Kurds abandomed by Trump

[iceaura]

Or did we just bow out of a conflict where we would have had to attack one ally or the other?

We didn't bow out of the conflict. We're still there, trying to grab the oil - just not threatening Trump's real estate investments in Istanbul.

Turkey is not much of an ally of ours.
The Kurds were.

Could the US have created an independent Kurdistan?

No.
But the Kurds might have been able to.
Remember those posts from Schmelzer, that guy you "like", about the legitimacy of a people wanting to secede from big government and form their own country?

hey bork
If you want to invest your money and go to syria and help create a securely governed state that satisfies your desires........... have at it

In a wingy post, anything after an "if" is bullshit. They are incapable of a relevant "if".

In this case, the standard Republican response - to taxes, charity for the poor, health care, infrastructure maintenance, foreign aid, public anything.

How about: if you're so keen on restricting military force to defending the oil companies and real estate con men of the world, why not sign up with one of the mercenary forces currently doing just that?
Makes as much sense - and has the advantage of alignment with your actual posting, no "interpretation" necessary.
- - - -

The US needed NATO to fight a few terrorist opponents in the US after 9/11. This obviously demonstrates that W had no popular support among the people.

Poe's Law called. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[pjdude1219]

So what you you prefer the US do? Get into a shooting war with Turkey? The US only has about 1,000 soldiers in the Kurdish part of Syria. Turkey has a well-equipped army of hundreds of thousands. Our air resources in the area are far smaller than Turkey's. Certainly we could fight and defeat Turkey, but it would require a full-scale war to do it. It would require months of preparation, by which time the Kurds would be defeated and Rojava would be Turkish occupied.

To say nothing of the fact that war between the US and Turkey would be something that other players like Russia, Iran and even China would probably love to see since it would destabilize the whole region and create all kinds of opportunities for them.

And if the US got into that war, Trump would be blamed for that too, right? Imagine the anti-war demonstrations! From the very same people (like you?) that are demanding military action now.

The United States fought alongside the SDF to combat ISIS. That was in the Kurds' interest, since ISIS had them on the ropes. (Remember the siege of Kobani?) And it was in the US interest, since we wanted to see ISIS gone. So we shouldn't pretend that the US is failing now to show the Kurds a loyalty that they showed us in the past. When the Kurds fought alongside us, they weren't fighting for the United States. They were fighting for themselves, for Kurdistan.

Fighting alongside them against ISIS doesn't make the Kurds the United States' eternal responsibility. (Why isn't anyone demanding that the European Union go to war for the Kurds?) The US has no formal treaty alliances with the Kurds. It doesn't even formally recognize them as a nation.

It's just not in the US interest to get into a full-scale shooting war with Turkey. A war that would be bigger than either of the Gulf Wars, require hundreds of thousands of troops, hundreds of aircraft and cost tens of thousands of dead and wounded. For what?

the fact you think would risk a shooting incident with us troops tells me you don't know anything about geopolitics. its precisely because the US military could fuck up their world is why leaving troops there would have prevented turkey from invading.

 

[pjdude1219]

It is remarkable how people justify abandoning our allies to slaughter. I guess there's no decision so immoral that someone, somewhere can't justify it to support their political ideology.

Thank God we didn't feel this way during World War II.

the polish would disagree with such an assessment

 

[mmatt9876]

The Turks have a history of persecuting minorities. During WWI it was the Armenians. Immediately after WWI it was the Greeks. Recent conflict with Kurds is part of the same pattern.

Do the Turks have a specific reason for attacking the Kurds or is it just hatred?

 

[Yazata]

Do the Turks have a specific reason for attacking the Kurds or is it just hatred?

The Kurds are a majority in much of southeast Turkey. They have their own language and culture and many of them favor independence. (Kurds are linguistically related to Armenians, except the Kurds adopted Islam while the Armenians remained Christian.) The Turks see the Kurds as a threat to the unity of Turkey. Until 1991, the Turks denied the existence of the Kurds in Turkey, calling them "mountain Turks" and outlawed Kurdish customs, use of the Kurdish language and Kurdish names.

