|
The sane thing would be to sue the Taliban for peace. Don't believe its politically possible. We've had 17 years to come up with a Marshall plan for the middle east and they still can't tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia or what the primary language of Afghanistan is. It's going to get much worse now that we've completely abandoned our diplomatic responsibilities.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
The Taliban isn't interested in any serious peace talks because they believe they can win with force, and they're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
Gort posted:I don't think anyone disagrees that the US should leave Afghanistan at some point in time. The thing is that leaving right now dooms the country to Taliban rule and the mass-killings that will go along with it. Pretty sure we've already dropped the ball on that one and refused to bring a bunch of translators/informants/etc over because of vague "security" reasons, dooming them to die via bloody reprisals from militants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:The Taliban isn't interested in any serious peace talks because they believe they can win with force, and they're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
"i know we've lost the war but i don't think we should give up until we've actually won the war" what a loving take if we could have created a stable environment where power could be handed off successfully then we wouldn't be in this situation because we would have won the loving war in the first place. instead its an absolute nightmare hellscape of our own creation and we can never, ever fix it by doing anything remotely similar to what we've been doing. we're holding a shattered vase together with our hands. we need to withdraw them, but the minute we do the whole thing will fall apart. what are we gonna do, hold it together for eternity, hoping the shards will somehow fuse back together if we hold it together tight enough? its ridiculous. we hosed everything up, there's absolutely no fixing it by our own hands. we can't make poo poo right. we employed various factions to help us overthrow existing power structures, and we lost; there are going to be bloody, horrific consequences we can't avoid. this is the cost of war, especially the price the losers pay. america doesn't get to get out with a feel good win. we stirred the pot and brought forth all of this sectarian violence in the first place
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
It is absolutely moral cowardice, and a total loving coffee shop communist power move to bitch and moan about ethics of global hegemony, disregard all other options, and to just blatantly state "well it's not our problem we should turtle at our own continent." Just like we pay taxes and take part in a society, americans live in a world of people and governments, and as long as there is power, authority, and capability to do something about the world, the correct action is to take action and not just sit idly by. The fact that the wars blow hard, are poorly led, and that the foreign policy blunders from one disaster to another doesn't mean the alternative is to just not do anything. I'm red as all hell, but that doesn't mean that I'd be cool with ignoring the conflicts of the world. Maybe Lightning Knight can go ask the old french ladies who own coffee shops in Normany who cry when veterans come there, and use old brooms to chase german tourists out of their shops? Maybe go visit Srebrenica? What about my bosniak immigrant neighbor whose family rode on back of NATO vehicles away from the onslaught of the Sprska Army, literally as artillery shells rained on them? They thought the american planes that struck the loving tank in their loving market next to their loving home were pretty cool. The most american imperialist move is to sit idly by in the continent and chill on being a superpower that doesn't have to do anything abroad. Just like the rich kids at Beverly Hills. Well quess what? Other countries aren't so fortunate that they get to export war, it always comes to them, just like it comes for Ukrainians and Kurds, and then they will either fight or die when they face genocide, just like the Jews, Bosniaks, Kosovar people, and countless others. Doing 100 percent to make American, and NATO, foreign aid/power projection more ethical, efficient, humane, and palatable is the correct action to take, not cozying it up in your gated community. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:We should start keeping an XLS of your worthless posts.  Keep me posted on that
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It is absolutely moral cowardice, and a total loving coffee shop communist power move to bitch and moan about ethics of global hegemony, disregard all other options, and to just blatantly state "well it's not our problem we should turtle at our own continent." Just like we pay taxes and take part in a society, americans live in a world of people and governments, and as long as there is power, authority, and capability to do something about the world, the correct action is to take action and not just sit idly by. The fact that the wars blow hard, are poorly led, and that the foreign policy blunders from one disaster to another doesn't mean the alternative is to just not do anything. I'm red as all hell, but that doesn't mean that I'd be cool with ignoring the conflicts of the world. Maybe Lightning Knight can go ask the old french ladies who own coffee shops in Normany who cry when veterans come there, and use old brooms to chase german tourists out of their shops? Maybe go visit Srebrenica? What about my bosniak immigrant neighbor whose family rode on back of NATO vehicles away from the onslaught of the Sprska Army, literally as artillery shells rained on them? They thought the american planes that struck the loving tank in their loving market next to their loving home were pretty cool. What is ethical and humane about permanently occupying Afghanistan with no viable exit strategy? We're literally the most militarily belligerent country in the entire world, are other countries failing to be ethical and humane by not engaging in middle east forever war like we do? Comparing the loving Afghanistan war to WWII is beyond laughable, it's entirely the fault of idiotic American military belligerence that this stupid conflict even exists. It will not be solved by yet more idiotic American military belligerence. