Why is Turkey attacking the Kurds? Potential WW3?

[darkangel11]

There is a potential for a war but not a world war, since Erdogan doesn't like Assad, who is supported by Russia. Turkey shot down a Russian jet that was flying over Syria so the situation isn't good and in case of a conflict I doubt the USA would intervene and help Turkey, especially after what Trump said about destroying the economy of Turkey. If Turkey was in the EU it would be a different thing but Turkey is alone in this and it doesn't stand a chance against Russia if it comes to that.

[edmundduke]

It all felt like a play to give Russia control of Syria and to get most of US assets out of there. The situation there is extremely complex considering all the terrorists that are/were in the prisons controlled by the kurds. Im guessing the Kurds will be removed from the neighbouring areas of Turkey and forced further inland into Syria. Terrorism in the area will increase but Russia will most likely get control over the oil in the region as a result of US reduced forces there. And no, potential for a large conflict is slim.

[theymos]

I was impressed by Trump's speech today on Syria. He sounded very anti-war: about as anti-war as someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul, even. Of course, in reality he's sending troops from Syria to Saudi Arabia -- not anything close to "ending the endless wars" as he claims --, but at least the rhetoric is refreshing.

[squatz1]

I was impressed by Trump's speech today on Syria. He sounded very anti-war: about as anti-war as someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul, even. Of course, in reality he's sending troops from Syria to Saudi Arabia -- not anything close to "ending the endless wars" as he claims --, but at least the rhetoric is refreshing.

That's Trumps thing, keep up the rhetoric with his voters and then do a completely different thing when his advisors (who are pro-war) to do so. It's a sad fact, but its true.

Hopefully at one point he'll be able to overpower his advisers and do what he wants to do. I do truly think that Trump is antiwar -- but continues to be swayed to do different things.

[edmundduke]

I was impressed by Trump's speech today on Syria. He sounded very anti-war: about as anti-war as someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul, even. Of course, in reality he's sending troops from Syria to Saudi Arabia -- not anything close to "ending the endless wars" as he claims --, but at least the rhetoric is refreshing.

Yeah, he ran on the whole "anti-war" rhetoric. And in all honesty he has been at least decent at keeping out of conflicts. The real interesting spectacle is the anti-war left becoming increasingly pro-war/conflict. Especially the old establishment Dems who are trying to cling onto power.
As for the move from Syria to SA, it was kind of expected that they would not be going back to the states just yet. That region is way too important financially to loose influence there.

[Carlton Banks]

I was impressed by Trump's speech today on Syria. He sounded very anti-war: about as anti-war as someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul, even. Of course, in reality he's sending troops from Syria to Saudi Arabia -- not anything close to "ending the endless wars" as he claims --, but at least the rhetoric is refreshing.

Yeah, he ran on the whole "anti-war" rhetoric. And in all honesty he has been at least decent at keeping out of conflicts. The real interesting spectacle is the anti-war left becoming increasingly pro-war/conflict. Especially the old establishment Dems who are trying to cling onto power.
As for the move from Syria to SA, it was kind of expected that they would not be going back to the states just yet. That region is way too important financially to loose influence there.

I think you're being played.

Be honest, Trump's been displaying plenty of belligerent personality traits, he's just not been given an opportunity to put them into action. If the US military were attacked, are you saying you would be even in the least bit surprised if the Trump administration reacted with overwhelming push-back? And guess what: the democrats would suddenly go all dovish again.


It's a con, and you've both fallen for it. They take turns to pretend to be anti-war, with the convenient excuse of partisanship to disguise the fact that they are literally performing a confidence trick: you actually believe that because Trump (or Clinton/Bush/Obama/Paul/Gabbard) said something that sounded like an ideal anti-war position, that that somehow absolves them when they do the opposite with a little window dressing at a future point? You're serious? You know what anti-war really looks like? It doesn't look like soldiers or military hardware, or massive assaults in countries in which you haven't even declared war (presumably peace is still officially declared all across the Middle East and Eurasia, sure feels like that to live there? Orwell is doing the fucking Charleston in his grave right now)

Every time, the left builds the public up, then the right knocks them down. Then they switch roles

And despite the whole dove/hawk flip-flopping charade unfolding at a faster cadence than in the past, you haven't cottoned on? Dems and reps alternate their pro/anti war stance like the split personalities of the same capricious psychopath, probably because they are the same capricious psychopath. How fast do they have to completely invert their respective stances before you notice that they've blurred into one single entity? Presumably when they notice you've noticed, you'll believe them when they then tell you (more bs): "but it's not what it looks like! this will be the war that ends all wars! wars are anti-war like that!!"

Here's what would make you really anti-war: a real war, in your actual backyard.