And one of the stronger political parties among the Kurds is the PKK, which for years has been waging a low-level civil war in Turkey, conducting attacks on police stations, car bombings and so on. The PKK has been accused of use of suicide bombers, child soldiers and indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The Turkish response wasn't exactly gentle and probably equally brutal and indiscriminate. Thousands have died on both sides. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization as does the EU, US, Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany and many other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Erdogan's current Turkish government does not like the PKK. And Erdogan sees the Syrian Kurdish YPG (People's Protection Units, the major component of the Syrian Democratic Forces coalition) as being the Syrian arm of the PKK. For years, Syria (and indirectly the Soviets) funded the PKK and Syria served as a refuge for PKK militants and hosted their training camps. Turkey is determined to prevent that from happening again.

The YPG insist that they are independent of the PKK and a purely Syrian thing. That may well be true, but it's obvious that they are closely aligned and share an ideology.

The Iraqi Kurds are separate from all this and have their own political background.

 

[CptBork]

Do the Turks have a specific reason for attacking the Kurds or is it just hatred?

Once upon a time, before the invention of toilet paper and the advent of modern western democracies, Turkey was the big show in town. Their accomplishments and triumphs have since been left light years behind in the dustbin of human progress, so to continue feeling relevant and important in today's modern world, they're required to find defenseless regional minorities to oppress and deny basic rights to, like a 45 year-old sack of lard who decides to take up boxing one day and dreams of beating down Mike Tyson in his prime after a week of practising on punching bags and 10 year-old daughters.

 

[mmatt9876]

The Kurds are a majority in much of southeast Turkey. They have their own language and culture and many of them favor independence. (Kurds are linguistically related to Armenians, except the Kurds adopted Islam while the Armenians remained Christian.) The Turks see the Kurds as a threat to the unity of Turkey. Until 1991, the Turks denied the existence of the Kurds in Turkey, calling them "mountain Turks" and outlawed Kurdish customs, use of the Kurdish language and Kurdish names.

And one of the stronger political parties among the Kurds is the PKK, which for years has been waging a low-level civil war in Turkey, conducting attacks on police stations, car bombings and so on. The PKK has been accused of use of suicide bombers, child soldiers and indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The Turkish response wasn't exactly gentle and probably equally brutal and indiscriminate. Thousands have died on both sides. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization as does the EU, US, Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany and many other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Erdogan's current Turkish government does not like the PKK. And Erdogan sees the Syrian Kurdish YPG (People's Protection Units, the major component of the Syrian Democratic Forces coalition) as being the Syrian arm of the PKK. For years, Syria (and indirectly the Soviets) funded the PKK and Syria served as a refuge for PKK militants and hosted their training camps. Turkey is determined to prevent that from happening again.

The YPG insist that they are independent of the PKK and a purely Syrian thing. That may well be true, but it's obvious that they are closely aligned and share an ideology.

The Iraqi Kurds are separate from all this and have their own political background.

It sounds like Turkey considers some of the Kurdish people living on it territory terrorists because some of these Kurdish people have been waging a low-level civil war in Turkey and favor independence from Turkey. Maybe these Kurdish actions and views are due to Turkey denying the existence of Kurdish people living in Turkey, and outlawing Kurdish customs, language, and names, before 1991? Did the Kurdish low-level war spark the violence directed at them by the Turks? Does anybody have a solution for this conflict?

 

[mmatt9876]

Once upon a time, before the invention of toilet paper and the advent of modern western democracies, Turkey was the big show in town. Their accomplishments and triumphs have since been left light years behind in the dustbin of human progress, so to continue feeling relevant and important in today's modern world, they're required to find defenseless regional minorities to oppress and deny basic rights to, like a 45 year-old sack of lard who decides to take up boxing one day and dreams of beating down Mike Tyson in his prime after a week of practising on punching bags and 10 year-old daughters.

That is sad.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It sounds like Turkey considers some of the Kurdish people living on it territory terrorists because some of these Kurdish people have been waging a low-level civil war in Turkey and favor independence from Turkey. Maybe these Kurdish actions and views are due to Turkey denying the existence of Kurdish people living in Turkey, and outlawing Kurdish customs, language, and names, before 1991? Did the Kurdish low-level war spark the violence directed at them by the Turks? Does anybody have a solution for this conflict?

The Universal declaration of human rights (1948) was and is a good start. Especially Article 18.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. "
But a lot of it is a generational problem.
Basically all confict finds causation in some one trying to tell someone else what to believe and what to do with out their consent.

 

[CptBork]

Basically all confict finds causation in some one trying to tell someone else what to believe and what to do with out their consent.

There's also the good old classic "Hey, you don't look like I do or speak my language, so you either have to worship me for how I look and enslave yourself to my tribe, or I'll use technology I stole from sympathetic westerners to invade your country, steal your land and then pretend I'm there to fight terrorism and stuff."