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:What is ethical and humane about permanently occupying Afghanistan with no viable exit strategy? We're literally the most militarily belligerent country in the entire world, are other countries failing to be ethical and humane by not engaging in middle east forever war like we do? Comparing the loving Afghanistan war to WWII is beyond laughable, it's entirely the fault of idiotic American military belligerence that this stupid conflict even exists. You are being obtuse on purpose. I didn't say that Afghanistan is the hallmark to compare to WW2, I said total isolationism is wrong. Afghanistan's coalition had 60 or so countries. Iraq has similar amounts. Check out UN Interim Force in Lebanon, or the Galilee Security Force. Or UNPROFOR, or KFOR in Kosovo. Syria's operation has, publicly: Australia (Operation Okra) Bahrain Belgium Canada (Operation Impact § In Syria – pulling out soon[191]) France (Opération Chammal) Germany (Operation Counter Daesh) Netherlands on 29 January 2016 decided to start air attacks in Syria on ISIL (see Dutch involvement in the Syrian Civil War) Jordan (Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War) Qatar Saudi Arabia Turkey (Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War) United Arab Emirates United Kingdom (Operation Shader § Intervention in Syria) United States (Leader) Not counting that plenty of other european countries have their Special Forces in the country from Italy to Finland. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
It's a great thing, because clearly we will reduce the defense budget by hundreds of billions of dollars in light of the fact we aren't really going to be doing much overseas now, and thus need a fraction of our current funding. Right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
Wanting to pull out of an unwinnable 17-year long war is not "isolationism." Pretty much no one is an actual isolationist and it's basically nothing but a slur in foreign policy discussion. I support diplomacy and military force in some cases, not decades long regime change and nation building wars, that is a far cry from "isolationism."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Wanting to pull out of an unwinnable 17-year long war is not "isolationism." Pretty much no one is an actual isolationist and it's basically nothing but a slur in foreign policy discussion. I support diplomacy and military force in some cases, not decades long regime change and nation building wars, that is a far cry from "isolationism." I like how to you Afghanistan is the only conflict in the world at this moment because it is the one you read about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:12
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It is absolutely moral cowardice, and a total loving coffee shop communist power move to bitch and moan about ethics of global hegemony, disregard all other options, and to just blatantly state "well it's not our problem we should turtle at our own continent." Just like we pay taxes and take part in a society, americans live in a world of people and governments, and as long as there is power, authority, and capability to do something about the world, the correct action is to take action and not just sit idly by. The fact that the wars blow hard, are poorly led, and that the foreign policy blunders from one disaster to another doesn't mean the alternative is to just not do anything. I'm red as all hell, but that doesn't mean that I'd be cool with ignoring the conflicts of the world. Maybe Lightning Knight can go ask the old french ladies who own coffee shops in Normany who cry when veterans come there, and use old brooms to chase german tourists out of their shops? Maybe go visit Srebrenica? What about my bosniak immigrant neighbor whose family rode on back of NATO vehicles away from the onslaught of the Sprska Army, literally as artillery shells rained on them? They thought the american planes that struck the loving tank in their loving market next to their loving home were pretty cool. what a crock of poo poo. i don't think anyone here has even been arguing for isolationism in the first place. as lightning knight said, and i think most in the thread agrees with him, is that we're anti-interventionalist. and more importantly absolutely opposed to the occupations in the first place. i think you'll find unanimous agreement that international institutions should be strengthened and a new, unified diplomatic approach enforced by multi-national cooperation should be the order of the day. you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagreed but the us is not out in the world solving humanitarian problems and liberating oppressed peoples. we're not in kurdish territory to protect the kurds in the first place. that whole situation is one of our own creation. its a by product of our intentionally exacerbating tensions to get their help in destabilizing the region. the plan has never been to protect the kurds or afghan collaborators short of total victory and we failed that in both places and we'll never achieve it. america is not out doing good in world, just look in our own backyard. mexico has gone through a bloody drug war/borderline civil war, coups in honduras, civil wars throughout the continent. we fueled and funded death squads there for goodness sake. we're tear gassing the refugees at the border multinational intervention is necessary, better if we can improve our institutions. but he current occupations need to end. we've lost the wars and have to pay to consequences. there is no fixing any of it. if the international community can put something together to protect endangered ethnic groups then good, they should. in the mean time the us has to get out
