I am trying to understand what you are saying. From everything my intellect tells me, the credibility and trust we've worked so hard to build with other nations, other cultures, has all been blown away. It occurs to me these actions have only served to strengthen Russia's stability in the region, and destroyed our own. To measure our level of trust and credibility, it seems to me that we must first begin to redefine just who our allies are. If you would like for me to theorize, as our president seems to, that Russia is our ally, I suppose that I would first be obligated to accept what they are asking us to believe, that we have trust and credibility with them.
But is there any value whatsoever, in this so-called honesty, if we sell our very soul?
(10-24-2019, 10:54 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]I am trying to understand what you are saying. From everything my intellect tells me, the credibility and trust we've worked so hard to build with other nations, other cultures, has all been blown away. It occurs to me these actions have only served to strengthen Russia's stability in the region, and destroyed our own. To measure our level of trust and credibility, it seems to me that we must first begin to redefine just who our allies are. If you would like for me to theorize, as our president seems to, that Russia is our ally, I suppose that I would first be obligated to accept what they are asking us to believe, that we have trust and credibility with them.
But is there any value whatsoever, in this so-called honesty, if we sell our very soul?
We don't require stability in northeast Syria, it's not our concern. If you really think all those other nations care what we've done in Syria then your worldview is myopic.
We have a half dozen true allies, another 20 or so hangers on, and about 4 real enemies. Everyone else is just not that important either way. The allies really don't care about Syria, some of the hangers do, the enemies care about anything that hurts us.
(10-24-2019, 10:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019, 10:54 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]I am trying to understand what you are saying. From everything my intellect tells me, the credibility and trust we've worked so hard to build with other nations, other cultures, has all been blown away. It occurs to me these actions have only served to strengthen Russia's stability in the region, and destroyed our own. To measure our level of trust and credibility, it seems to me that we must first begin to redefine just who our allies are. If you would like for me to theorize, as our president seems to, that Russia is our ally, I suppose that I would first be obligated to accept what they are asking us to believe, that we have trust and credibility with them.
But is there any value whatsoever, in this so-called honesty, if we sell our very soul?
We don't require stability in northeast Syria, it's not our concern. If you really think all those other nations care what we've done in Syria then your worldview is myopic.
We have a half dozen true allies, another 20 or so hangers on, and about 4 real enemies. Everyone else is just not that important either way. The allies really don't care about Syria, some of the hangers do, the enemies care about anything that hurts us.
With the Al Qaeda / ISIS ideology floating out there still, waiting for another set of brains to infect, it's easy to argue that the Western world needs stability in all areas that have substantial Muslim populations. I'm not sure if I agree with that argument, but it is simple and persuasive.
To achieve stability in this world, and, more importantly, to sustain it, grow it, make it thrive, we have a duty. To call black white, down up, sagaciousness myopic, does not make it so. If we are to survive, in my most humble view, every microorganism, every point of view, every fragile flicker at the inception of an idea, must be allowed it's chance to be born.
We are very different, you and I. But together is the only way that we can make a world.
(10-24-2019, 11:43 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]To achieve stability in this world, and, more importantly, to sustain it, grow it, make it thrive, we have a duty. To call black white, down up, sagaciousness myopic, does not make it so. If we are to survive, in my most humble view, every microorganism, every point of view, every fragile flicker at the inception of an idea, must be allowed it's chance to be born.
We are very different, you and I. But together is the only way that we can make a world.
Pass that over here, you've had too much.
(10-24-2019, 11:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019, 11:43 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]To achieve stability in this world, and, more importantly, to sustain it, grow it, make it thrive, we have a duty. To call black white, down up, sagaciousness myopic, does not make it so. If we are to survive, in my most humble view, every microorganism, every point of view, every fragile flicker at the inception of an idea, must be allowed it's chance to be born.
We are very different, you and I. But together is the only way that we can make a world.
Pass that over here, you've had too much.
That's an ignorant statement.
(10-25-2019, 12:02 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019, 11:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Pass that over here, you've had too much.
That's an ignorant statement.
Bruh... please. Stop it.
