RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Trump defends Syria move: The Kurds 'didn't help us' in No - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Trump defends Syria move: The Kurds 'didn't help us' in No Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,485
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 09 October 2019 - 10:58 PM

Trump defends Syria move: The Kurds 'didn't help us' in Normandy

MORGAN CHALFANT
The Hill
10/9/19

EXCERPT:


President Trump on Wednesday criticized the Kurds, saying they didn't help the United States during World War II and that they were only fighting for their land in Syria during the battle against ISIS.

“The Kurds are fighting for their land,” Trump told reporters at the White House during an event in the Roosevelt Room.

“And as somebody wrote in a very, very powerful article today, they didn’t help us in the second World War, they didn’t help us with Normandy as an example. They mentioned names of different battles. But they’re there to help us with their land and that’s a different thing.”

Trump did not specify to which article he was referring, but some on Twitter pointed to an article written in TownHall by conservative Kurt Schlichter that included a reference to the Kurds and Normandy.

The remarks from Trump at the White House came as Turkey launched an offensive in northern Syria against Kurdish forces that had been allied with the United States in the fight on terror.

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is online   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,367
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 October 2019 - 11:52 PM

This and the diplomat's wife fiasco are the first significant Trump f-ups in which I vehemently disagree with him on.

After ~3 years that's not bad, all things considered. But to offer up the Kurds for slaugher has long-reaching consequences. WTF was he thinking??
0

#3 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,925
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 02:15 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 09 October 2019 - 11:52 PM, said:

This and the diplomat's wife fiasco are the first significant Trump f-ups in which I vehemently disagree with him on.

After ~3 years that's not bad, all things considered. But to offer up the Kurds for slaugher has long-reaching consequences. WTF was he thinking??

I have to agree.



...and while Schlichter makes some good points in the article mentioned, I'd think there are better ways to withdraw.

Spoiler

0

#4 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,485
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 02:44 AM

View Postgrimreefer, on 10 October 2019 - 02:15 AM, said:

I have to agree.



...and while Schlichter makes some good points in the article mentioned, I'd think there are better ways to withdraw.

Spoiler


The bin Laden thing isn't accurate. We helped a lot of groups during that time, and some probably turned into the Taleban, so I'm not saying what we did was the best idea, but the only groups we helped were Afghan nationals. Bin Laden and the other "Arab Afghans" that came from outside to fight were helped by other countries.

As for the Kurds, they have some bad people in the PKK, but most Kurds aren't a part of that. Most are civilians who don't want to die. Their fighters have been consistent allies of ours for almost three decades. They helped us during the first Gulf War and ended up getting gassed by Saddam after we lied to them and abandoned them. Everyone I know who served over there loved the Kurds they worked with. Several of those vets I know are pretty angry over this decision despite being very vocal Trump supporters 99% of the time.
0

#5 User is offline   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,608
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 10 October 2019 - 04:08 AM

Whoever is advising Trump on this one got it wrong, didn't we learn anything when we pulled out of Iraq?! And the Kurds are willing to fight for their land, how is that a bad thing?

This post has been edited by NH Populist: 10 October 2019 - 04:09 AM

0

#6 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,733
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 08:08 AM

Yup, I'll join the chorus: This was a terrible decision by Trump, and I can't approve of it or support it.

<_<
0

#7 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,627
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 10 October 2019 - 08:24 AM

“I have a little conflict of interest ‘cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul."--DJT to Steve Bannon, 12/1/2015
0

#8 User is offline   Weaseljd 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,609
  • Joined: 04-September 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 08:28 AM

I'm a little torn on this one, but after a lot of thought while it sucks for the Kurds, I get what Trump is doing. The Kurds are an "ally" of expediency for themselves and us. Outside of Iraq. Iran and Syria, do the Kurds fight with us anywhere else? do they send peacekeepers to other regions? Of course not. One, they don't because they are not a country, but instead are a culture or ethnic group who span multiple nations. So are they an "ally" in the traditional sense? I say not. We used them just like they used us - because we at the time in Iraq could help each other. But if the Kurds had their own nation, would there be Kurdish peacekeepers in Africa along side the US in dangerous regions. I bet not. Bottom line is that I think rump is right on this. We have been fighting and dying in the middle east long enough, especially Syria. We can't continue to have men and women come home in boxes just to be the world peace keepers when we have bigger threats in the world (Iran and China). IF Turkey is just creating a buffer zone and maintains order, then so be it. So yes, at first I thought it was also a bad move. then I saw his press conference yesterday afternoon answering questions on it, when he was talking about being with families of soldiers as they are brought back to Dover by plane, and I get why he is doing what he is doing.

For those against, one simple question. What immediate national security concern of US national security is being addressed by having US soldiers fighting and dying in Syria? Frankly I don't see any that can't, wont and should not be addressed y the people who live in those regions. if Turkey, a NATO ally, can go into Syria and keep ISIS from coming back for us, I say let them.
0

#9 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,733
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 08:54 AM

View PostWeaseljd, on 10 October 2019 - 08:28 AM, said:

For those against, one simple question. What immediate national security concern of US national security is being addressed by having US soldiers fighting and dying in Syria? Frankly I don't see any that can't, wont and should not be addressed y the people who live in those regions. if Turkey, a NATO ally, can go into Syria and keep ISIS from coming back for us, I say let them.


My overall concern isn't necessarily about that specific region's conflicts. It's the message this sends to all our allies, everywhere, basically:

"Don't trust us or work with us or sign treaties with us, because the minute we no longer need you we'll abandon you."

:coolshades:
0

#10 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,122
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:09 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 October 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:



:crybaby2:

But of course Biden can do no wrong?

