U.S. to send additional troops to Saudi Arabia to boost defenses against Iran

[bossofataka]

I´m not gonna bloody back up my claims!!! I did once, somewhere, I think, yeah!!! If I get questioned, I´m gonna team up with a few right wing buddies and turn this into a mockery, Trump style! Fuck I hate people that doesn´t just accept my claims as fact without question!

I know, you don´t have to repeat yourself.

[NCRAVEN]

that explains a lot

[wickedsolo]

that explains a lot

Pumpernickelback would be the worst bread, ever.

[blah3]

This is again nonsense. You don´t think all other nations can think for themselves? You don´t think their intelligence services, aswell as your own, warned for what was going on in an alienated Iran, where the freezing of assets and sanctions had had the opposite effect of what was intended, as is often the case with totalitarian regimes? It had strengthened the regime, making it easier to develop nuclear weapons in hiding, making more people rally behind them as sanctions hurt the people, not the regime, everything pointing towards increased tensions and a possible war. Alienating Iran is the single best wáy to actually make them develop nuclear weapons. The have the expertise.

Here we have the fundamental disagreement of why you will never agree with most on the board. You think appeasement will work, they are just going to play nice if we play along. While most on the board understand that they are only going to respond to strength. They see appeasements as weakness and will continue down their path.

[bossofataka]

Here we have the fundamental disagreement of why you will never agree with most on the board. You think appeasement will work, they are just going to play nice if we play along. While most on the board understand that they are only going to respond to strength. They see appeasements as weakness and will continue down their path.

No, the reason is that most on here sees the world in black and white, and tend to lean on very far right wing sources for their claims on anything and everything, with absolutley no interrest to discuss the matters at hand, again and again turning every thread into a mockery when questioned.

The way you phrase yourself here is a perfect example; you´re not here to discuss, you´re here to impose your view as the truth. You sort of pretend to do otherwise, but still phrase it as my view being weak, naive and lack of understanding, whereas yours (and whoever you speak for) is strong, factual and set in stone. Just like this Vlad coming in and first stating that it was really "a debate between liberal and rational". You don´t wanna discuss anything, you just wanna gloat at anything leftist you deem funny, fume at what you deem being liberal fake news or plots or whatever. That´s what´s going on in 90% of the threads here.

OnT here: I´m not proposing appeasement, I´m proposing negotiations, as opposed to only sanctions and alienation with no talks, because THAT, despite what you might think, has pretty much never worked. With Iran it has certainly not, or take the two most "famous" examples that go back a long way; Cuba and North Korea. You don´t have to take my word for it, there´s an abundance of information and historical evidence backing this.
That has nothing to do with trusting Iran or doing things their way, which many here seem to have hard time to comprehend. It´s simply often a better way to reach your goals when dealing with a totalitarian regime.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/ha...r-worked-20428

[blah3]

No, the reason is that most on here sees the world in black and white, and tend to lean on very far right wing sources for their claims on anything and everything, with absolutley no interrest to discuss the matters at hand, again and again turning every thread into a mockery when questioned.

The way you phrase yourself here is a perfect example; you´re not here to discuss, you´re here to impose your view as the truth. You sort of pretend to do otherwise, but still phrase it as my view being weak, naive and lack of understanding, whereas yours (and whoever you speak for) is strong, factual and set in stone. Just like this Vlad coming in and first stating that it was really "a debate between liberal and rational". You don´t wanna discuss anything, you just wanna gloat at anything leftist you deem funny, fume at what you deem being liberal fake news or plots or whatever. That´s what´s going on in 90% of the threads here.

OnT here: I´m not proposing appeasement, I´m proposing negotiations, as opposed to only sanctions and alienation with no talks, because THAT, despite what you might think, has pretty much never worked. With Iran it has certainly not, or take the two most "famous" examples that go back a long way; Cuba and North Korea. You don´t have to take my word for it, there´s an abundance of information and historical evidence backing this.
That has nothing to do with trusting Iran or doing things their way, which many here seem to have hard time to comprehend. It´s simply often a better way to reach your goals when dealing with a totalitarian regime.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/ha...r-worked-20428

Right I’m here to impose my views and you do what exactly?
OK most on here do not believe diplomacy will work. Why exactly would yo think diplomacy would work with totalitarians??? Do you think they got there diplomatically?? They took what they wanted and gladly accepted anything people were foolish enough to give them. And when someone is in a position to hurt them, they gladly play along pretending to be reasonable.
This is a fundamental difference between us.
Funny how NK got nukes right after ‘diplomacy’
And we’ll Cuba is no real threat to anyone, so I would say the hard line has generally worked with them.

[DitkasSausage]

I'll add in...pulling out of a holy war that's been going on for hundreds of years vs protecting assets w/global implications in Saudi Arabia aren't remotely the same thing. To pretend otherwise is laughable.