I would like to cordially invite you to take 10 seconds and read my signature.
ty
(10-25-2019, 12:58 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to cordially invite you to take 10 seconds and read my signature.
ty
I cordially invite you to take 10 seconds and blow it out your shorts.
(10-25-2019, 02:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 12:58 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to cordially invite you to take 10 seconds and read my signature.
ty
I cordially invite you to take 10 seconds and blow it out your shorts.
So you
ARE jj. I thought so.
(10-25-2019, 02:29 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 02:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I cordially invite you to take 10 seconds and blow it out your shorts.
So you ARE jj. I thought so.
Nah, I use proper grammar and sentence structure; unlike you who writes with exactly the same tone, inflection, and hubris as certain other posters on here.
On reflection, JJ actually tries to convince you doorknobs with facts, I just sit here and laugh at you.
(10-25-2019, 02:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 02:29 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]So you ARE jj. I thought so.
Nah, I use proper grammar and sentence structure; unlike you who writes with exactly the same tone, inflection, and hubris as certain other posters on here.
Nah isn't proper grammar.
(10-25-2019, 02:36 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 02:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Nah, I use proper grammar and sentence structure; unlike you who writes with exactly the same tone, inflection, and hubris as certain other posters on here.
Nah isn't proper grammar.
Sez you.
(10-25-2019, 02:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 02:36 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Nah isn't proper grammar.
Sez you.
k.
(10-25-2019, 02:38 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 02:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Sez you.
k.
(10-23-2019, 01:11 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]And so it is with Russia, who is now taking over the land.
You seem to think that that's something valuable. As far as I'm concerned, if Russia chooses to get in the middle of the Syrians, Kurds, Turks, and ISIS then that's their problem.
(10-23-2019, 10:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2019, 09:47 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It worked fine. We aren't the World's Police Department, it isn't our fault that they want to kill each other the minute we aren't willing to stop it and we are under no obligation to do so.
You don't think we have at least a moral obligation, to our allies in the fight against ISIS, to at least give them a little warning before we walk away and tell their enemies to go ahead and attack? We should just let innocent people die because "we are under no obligation?" When all we had to do was nothing? Just stay where we were? How about at least telling them, "in a couple of months we are going to be leaving. Watch out for the Turks." Or should we just up and walk out all of a sudden, when our allies, who lost 10,000 soldiers in the fight against ISIS so we didn't have to, are facing attack from their enemies, elimination of all their hopes and dreams, shelling of their cities, killing of their women and children? We just walk out because the dictator of Turkey asked Trump to get our soldiers out of the way so he could attack our allies? Do you think there is any value to having credibility and the trust of other countries and people around the world?
1. Did we have an agreement with the Kurds? I haven't seen any discussion of a formal agreement from anyone.
2. We didn't have a significant force remaining in Syria. It was not enough to stop the Turks from taking the land they took had we stayed. Maybe the presence of Americans there would have kept Turkey from moving in, but maybe not. Turkey is a NATO ally. It's not like we can just go to war with them. What is our responsibility if a NATO ally says they are going to move into an area? I don't think we can just say we're not budging and will retaliate if you don't stand down. Is there a clause in the NATO pact that deals with this situation?
3. "10,000 soldiers ... so we didn't have to"? The Kurds were one of the targets of ISIS. Had the US not been involved, the Kurds would have lost far more than 10,000 soldiers, not to mention women and children. The US fight against ISIS was to their benefit more so than to our benefit.
If Islamists and Communists are fighting each other then I'm rooting for the body count.
(10-26-2019, 09:53 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2019, 01:11 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]And so it is with Russia, who is now taking over the land.
You seem to think that that's something valuable. As far as I'm concerned, if Russia chooses to get in the middle of the Syrians, Kurds, Turks, and ISIS then that's their problem.
To add to my comment, apparently Bloomberg agrees with me, and makes a strong case.
Link
Just here to say "nah" is legit
nah
/nä/
determiner · exclamation · adverb · noun INFORMAL
variant spelling of no, representing a dialect or nonstandard pronunciation.
It's even valid in Scrabble.
And not sure grammar has anything to do with the word usage at all.