This post has been edited by RedSoloCup: 10 October 2019 - 09:12 AM

0

#11 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,485
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:18 AM

View PostWeaseljd, on 10 October 2019 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'm a little torn on this one, but after a lot of thought while it sucks for the Kurds, I get what Trump is doing. The Kurds are an "ally" of expediency for themselves and us. Outside of Iraq. Iran and Syria, do the Kurds fight with us anywhere else? do they send peacekeepers to other regions? Of course not. One, they don't because they are not a country, but instead are a culture or ethnic group who span multiple nations. So are they an "ally" in the traditional sense? I say not. We used them just like they used us - because we at the time in Iraq could help each other. But if the Kurds had their own nation, would there be Kurdish peacekeepers in Africa along side the US in dangerous regions. I bet not. Bottom line is that I think rump is right on this. We have been fighting and dying in the middle east long enough, especially Syria. We can't continue to have men and women come home in boxes just to be the world peace keepers when we have bigger threats in the world (Iran and China). IF Turkey is just creating a buffer zone and maintains order, then so be it. So yes, at first I thought it was also a bad move. then I saw his press conference yesterday afternoon answering questions on it, when he was talking about being with families of soldiers as they are brought back to Dover by plane, and I get why he is doing what he is doing.

For those against, one simple question. What immediate national security concern of US national security is being addressed by having US soldiers fighting and dying in Syria? Frankly I don't see any that can't, wont and should not be addressed y the people who live in those regions. if Turkey, a NATO ally, can go into Syria and keep ISIS from coming back for us, I say let them.


The biggest benefit to our presence (other than the benefit of preventing genocide of our ally, something that may convince others in the future that allying with us is a bad thing) is preventing ISIS from rekindling, spreading, and hitting us here at home. Turkey isn't going in to fight ISIS, they're going to fight the Kurds. They've already begun attacking. Another benefit is that by keeping the Kurds from being wiped out, the eleven thousand ISIS prisoners they're guarding won't be set loose. Clearly our leadership thinks this is a possibility considering they just scooped up the most high level ISIS leaders in those prisons and spiriting them away.

As for Turkey being our "NATO ally," it means little. They've done literally nothing helpful for us since the end of the Cold War. Heck, their refusal to let us strike from their territory during the lead in to the Iraq War caused many of the problems that lead to regional destabilization. So, what benefit is there to side with Turkey? They won't buy our weapons, they're turning to Russia for that. They won't help us in our wars. They torture and murder reporters (and their own people). Their leader denounces the west and our other allies. The only reason Turkey was entered into NATO in the first place is because we wanted to base our nuclear MRMs there in the 50's. Those missiles were removed decades ago.

Will Turkey fight ISIS? They've shown little interest in doing it in the past. They're more likely to go after the Kurds. This is troubling considering both their history with the Kurds specifically and their history overall. I mean, the word "genocide" exists solely because of Turkey's past actions. The only way Turkey will be fighting ISIS in my opinion is when the Kurd realize what a mistake they made being our ally, and opens the gates to their prisons, setting 11,000 ISIS veteran fighters loose to fight the Turks.
0

#12 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,485
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:19 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 10 October 2019 - 08:54 AM, said:

My overall concern isn't necessarily about that specific region's conflicts. It's the message this sends to all our allies, everywhere, basically:

"Don't trust us or work with us or sign treaties with us, because the minute we no longer need you we'll abandon you."

:coolshades:

The saddest part is, the Kurds learned that once already. In the first Gulf War we told them we'd help them overthrow Saddam. Then we changed our mind and left them to be gassed with chemical weapons.
0

#13 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,922
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:26 AM

There was only 50 soldiers there, and President Trump keeping a campaign promise.

Some People are going to gripe if Trump withdraws or sends more troops, if he bombs he is starting WW3 again.

Haters going to hate.
0

#14 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,627
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:31 AM

"The consequences of such unreliability from the Oval will reverberate well beyond Syria. The value of an American handshake is depreciating. Trump today said we could “crush ISIS again" if it regenerated. With who? What allies would sign up? Who would fight on his assurances?"--former ISIS Envoy Brett McGurk

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 10 October 2019 - 09:32 AM

0

#15 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,922
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:33 AM

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." – Sun Tzu.
0

#16 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,922
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:34 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 October 2019 - 09:31 AM, said:

"The consequences of such unreliability from the Oval will reverberate well beyond Syria. The value of an American handshake is depreciating. Trump today said we could “crush ISIS again" if it regenerated. With who? What allies would sign up? Who would fight on his assurances?"--former ISIS Envoy Brett McGurk

You quote ISIS,sad.
0

#17 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,502
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 10:11 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 October 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:



So he's not allowed to have business contracts outside of the US prior to being POTUS? Unlike the wastrels that permeate the halls of congress who don't tell you what their conflicts of interest are, I am happy he admits to them.

Of course I am sure you consider this also to be an impeachable offense.

0

#18 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,318
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 10:13 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 October 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:



I didn't see that in your link. I'm assuming it's in the audio version of the interview.

What does that have to do with Trump's decision to pull out? His building in Turkey is already up and running. It's not like he needs to do Turkey a favor to get approval for the project.
0

#19 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 38,068
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 10:24 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 October 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:


Is there some kind of point you are trying to make here?

Do tell?
0

#20 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,318
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 10 October 2019 - 10:35 AM

View Posterp, on 10 October 2019 - 10:24 AM, said:

Is there some kind of point you are trying to make here?

Do tell?


He must have seen that on one of his anti-Trump websites and thinks it's a smoking-gun bombshell revelation. :lol:
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users