 

[iceaura]

The Turkish response wasn't exactly gentle and probably equally brutal and indiscriminate.

The PKK terrorism was more the response, the State terrorism of the Turkish government the original incitement.

 

[mmatt9876]

The Universal declaration of human rights (1948) was and is a good start. Especially Article 18.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. "
But a lot of it is a generational problem.
Basically all confict finds causation in some one trying to tell someone else what to believe and what to do with out their consent.

Would you consider the act of Turkey denying the existence of the Kurdish people in Turkey and outlawing Kurdish customs, language, and names a violation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Would you consider the act of Turkey denying the existence of the Kurdish people in Turkey and outlawing Kurdish customs, language, and names a violation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Just my thoughts....
Keeping in mind the long history of ethnic and sectarian violence for that part of the world, the grudges held due to historical human rights crimes committed on both sides it is not as simple as that.
Sure of course, any forced and enforced oppression is an act contrary to the UDHR.
Even though Turkey is a signatory to the UDHR it doesn't prevent it, like many other signatories, including the USA, Australia etc, from putting it aside when they believe national security issues are a priority. ( or at least pretend that this is the case)
The UDHR and the Islamic version , CDHRI are voluntary declarations and offer no compulsion other than that of a moral, ethical nature.

The primary purpose of the UDHR IMO was to inspire nations to a way of acting that enabled peaceful co-existence between the various ethnic, cultural and religious groupings, essentially to prevent another global conflagration. By recognizing that the fundamental need for freedom of belief and thought ( Article 18 ) is essential if the world was to evolve towards a more harmonious and peaceful state. ( with out unduly compromising personal freedom)
IMO every individual person on this planet could benefit by signing the UDHR (especially Article 18) and not just nations as it is is at the heart of every conflict between people and nations.
If Turkey seeks to resolve it's dispute with the Kurdish people then they really need to take the Kurdish cultural and ethnic needs seriously and help facilitate an eventual solution that involves a mutually beneficial co-existence.

But as I suggested it is a vexatious issue given the painful history of the region and the ability to let go of past atrocities may be extremely hard to do. ( both sides)
I fear it will take generational change which means a long term strategy is needed that may involve many years of transition and the nature of short term political leadership inhibits any really long term solutions from being put in place.
They need a hundred year plan and they can only work with a 10 years plan at the most... ( sort of problem)
How can the world come to understand how important Article 18 is to human coexistence?

 

[mmatt9876]

Just my thoughts....
Keeping in mind the long history of ethnic and sectarian violence for that part of the world, the grudges held due to historical human rights crimes committed on both sides it is not as simple as that.
Sure of course, any forced and enforced oppression is an act contrary to the UDHR.
Even though Turkey is a signatory to the UDHR it doesn't prevent it, like many other signatories, including the USA, Australia etc, from putting it aside when they believe national security issues are a priority. ( or at least pretend that this is the case)
The UDHR and the Islamic version , CDHRI are voluntary declarations and offer no compulsion other than that of a moral, ethical nature.

The primary purpose of the UDHR IMO was to inspire nations to a way of acting that enabled peaceful co-existence between the various ethnic, cultural and religious groupings, essentially to prevent another global conflagration. By recognizing that the fundamental need for freedom of belief and thought ( Article 18 ) is essential if the world was to evolve towards a more harmonious and peaceful state. ( with out unduly compromising personal freedom)
IMO every individual person on this planet could benefit by signing the UDHR (especially Article 18) and not just nations as it is is at the heart of every conflict between people and nations.
If Turkey seeks to resolve it's dispute with the Kurdish people then they really need to take the Kurdish cultural and ethnic needs seriously and help facilitate an eventual solution that involves a mutually beneficial co-existence.

But as I suggested it is a vexatious issue given the painful history of the region and the ability to let go of past atrocities may be extremely hard to do. ( both sides)
I fear it will take generational change which means a long term strategy is needed that may involve many years of transition and the nature of short term political leadership inhibits any really long term solutions from being put in place.
They need a hundred year plan and they can only work with a 10 years plan at the most... ( sort of problem)
How can the world come to understand how important Article 18 is to human coexistence?

It sounds like cooperation, working together, and mutual understanding may be the best solution for the violence that has been going on between Turkey and the Kurds for years.

 

[mmatt9876]

Thanks for sharing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with us, Quantum Quack. It is beautiful.