Not only that, but all of a Sudden everyone in on Team-Kurds, and aren't even aware that there is no such thing as "kurdish people". It is a region dominated by 3 individual groups. Saying they were effective fighting ISIS is not accurate either since they weren't fighting them on our behalf... they were fighting them defensively. The Kurds in North-eastern Iraq are the ones who have constantly defended the US interests. The ones on the Iraqi/Syrian border don't care for the US much but will use our weapons to fight off the surrounding people. The Kurds in Syria are a mixture of actual ISIS fighters, Lybian terrorists, and mujadeen (religious warriors). These are the people that John McCain ran over to Syria to hug and give weapons to (most of which ended up in enemy hands within a week). The entire reason we had soldiers over there is BECAUSE the weapons we gave them ended up in ISIS hands. If we abandoned the North-Eastern Kurds, then any of your comments would be accurate. The Syrian Kurds? They are not our ally, despite the tarnished and moronic ramblings of John McCain, who had less of an idea of what is happening in the Middle East than anyone.

[bossofataka]

Right I’m here to impose my views and you do what exactly?
OK most on here do not believe diplomacy will work. Why exactly would yo think diplomacy would work with totalitarians??? Do you think they got there diplomatically?? They took what they wanted and gladly accepted anything people were foolish enough to give them. And when someone is in a position to hurt them, they gladly play along pretending to be reasonable.
This is a fundamental difference between us.
Funny how NK got nukes right after ‘diplomacy’
And we’ll Cuba is no real threat to anyone, so I would say the hard line has generally worked with them.

Did you even look at the link....? I mean, it says it right there when it has worked and when not and why, in a quite simplistic impossible to misunderstand-way.

What, North Korea got nukes right after diplomacy??? Seriously, what are you even talking about? North Korea has been largely isolated since the 50s, certainly the 60s. How has that made anything better for their people or anyone else??? Christ.

Cuba, yeah, the missile crisis there was no threat whatsoever was it? Great work with that hard line, when instead you could have had trade and contact with Cuba and you´ll be hard pressed to fin anyone thinking that would not have made things better for cubans and Cuba a more open society. These two that you now somehow seem to defend (North Korea and CUba) are two prime examples of sanctions and isolation NOT WORKING! Find me any politicians, experts or whatever that says otherwise.

[blah3]

Did you even look at the link....? I mean, it says it right there when it has worked and when not and why, in a quite simplistic impossible to misunderstand-way.

What, North Korea got nukes right after diplomacy??? Seriously, what are you even talking about? North Korea has been largely isolated since the 50s, certainly the 60s. How has that made anything better for their people or anyone else??? Christ.

Cuba, yeah, the missile crisis there was no threat whatsoever was it? Great work with that hard line, when instead you could have had trade and contact with Cuba and you´ll be hard pressed to fin anyone thinking that would not have made things better for cubans and Cuba a more open society. These two that you now somehow seem to defend (North Korea and CUba) are two prime examples of sanctions and isolation NOT WORKING! Find me any politicians, experts or whatever that says otherwise.

NK has the agreed framework with Clinton, backed out in the early 2000’s and has nukes a few years later. Diplomacy failure.

Is Cuba a threat to anyone?

[bossofataka]

484Not only that, but all of a Sudden everyone in on Team-Kurds, and aren't even aware that there is no such thing as "kurdish people". It is a region dominated by 3 individual groups.

What are you even saying here? There is indeed "kurdish people", living in an area in mainly four different countries (Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq). They are many and yeah, different groups of kurds exists, but they´re still kurds.

Saying they were effective fighting ISIS is not accurate either since they weren't fighting them on our behalf... they were fighting them defensively. The Kurds in North-eastern Iraq are the ones who have constantly defended the US interests.

So you can not fight effectively if you´re somehow defending yourself or what is the point here? They are indeed defending themselves, and did so very effectively, dying an the thousands if not tens of thousands doing so.

Yes, the ones you already abandoned in 2017. They´re still quite pissed and disappointed at that you know. (That is using your simple rhetoric, in reality it was never an easy call back then either, although I think US could have used their influence a lot more).

The ones on the Iraqi/Syrian border don't care for the US much but will use our weapons to fight off the surrounding people. The Kurds in Syria are a mixture of actual ISIS fighters, Lybian terrorists, and mujadeen (religious warriors). These are the people that John McCain ran over to Syria to hug and give weapons to (most of which ended up in enemy hands within a week).