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I like how to you Afghanistan is the only conflict in the world at this moment because it is the one you read about. Where on earth did that come from? I never said or implied such a thing. It's just one of the most pointless and unwinnable conflicts that we are involved in. To suggest that wanting to end a 17-year long regime change and nation building war is "isolationism" is absolutely absurd. What exactly do you think should be done in Afghanistan? NATO is about defense. Regime change and nation building with its stunning success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is not about defense. It has just caused endless amounts of death and destruction that didn't have to happen. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What happens? I mean initially there will be upheaval and discontent. poo poo will probably go down. And then countries will adjust to the new equilibrium. No single country has the economic or military basis to fill that void in the near-term, the Russians and Chinese aren't going to wave a magic wand and give themselves 10 aircraft carrier battlegroups. Lightning Knight posted:North Korea isn't actually in a military position to invade South Korea and it's not clear to me why if that happened we should want to be in a position where we are automatically on the hook to go to war for another country. There's a default assumption that if [country] invades [other country] that it is therefore our problem that I inherently disagree with. It's time to stop assuming everyone else's problems are our problems. Lightning Knight posted:
Lightning Knight posted:We already aren't gonna do poo poo to help anything east of Germany because no one is actually willing to go to war with Russia and risk nukes for them. Just because Russia are huge pieces of poo poo to their neighbors doesn't behoove us to do something about it militarily, nor is hard power the only available response. This is textbook "very concerned but not my neighborhood".
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It is absolutely moral cowardice, and a total loving coffee shop communist power move to bitch and moan about ethics of global hegemony, disregard all other options, and to just blatantly state "well it's not our problem we should turtle at our own continent." Just like we pay taxes and take part in a society, americans live in a world of people and governments, and as long as there is power, authority, and capability to do something about the world, the correct action is to take action and not just sit idly by. The fact that the wars blow hard, are poorly led, and that the foreign policy blunders from one disaster to another doesn't mean the alternative is to just not do anything. I'm red as all hell, but that doesn't mean that I'd be cool with ignoring the conflicts of the world. Maybe Lightning Knight can go ask the old french ladies who own coffee shops in Normany who cry when veterans come there, and use old brooms to chase german tourists out of their shops? Maybe go visit Srebrenica? What about my bosniak immigrant neighbor whose family rode on back of NATO vehicles away from the onslaught of the Sprska Army, literally as artillery shells rained on them? They thought the american planes that struck the loving tank in their loving market next to their loving home were pretty cool. the most imperialist move is to stop engaging in imperialist wars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
"I'm red as hell" but have foreign policy views indistinguishable from Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, and David Frum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:"I'm red as hell" but have foreign policy views indistinguishable from Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, and David Frum. I think the Kurds should get to have their communism, too, along with Bosnians and Kosovar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
What the gently caress? We literally went in only with Tony "should be in the Hague" Blair and loving poland. it was a loving soundbite for gods sake. Calling iraq a global coalition is the most  take of all time. are you actually thomas friedman?e: honestly the rest of your posts are even worse. literally all the problems in the world are because of the US's poo poo policy. daesh and the taliban? caused by the loving us! russia destabilizing countries? directly caused by shock therapy after the soviet union's collapse. if there's a problem in the world, 90 to 1 its because america hosed with things in the recent past. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I think the Kurds should get to have their communism, too, along with Bosnians and Kosovar. Syria and Afghanistan are very different situations, what do you think we should do in Afghanistan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:31
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Syria and Afghanistan are very different situations, what do you think we should do in Afghanistan? A gradual drawdown hopefully soon. Long term some small assistance and advice to ANA but that's it. As of things like UNIFIL or KFOR? Maybe couple more decades. Operations in Syria? Until Kurds are independent. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It is absolutely moral cowardice, Nice to know we've been in this stupid hellwar so long we've done a full timeloop back to the start when anyone who raised an opposing voice was immediately branded a coward, a sniveling traitor, a pussy who didn't dare wet himself in the blood of tbe enemy like a real American.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:russia destabilizing countries? directly caused by shock therapy after the soviet union's collapse. This would be a thing no matter what, the Soviets weren't exactly exporting peace and love to the myriad of oppressive dictatorships they also created unless you think Russia would have developed better and decided to join the fraternity of the EU/Western democracies
