impeachment stupidity

[bluebird]

Yeah its all good. There was this dude "Tands" that was posting in the Brewery a bit ago who obviously wasn't into DIY audio and just purposely trying to get under peoples skin. Just real aggressive and offensive. Got booted ;D Normally everyone's pretty tolerant.

Like John said, you don't have to be into DIY but people ask because its the commonality that keeps things relatively calm around here. If you don't respect someones political viewpoint, at least you respect the persons tech chops or contributions over time.  I also think thats why it gets heated sometimes. Because we do care about the other person to some degree and we can't believe they think about politics/society in the way they do.

Its akin many thanksgiving dinners in America. My wifes side of the family is conservative (Alabama) and  my side (Ohio) is liberal. We tend to keep the conversation topics to, well...food. 

 

[boji]

There was this dude

Ahhhhh!  BB!  Whdyagata go invoking sir R-baiting, marxist-king flambeau!  I kinda miss him-- in a stockholm syndrome sort of way.  ;D

Edit: But seriously, tech-contributive gdiy is kinda precious to me, and the brewery is a relatively rational, global, thoughtful cove of contribution, safe from surly digital seas.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hi John,

Are you suggesting that my responses here have been disrespectful? If so, please explain and I will alter my wording.

I am pretty sure I said exactly what I meant...  If I had a problem with you, you would not need to guess.  8)

I generally keep quiet and just read posts because DIY audio is a hobby of mine, but it's hard for me to keep quiet when I see a discussion like this one.

You are welcome to post as long as you keep it civil and respectful. We can all learn from each other.

Also,
I'm not exactly a newcomer. I've been registered on the forum for two years and been reading it for much longer.

Then welcome as an "old" guy... I tried to cover all bases welcoming both new guys and old guys....  :

JR

 

[bluebird]

Ahhhhh!  BB!  Whdyagata go invoking sir R-baiting, marxist-king flambeau!  I kinda miss him-- in a stockholm syndrome sort of way.  ;D

Ha! didn't say he wasn't interesting...Just a little too provocative, like I wanted to meet him face to face in a dark ally kind of provocative... My rule is if I wouldn't say it to your face, I won't say it on the interwebs... 8)

 

[hodad]

Some interesting background/perspective on US/Ukraine relations from Senator Chris Murphy:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/senchrismurphy/opinion-trump-abandoned-ukraine-to-russia-its-the-missing

 

[living sounds]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/13/politics/syria-marine-general-john-allen-trump/index.html

Gen. John Allen, the former commander of American forces in Afghanistan, told CNN that there is “blood on Trump’s hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies.”

Said Allen: “There was no chance Erdogan would keep his promise, and full blown ethnic cleansing is underway by Turkish supported militias. This is what happens when Trump follows his instincts and because of his alignment with autocrats.”

He added: “I said there would be blood, but could not have imagined this outcome.”

 

[sodderboy]

In  mine own fermented dairy incurexperimentations, every kurd is not a kurd.  Sometimes it’s mold, sometimes it’s gold.    Are there any of the various, multivarious, factions of kurds involved with all of this whisphpleblower  sthuuupfuppf?  Oh golly!!  I don’t think so..
eyez on tha priz

 

[JohnRoberts]

As I posted elsewhere perhaps President Trump should have ramped up his sanction regime against Turkey "before" withdrawing the US military advisors.

It appears the Kurds are now getting support from the Syrian army to defend against Turkish attacks across the border into Syria.  It is unclear how Assad and Syria will treat the Kurds long term but apparently better than Erdogan and Turkey. This is probably more about Assad defending his border against Turkey than any show of love for the Kurds. 

There are tens of millions Kurds in the entire region who have been desirous of autonomy since WWI and continue to be thwarted in their desire for statehood. Within Turkey there is a separatist Kurdish movement (PKK) that has been categorized as terrorists. So Turkey believes they are killing terrorists, we look at the Kurds as allies because they helped us kill ISIS, and other mutual enemies. This is iconic of middle east geo-politics.

I wonder why people are blaming President Trump for Turkey's actions (rhetorical)? Now apparently they want us to be the world's cop? Not really but criticizing the US distracts from all they are not doing to pacify the region, and contain bad actors.

I suspect President Trump is well aware of the cost of all these military adventures around the world... Less money spent overseas militarily mediating international disputes will make our economy stronger (no secret to Russia and China who prefer to keep us spread thin).

JR

 

[hodad]

I wonder why people are blaming President Trump for Turkey's actions (rhetorical)? Now apparently they want us to be the world's cop? Not really but criticizing the US distracts from all they are not doing to pacify the region, and contain bad actors.


JR

Astonishing.  Just astonishing. 

 

[dogears]

Look, all you armchair foreign policy experts who just learned what a Kurd was last week but are sure you love them now.

