So I can see both sides of this. We don't want the Kurds to be slaughtered by the Turks but we cant be the world police either. And its 50 troops. 50. 5-0. What other thing were they doing besides policing? Trump said we would go after them if they start after the Kurds. I am hoping that won't be necessary.
50 troops are a trip wire. Screw with the Kurds and we’re in the middle. Same as the Berlin Garrison in the Cold War or the 40,000 in Korea. They’re a warning in a way Trump’s tweets can never be.
also, man, these are hard questions. who the fuck knows how to manage these situations? who are we to know what the fuck to do about syria? who are we to either condemn or praise this kinda stuff? i have a degree in this shit and i have no clue. should we be more interventionist? will it backfire? should we let others handle their shit? dunno! but anti-trumpers seem to really be experts. they know they oppose trump
That is why I am leaning more towards the new pipelines. Russia needs stability in the area as does turkey. Keep pipelines depend on it. Stability is a good thing I would think. But who really knows and because it is unknown, I support not being the world police so much. Plus, who needs Troops these days? Sanctions and bombs can do the trick.
trump seems to agree with you, and he is definitely less of a hawk than the last few presidents. whether this is good or bad is very complicated. maybe its good. i think so. maybe. but trump critics seem to oppose anything as long as trump does it
So Trump isn’t ending our presence in Syria or bringing any troops home. He’s just moving the so the Turks can kill the only ones who fought ISIS on their own. The Turks have been carrying a genocidal war on the Kurds. Trump is kowtowing to Erdogan and Putin again.
when trump provided weapons to ukraine for them to use to kill russians (the way obama wouldnt), was that trump kowtowing to putin?