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:This would be a thing no matter what, the Soviets weren't exactly exporting peace and love to the myriad of oppressive dictatorships they also created unless you think Russia would have developed better and decided to join the fraternity of the EU/Western democracies No but you see, we could ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
ThirdEmperor posted:Nice to know we've been in this stupid hellwar so long we've done a full timeloop back to the start when anyone who raised an opposing voice was immediately branded a coward, a sniveling traitor, a pussy who didn't dare wet himself in the blood of tbe enemy like a real American. Spoiler Alert: Afghanistan isn't the only conflict in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Spoiler Alert: Afghanistan isn't the only conflict in the world. Indeed, the Global War on Terror now spans 40% of the countries in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
No Democrat will be able to leave Afghanistan without being labelled a snivelling coward by Fox News and the Right Wing War Machine. Trump can actually do it. He'll gently caress it up, but he can do it. Doing it fast might make the in-country elites more willing to negotiate, though I think no matter what Trump does it's going to end up with Helicopters evacuating off the top of the Embassy. Only this time they won't be taking any refugee's with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
Comstar posted:No Democrat will be able to leave Afghanistan without being labelled a snivelling coward by Fox News and the Right Wing War Machine. Is it good that we GTFO Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria under the terms Trump sets, even if it means we leave? Do we leave by any means necessary or do we try, and actively TRY, to do the right thing? The thing is with all of this, is that it’s a trolley problem except over an entire city and a loving poo poo for brains is somehow allowed to drive multiple trolleys. Also it’s rush hour traffic. There is no right or correct answer, morally or otherwise. Most people here, minus one or two reprehensible dipshits, are on the same page: The US needs to stop loving around with other countries. HOW we get there, is an entirely other story. No matter what option we take, is covered in the blood of mostly innocent people. We will never morally win any of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:26
|
|
|
The US and the rest of the world would probably benefit from America not doing any more unilateral / tiny coalition military actions. That said, it’s the only one of the major powers that even bothers to pay lip service to the idea of a better world. The fact that 95% of the time it doesn’t live up to that ideal (to put it mildly) is a separate point. And the press freedom / first amendment stuff is honestly a big deal. Things the US * generally* doesn’t do (and it’s a scandal when it does): - outright lie in the UN about things like whether it’s currently invading a country or not - arrest or detain foreign journalists seeking to report on local conditions - indefinitely detain foreigners without access to legal representation - tell the world there is no medical crisis when in fact there is one that is spiralling out of control - assassinate journalists - assassinate expats who disagree with the current government - disappear citizens for social media posts / taking part in a protest and return them dead to their families with the excuse “he fell down the stairs while playing hide and seek” These things do matter. When the US makes any effort at all to stand up for its supposed principles, that has a small improvement in quality of life for a lot of people who live outside the US. When it runs a cart and horses through them, the opposite. But it’s not all bad all the time, at least as viewed from here, outside America. It’s one of the reasons we foreigners don’t like Trump - it lets all the other governments off the hook when the US is so nakedly self-interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:The US and the rest of the world would probably benefit from America not doing any more unilateral / tiny coalition military actions. Like half the things you said the US generally doesn't do are things it does all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
I support not leaving Afganistan yet. The U.S. hosed the nation over and that can't be fixed. Our moral duty is now to the poor dumb idiots who bought into our bullshit. We should stay long enough to evacuate anyone who could be called collaborator when the Taliban roll in. Asylum, social support and an expedited path to U.S. citizenship to them and any Afghani schoolgirls (and their families) that want out get a free pass too. Same with the Kurds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
Americans were barely a nation when Kurds were fighting for themselves and being Genocided, by the way. We haven’t taken the correct action, but that doesn’t mean the Kurds would be living it up now without us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
Re: Syria - It just seems to me that at this point, morally, supporting the Kurds is a superior choice to vacating and leaving them to be crushed by Turkey. The Original Sin of invading Iraq doesn't change that for me. If 2000 US troops can prevent, by their mere *presence* in a relatively small region, ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of people, this seems a laudable goal, frankly, regardless of how they arrived. At this point, the aggressor is Turkey, to me. Let us call for a negotiated settlement respecting the newly won liberties of the Kurds, internationalize the problem. Have UN peacekeepers come in, if Trump wants out so badly. At least trying this approach would be far more moral surely than simply cutting and running. I know the various stakeholders would never agree to this initially. Certainly Turkey won't. Russia and Syria might, to stop Turkey occupying more of Syria for now. Iran, not sure. It's probably hopeless, but abandoning the Kurds is probably the WORST option in Syria. A peace of the grave, almost certainly. For the Kurds. They read Kropotkin, for gently caress sake. Please resume your screaming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:57