There are 35 or 40 million Kurdish people in the middle east spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  There is no single group who are "Kurdish" or single entity or government to negotiate with.

They have been, as a group, marginalized and more or less stuck since the European powers in WWI failed to carve out a state for them when they divvied up the Ottoman empire.

The US has supported and continues to support a large Kurdish faction in Iraq. Ironically, some of the Kurdish factions in Iraq have bitter rivalries with the Kurdish factions in Syria, and actually cooperate with the Turks in fighting them.

The US provides arms to YPG, a Kurdish group, through our support for the SDF in Syria. Unfortunately, the YPG is more or less part of the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group in Turkey, whom the US recognizes as a terrorist group. Whether they are, or whether we recognize them as such as a diplomatic concession to Turkey is a contentious point.

The Obama administration set up a simple mutually exclusive and temporary course of action by supporting YPG in Syria. You cannot support YPG and remain in good standing diplomatically with Turkey. They are mutually exclusive outcomes. The Trump administration stayed with the status quo for a time, but has been under pressure from Turkey for nearly two years on this topic. We must choose.

There are Kurdish groups in Syria who are pro-Assad. These are not separatists, but instead want to have a semi-autonomous region within Syria. This is more or less how things are in Iraq.

For those criticizing President Trump on this, are you as equally critical of President Obama who created this situation?

Do you prefer we side with Turkey, a nation with whom we have an actual treaty, or a militia with whom we do not?

Is it the sole responsibility of the United States to act as a peacekeeping force in Syria? Why? And if so, for how long?

If you don't have any well-formed responses to these questions, you haven't given the minimum level of thought to this situation. It is a complicated one.

 

[living sounds]

Look, all you armchair foreign policy experts who just learned what a Kurd was last week but are sure you love them now.

An unnecessary attack (civility?) as well as an erroneous assumption.

And the rest ist largely beside the point.

[quote author=dogears]
We must choose.
[/quote]

Choose to protect human life, to protect the peace. Not give in to the autocrat.

 

[dogears]

It isn't beside the point to demonstrate that a childish dumbing down of the situation to score political points is counterproductive and disingenuous.

Geopolitics is complicated and nuanced. Forcing people to recognize the nuance in a situation like this IS the point. Unless, of course, your point is not to arrive at truth or the best possible outcome but to play politics with human lives. Integrity matters, and forcing people to reckon their integrity - whether they value actual virtues and principles, doing and advocating for what is right even if it is difficult - versus their politics is always a worthwhile exercise.

Choose to protect human life, to protect the peace. Not give in to the autocrat.

This is an incomplete answer. Protect human life where? Protect the peace where? In Turkey, where the US is arguably arming terrorists in the PKK? Or in Syria, where the US arguably contributed to the instability and continuation of the civil war?

How do we do this? By endangering and sacrificing the lives of US soldiers? Why?

And what is the consequence? There are consequences on both sides. If choosing to oppose Turkey -- our ally and all of NATO's mind you -- is the choice, what long-term consequences will that have? For the EU and ME?

Again -- is it the sole responsibility of the United States to act as a peacekeeping force in Syria? Why? And if so, for how long?

Living sounds, if you are so passionate about this, have you volunteered? Or are you content to be a keyboard hawk, and advocate for putting other's lives at stake to make you feel good about your theoretical moral principles? I've worn the uniform of the US armed forces. I have friends in KSA and Syria right now,  young men that I taught and mentored in our officer program at university that I met when they were 17 and 18 years old. Do you understand what you are advocating? Why is it good and necessary that a young man from Texas should die to keep a Turkish and Kurdish person from killing one another?

 

[L´Andratté]

It isn't beside the point to demonstrate that a childish dumbing down of the situation to score political points is counterproductive and disingenuous.

Geopolitics is complicated and nuanced. Forcing people to recognize the nuance in a situation like this IS the point. Unless, of course, your point is not to arrive at truth or the best possible outcome but to play politics with human lives. Integrity matters, and forcing people to reckon their integrity - whether they value actual virtues and principles, doing and advocating for what is right even if it is difficult - versus their politics is always a worthwhile exercise.
This is an incomplete answer. Protect human life where? Protect the peace where? In Turkey, where the US is arguably arming terrorists in the PKK? Or in Syria, where the US arguably contributed to the instability and continuation of the civil war?

How do we do this? By endangering and sacrificing the lives of US soldiers? Why?

And what is the consequence? There are consequences on both sides. If choosing to oppose Turkey -- our ally and all of NATO's mind you -- is the choice, what long-term consequences will that have? For the EU and ME?

Again -- is it the sole responsibility of the United States to act as a peacekeeping force in Syria? Why? And if so, for how long?

