Slaughtering our Kurdish allies

[Terraceth]

When is the last time the USA actually bothered declaring war?

I think in 2003 for the Iraq war.

[Juvenal]

Has the middle east ever not had conflict?

I think in 2003 for the Iraq war.

That was an "authorization to use military force." Says here the last time we declared war was in 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.

[NorrinRadd]

I think in 2003 for the Iraq war.

Fake declaration.

[Juvenal]

Turkey Begins Syria Attack, Targeting Militia Backed by U.S.

By Ben Hubbard
Oct. 9, 2019
Updated 10:43 a.m. ET

The SDF has previously said they would abandon the prisoner camps where ISIS troops (including European nationals) were being held if Turkey began an offensive against them.

[rogue06]

Dems and Reps must quickly team up to dump Trump. Vamos!

There is a cunning plan in office to permanently remove him from office on January 20, 2024. I think it just might work.

[rogue06]

The Kurds may use human shields

Well at least according to The Sun. And the human shields would be captured ISIS combatants. I seriously doubt that killing them would in any way hinder the Turkey military.

Source: 'IN THE CROSSFIRE' Jihadi Jack’s mum moans her ISIS son will be slaughtered in Turkey invasion as Kurds vow to use human shields against troops

THE mother of Brit ISIS fighter 'Jihadi Jack' fears he will be killed if Turkey goes ahead with its threat to invade Syria.Source

© Copyright Original Source

The story itself has numerous hyperlinks and various photos and graphics.

[firstfloor]

There is a cunning plan in office to permanently remove him from office on January 20, 2024. I think it just might work.

[shunyadragon]

This is difficult.

Trump campaigned on getting out such entanglements. But ISTM we have never really lived up to commitments we made to the Kurds decades ago.

No we have not.

[Juvenal]

The Kurds may use human shields

Well at least according to The Sun. And the human shields would be captured ISIS combatants. I seriously doubt that killing them would in any way hinder the Turkey military.

You missed the last three paragraphs, but that's a full blowout on copyright restrictions, rouge. Doesn't look like you read the story before you copied it, either:

Now the fighters which normally guard them are being sent to the border to prepare for a Turkish assault.

[MaxVel]

Naturally. You've defended worse from Trump rougue. I've even started threads saying - effectively - surely people can't support THIS - and sure enough, a good many of you do.

No, that's a misrepresentation. People disagree with you over the substance of what you think Trump actually did, so they don't have a problem with it. Since they don't think he did what you think he did, they don't draw the conclusion you draw. You have to get them to agree on the premises (what he did) BEFORE you can get them to agree on the conclusion you draw from those premises.

This has been pointed out to you more than once.

Many time you and others have chastised me severely for pointing our what he is doing is immoral, after all, you didn't elect a saint.

1. See above. Until there is agreement on what he actually did, there won't be agreement on whether it is immoral or not.

2. Some people realise that all politicians are to a greater or lesser degree, flawed and immoral. They take a pragmatic view of politics. You seem to be more idealistic.

3. I harbour doubts about how even-handed your moral sensibility is in the area of politics. I suspect you focus on the morality of politicians you dislike, and overlook the morality of politicians you support. As do we all.

Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.

Now imagine that we changed 'Warren' to 'Trump' but left the statements, backstory, etc the same. I think that they posters who have been supporting 'Warren' would condemn 'Trump' and vice versa. The people who interpret 'Warren's' statements charitably would interpret 'Trump's' statements unfavourably.

tl; dr : I don't think anyone is completely unbiased, certainly not you. Hence 'Trump bad' from you carries little weight.

So I can't even count on the immorality of his actions as any indication you would be likely to reject them. So yes, if you don't explicitly say you are against what he is doing, I assume you are with what he is doing.

Jim

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That's waaay better than asking what someone really thinks. It's far easier to deal with people if we put them into categories and stereotypes, and assume their motivations.

[oxmixmudd]

No, that's a misrepresentation. People disagree with you over the substance of what you think Trump actually did, so they don't have a problem with it. Since they don't think he did what you think he did, they don't draw the conclusion you draw. You have to get them to agree on the premises (what he did) BEFORE you can get them to agree on the conclusion you draw from those premises.

This has been pointed out to you more than once.





1. See above. Until there is agreement on what he actually did, there won't be agreement on whether it is immoral or not.

2. Some people realise that all politicians are to a greater or lesser degree, flawed and immoral. They take a pragmatic view of politics. You seem to be more idealistic.

3. I harbour doubts about how even-handed your moral sensibility is in the area of politics. I suspect you focus on the morality of politicians you dislike, and overlook the morality of politicians you support. As do we all.

Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.

Now imagine that we changed 'Warren' to 'Trump' but left the statements, backstory, etc the same. I think that they posters who have been supporting 'Warren' would condemn 'Trump' and vice versa. The people who interpret 'Warren's' statements charitably would interpret 'Trump's' statements unfavourably.

tl; dr : I don't think anyone is completely unbiased, certainly not you. Hence 'Trump bad' from you carries little weight.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That's waaay better than asking what someone really thinks. It's far easier to deal with people if we put them into categories and stereotypes, and assume their motivations.

I stand by my reasons fo believing rogue will be supporting Trump on an issue, and especially in light of posts that do not directly criticize him. And I dont believe there is any post by rogue in this thread that would provide justification for changing that as my default expectation.

Jim

[Juvenal]

Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.

Alternatively, there are those who judge based on the full set of facts currently available, which support an "automatic resignation," and that her lineage includes an admixture of native American consistent with the history shared in her family, and those who reject these additional facts, and consequently, come to a differing conclusion.

While both positions are understandable, I do not find the latter position as reasonable as the former.

Neither do I find the Washington Beacon's failure to update their piece with additional facts that have come to light consistent with standard editorial review.

[Juvenal]

I stand by my reasons fo believing rogue will be supporting Trump on an issue, and especially in light of posts that do not directly criticize him. And I dont believe there is any post by rogue in this thread that would provide justification for changing that as my default expectation.

Jim

I would point out that there are two posters in this thread, NorrinRadd and seer, whom I have seen posting consistently in support of Trump, who nonetheless do not agree with this development. I would add Terraceth due to his "amen" on the former, but this is only a suggestion, and I do not know his posting history of support or opposition to Trump's actions in general.

More substantively, the same should be acknowledged for Lindsey Graham.

But more directly, it is not reasonable in my view to continue to defend an initial judgment at odds with Rogue's direct denial of support in this instance. The proper course, in my view, is to gracefully admit to being wrong, learn from the experience, and move on.

[demi-conservative]

When is the last time the USA actually bothered declaring war?

Declaring is passe and unnecessary. The essential thing is that there must be war, world without end.

The Kurds may use human shields

Marxist terrorists might use human shields, what a shocking possibility.

Actually, if the human shields are ISIS, I don't think I object.

[Juvenal]

Lindsey Graham's twitter account, pinned tweet

I am pleased to have reached a bipartisan agreement with Senator @ChrisVanHollen on severe sanctions against Turkey for their invasion of Syria.

While the Administration refuses to act against Turkey, I expect strong bipartisan support.

EGduEjaX0AYzT1d.jpeg

EGduEjZWoAAfVHh.jpeg