apparently all on his own and was so confident in his plan he didn't tell anyone, because it seems no-one else in the government, like Congress, senior members of the executive and the State & Defence Departments knew about it. And then he had to roll the whole thing back a couple of days later, sending a unhingedly furious letter to Erdogan and a crack diplomatic team to Ankara to sort things out, because it worked out so well. And just so we're not confused here, the USA is still to this day attempting to build an effective autonomous Kurdish state in NE Syria, which makes no sense whatsoever in light of letting Turkey kerb-stomp them.

In short, the evidence points at this being a severe failure of US foreign policy.

I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say about the Kurds because I think when we want to analyse the actions of the USA, it's much more useful to look at the USA. And it could not be more obvious that something went terribly wrong here.

 

[Iron]

Look, this is all well and good, but none of it fits the pattern of what went on here. What you're essentially proposing is that stable genius and master of intricate policy detail Donald Trump devised a brilliant plan based on incisive and in-depth knowledge of the Kurds. He did this apparently all on his own and was so confident in his plan he didn't tell anyone, because it seems no-one else in the government, like Congress, senior members of the executive and the State & Defence Departments knew about it. And then he had to roll the whole thing back a couple of days later, sending a unhingedly furious letter to Erdogan and a crack diplomatic team to Ankara to sort things out, because it worked out so well. And just so we're not confused here, the USA is still to this day attempting to build an effective autonomous Kurdish state in NE Syria, which makes no sense whatsoever in light of letting Turkey kerb-stomp them.

In short, the evidence points at this being a severe failure of US foreign policy.

I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say about the Kurds because I think when we want to analyse the actions of the USA, it's much more useful to look at the USA. And it could not be more obvious that something went terribly wrong here.

Ok, explain this to me regarding the flip-flop. I am not proposing that Trump is a stable genius or whatever, you are pulling a straw-man argument. He didn't do this on his own either. I don't understand where you get this from, and I'd like you to show me, or what this letter was about. IMO the administration was stacked with pro-war hawks and Trump's decision to pull out was very opposed by most of his advisors.

Regarding east Syria, I did explain this here before. Kurds are not one uniform group. The territory in east Syria controlled by Kurds sits on gas extraction and refinement. Essentially the US has a no-fly zone over that territory for anything other than the US, and it protects it from Assad and Russia.

 

[Buyetyen]

I don't understand. What is irrelevant, and is a post-hoc justification for a shitty decision?

Agema explained it concisely above. This is all rationalization after the fact. For all your complaints of whataboutism, that's essentially what your argument here is.