Living sounds, if you are so passionate about this, have you volunteered? Or are you content to be a keyboard hawk, and advocate for putting other's lives at stake to make you feel good about your theoretical moral principles? I've worn the uniform of the US armed forces. I have friends in KSA and Syria right now,  young men that I taught and mentored in our officer program at university that I met when they were 17 and 18 years old. Do you understand what you are advocating? Why is it good and necessary that a young man from Texas should die to keep a Turkish and Kurdish person from killing one another?

Well informed bigotry I must say.

The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 170,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
Feel free to bring them all back home!

 

[dogears]

Well informed bigotry I must say.

How is that bigotry? I would love to have you explain that to me.

Feel free to bring them all back home!

Please, stick to the particulars versus climbing the ladder to universals. Decisions in one part of the world are not necessarily indicative of the whole.

You have to evaluate everything on a  case-by-case basis. Not everything is binary, and decisions aren't mutually exclusive.

The US has and will continue to evaluate the deployment of her troops first and foremost with US geopolitical interest in mind. Just like every other nation in the world does.

 

[dogears]

This is an interesting read. Passed on without comment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

 

[Bo Deadly]

You have to evaluate everything on a  case-by-case basis. Not everything is binary, and decisions aren't mutually exclusive.

The US has and will continue to evaluate the deployment of her troops first and foremost with US geopolitical interest in mind. Just like every other nation in the world does.

Exactly. I agree 100%. The Kurds have proven to be good allies in the ME which are hard to come by. So it follows that we should have troops there to help the Kurds secure that area. I'm glad to see you're coming around dogears.

 

[dogears]

Exactly. I agree 100%. The Kurds have proven to be good allies in the ME which are hard to come by. So it follows that we should have troops there to help the Kurds secure that area. I'm glad to see you're coming around dogears.

Haha. And the Turks? Aren’t they our allies in the region? How many strategic nuclear weapons have we been able to place because of the Kurds vs Incirlik base?

What strategic advantage does the undefined geography inhabited by the Kurds that is covered by existing nation and give us vs the importance of Turkey?

What exactly are you advocating? Midwifing a Kurdish nation? Because that means war with one or more of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, or Iran - and not just now, but the same path as midwifing Israel took us down.

How long do we have to have troops in Syria to support the Kurds? This problem doesn’t go away, ever, as long as there are 35 million Kurds in the region and 10-15 million in Turkey. What’s your plan, exactly?

 

[JohnRoberts]

OK guys a little less name calling and lets try to stick to the facts... The middle east has been a tangled web of competing tribes and religious factions for centuries(?)

I am sympathetic to the Kurds but also sympathetic to swapping economic pressure for kinetic military action. This is the 21st century and we are still using archaic technology (guns and bombs) to kill each other. That said I take no comfort from bad guys getting modern by embracing drones and other high technology for their mischief. 

As I said when this became the latest talking point to slime President Trump with,  lets be a little patient and see what happens... He inherited this cluster fsk and it has been AFU for a very long time.

JR

 

[scott2000]

I was watching some report....I think it was on al jazzera??

Anyhow, it was interesting to hear people from the region discuss the various viewpoints on the stuff happening with the Turkish military "thing"?

Definitely not as cut and dry as I thought I knew. I feel for everyone involved in this. The poor refugees,etc...

 

[L´Andratté]

I would love to have you explain that to me.

First let me say I´m not used to discussions in english and every sentence keeps me digging for words so
answering like I would like to costs time and energy I simply don´t have at hand.

Yes, geopolitical interest. Like any other nation, no. You might say any other nation´s government would act alike being in the position of US government, and I would possibly agree. But that´s not the same from the point of responsibility.

Whose geopolitical interest? The wellbeing of the US people? I don´t think so (and I could go on about why, for now just briefly telling where I´m coming from). I rather think it is in the geopolitical interest of big economic entities, to sustain an ideology of everlasting growth and maybe a notion of "greatness", the imperial thought.

Now my everyday work (and I really want to keep that out of here  and not get too emotional) is with the child-victims of this geopolitical interest.
So while I think that a lot of what you are saying is true and well founded in it´s context,
it would be sophism and even cynicism in the context of my experience. And a crime in the context of international law btw., if that still matters -or has ever mattered- to anyone.
To me all those great power wielding men (U.S. or otherwise) are to put it with Bukowski "just another swinging dick".
They don´t even get the destruction they cause and don´t care.
I´m refusing to argue about this as a matter of political strategy. The Kurds are just plowed under because it´s just too annoying and looks not like a good investment atm to help them. Nothing to do with young american soldiers.

(I´m not accusing you personally or the people of US of anything btw. I hope that is clear!
I don´t believe in higher moral ground, but I also don´t believe moral argumentation is invalid )
For now this has to suffice as explanation Take care