|
|
|
[quote="Beefeater1980" post=""490906944”"] Things the US * generally* doesn’t do (and it’s a scandal when it does): [/quote] I think you’re a bit mistaken about a few of these things. quote:- outright lie in the UN about things like whether it’s currently invading a country or not The bombing of Laos? And I’m guessing you’re excluding Iraq because we were lying to go to war not lying about the war. quote:- arrest or detain foreign journalists seeking to report on local conditions https://theintercept.com/2018/11/28/ice-immigration-arrest-journalist-manuel-duran/ quote:- indefinitely detain foreigners without access to legal representation The US government actively argues in court they can detain a foreigner or American for 100 years without trial if they do choose. We have at least 40 foreigners detained indefinitely without trial. quote:- tell the world there is no medical crisis when in fact there is one that is spiralling out of control Our current government is doing just that for the health crisis in America. quote:- assassinate journalists True, we usually aim for activists and political leaders. quote:- assassinate expats who disagree with the current government We do this all the time, we just call them terrorists first and then use a drone. quote:- disappear citizens for social media posts / taking part in a protest and return them dead to their families with the excuse “he fell down the stairs while playing hide and seek” True, thus far social media posts mocking politicians can only get you arrested or investigated by the police in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
I think “all the time” is a stretch. When the US does these things, it’s unusual enough to be newsworthy, and it’s legal to complain about it. That’s not universal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 12:03
|
|
|
The ironic thing is that Iraq 2 happened because the U.S wanted to build a regional ally to check the other regional powers but whoops turns out bombing people until they love you doesn't work. A U.S. recognized Kurdish state is a rock loving solid ally for life the same way South Korea is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Re: Syria - It just seems to me that at this point, morally, supporting the Kurds is a superior choice to vacating and leaving them to be crushed by Turkey. The Original Sin of invading Iraq doesn't change that for me. If 2000 US troops can prevent, by their mere *presence* in a relatively small region, ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of people, this seems a laudable goal, frankly, regardless of how they arrived. At this point, the aggressor is Turkey, to me. The second you voice support for an independent Kurdistan expect Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran to all be screaming bloody murder because last I checked the desired borders for a Kurdish state encompassed territory from all of them. Even if you limited the space to seized portions of Iraq and Syria, because god knows neither of those countries is actually equipped to control their borders, Iran and Turkey will still oppose it due to the precedent it would set and Turkish paranoia about the PKK having a base of operations. That said, Iran's complaints would probably be to get a good deal out of the whole thing and you could probably buy them off pretty easily. Erdogan, however, is real hungry for a But this is all hypothetical. We're going to leave, the Kurds are going to get crushed using weapons we sold to the Turks, and in exchange the Turks will lay off our dearest friend and closest ally who would never do anything to hurt us, Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
What is stopping the Republicans from using reconciliation I the Senate to pass the budget? I apologize if this is a dumb question
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Re: Syria - It just seems to me that at this point, morally, supporting the Kurds is a superior choice to vacating and leaving them to be crushed by Turkey. The Original Sin of invading Iraq doesn't change that for me. If 2000 US troops can prevent, by their mere *presence* in a relatively small region, ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of people, this seems a laudable goal, frankly, regardless of how they arrived. At this point, the aggressor is Turkey, to me. Wicked Them Beats posted:The second you voice support for an independent Kurdistan expect Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran to all be screaming bloody murder because last I checked the desired borders for a Kurdish state encompassed territory from all of them. Even if you limited the space to seized portions of Iraq and Syria, because god knows neither of those countries is actually equipped to control their borders, Iran and Turkey will still oppose it due to the precedent it would set and Turkish paranoia about the PKK having a base of operations. That said, Iran's complaints would probably be to get a good deal out of the whole thing and you could probably buy them off pretty easily. Erdogan, however, is real hungry for a Yeah, the "good" option would be to recognize an independent Kurdistan, let them join NATO, and let the rest of the middle east cry about it, but that will never happen. I guess we could let all the Kurds immigrate to America!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Just how terrible is Donald Trump at Risk anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 12:31
|
|