This is utter uninformed, inaccurate bullshit. The kurds are kurds, period! That´s not "a mix"! You might be refering to the SDF, that has fought alongside US troops and in part armed by them, that consists in large of kurds, run by the YPG, but also a quite few others (assyrians, turkmens, syrians etc). And they are NOT IS-fighters. You think the YPG would align with IS??? That´s like the craziest suggestion from you yet I believe.
You´ll probably find some groups losely tied to SDF having sold weapons to IS, you´ll probably find some islamist groups that were trained and armed by the US too (it´s happened before ey...?) Suggesting like you do here that the kurds armed IS is crazy. Bonkers.

The entire reason we had soldiers over there is BECAUSE the weapons we gave them ended up in ISIS hands. If we abandoned the North-Eastern Kurds, then any of your comments would be accurate. The Syrian Kurds? They are not our ally, despite the tarnished and moronic ramblings of John McCain, who had less of an idea of what is happening in the Middle East than anyone.

The kurds were indeed your ally, and that is why even Trump apologets are bashing him relentlessly now, why even Fox News are bashing him, why military leaders are bashing him, why actual american soldiers that were there says they´re ashamed and feel the abandoned them.
Yeah, as your North-East kurds what they think of this. I have a friends dad over there now btw, kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and I know what he and everyone else thinks...

What you have to grasp here is what Turkey is after. Turkey doesn´t give shit about most of these islamist groups, that are unorganized and in many instances turkish-friendly anyway. They only care about the kurds, who they see as their enemy (or "terrorists" to use the word of the times). They care more about that than the thousands of actual IS-fighters that has now escaped kurdish detention because of this mess.
And Putin is smiling and stepping right in. No wonder he wanted Trump to win, a lot easier to manipulate an idiot than a skilled hawkish lady like Hillary (who I personally do not like btw, but in comparison, yeah).
This move by Trump is a mistake in every way imaginable, and even most conservatives seem to understand that. I´m not at all surprised that you´re not one of them. I´d say McCain had some leverage on you when it comes to the middle east. Even though I was no fan of his in general.

[DitkasSausage]

What are you even saying here? There is indeed "kurdish people", living in an area in mainly four different countries (Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq). They are many and yeah, different groups of kurds exists, but they´re still kurds.



So you can not fight effectively if you´re somehow defending yourself or what is the point here? They are indeed defending themselves, and did so very effectively, dying an the thousands if not tens of thousands doing so.

Yes, the ones you already abandoned in 2017. They´re still quite pissed and disappointed at that you know. (That is using your simple rhetoric, in reality it was never an easy call back then either, although I think US could have used their influence a lot more).



This is utter uninformed, inaccurate bullshit. The kurds are kurds, period! That´s not "a mix"! You might be refering to the SDF, that has fought alongside US troops and in part armed by them, that consists in large of kurds, run by the YPG, but also a quite few others (assyrians, turkmens, syrians etc). And they are NOT IS-fighters. You think the YPG would align with IS??? That´s like the craziest suggestion from you yet I believe.
You´ll probably find some groups losely tied to SDF having sold weapons to IS, you´ll probably find some islamist groups that were trained and armed by the US too (it´s happened before ey...?) Suggesting like you do here that the kurds armed IS is crazy. Bonkers.




The kurds were indeed your ally, and that is why even Trump apologets are bashing him relentlessly now, why even Fox News are bashing him, why military leaders are bashing him, why actual american soldiers that were there says they´re ashamed and feel the abandoned them.
Yeah, as your North-East kurds what they think of this. I have a friends dad over there now btw, kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and I know what he and everyone else thinks...

What you have to grasp here is what Turkey is after. Turkey doesn´t give shit about most of these islamist groups, that are unorganized and in many instances turkish-friendly anyway. They only care about the kurds, who they see as their enemy (or "terrorists" to use the word of the times). They care more about that than the thousands of actual IS-fighters that has now escaped kurdish detention because of this mess.
And Putin is smiling and stepping right in. No wonder he wanted Trump to win, a lot easier to manipulate an idiot than a skilled hawkish lady like Hillary (who I personally do not like btw, but in comparison, yeah).
This move by Trump is a mistake in every way imaginable, and even most conservatives seem to understand that. I´m not at all surprised that you´re not one of them. I´d say McCain had some leverage on you when it comes to the middle east. Even though I was no fan of his in general.

I literally don't read your posts so piss off and stop wasting your time...

[bossofataka]

NK has the agreed framework with Clinton, backed out in the early 2000’s and has nukes a few years later. Diplomacy failure.

Is Cuba a threat to anyone?

Right... it can all be summed up in that one sentence can it? Do you even know what it was?
There´s been plenty of failures regarding North Korea, the most important one isolating them in the first place. To even suggest the agreed framework is what led them to having nukes 2006 is beyond silly.


Was Cuba a threat during the Cuban missile crisis? Could that have been avoided? Do you believe isolating Cuba has made anything better for anyone?