• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkey fired on U.S. special forces in Syria. It's absurd that it still has U.S. nukes.

Tigerace117 said:
Perhaps the “legal government of Syria” shouldn’t have started murdering anyone who didn’t like the idea of decades more of totalitarian rule if it didn’t want people to rise up against it.

The opinion of brutal thugs like Putin and Erdogan is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Opposing the legal government of Syria (as a Syrian) is Treason and traitors deserve only one thing. that is all.

Any time there's an active revolution it must be suppressed. As harshly as possible, revolutions do not improve people's lives, they only lead to death and misery and usually what happens if they're successful is massive purges bordering on near genocide, If you think Assad is bad, I guarantee you "freedom from Assad" would not be better in any objective way
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
True, but how does that mean that the OFFICIAL position of the Turks, Russians, and Syrians is not going to be essentially the one I set out (or that the US government will NOT do anything but (effectively) acquiesce to that OFFICIAL position)?
Click to expand...

Nothing other than using the "legitimacy" of Syria as a country for a rational. Its not a country. Nobody treats it like a country. It has a flag and borders it does not defend. That is essentially why Trumpkin should never have left the field. Syria is nothing more than strategically advantageous land to use as a launching pad to geopolitical objectives. Nobody cares about Syria. Nobody cares about Syrians other than Syrians and nobody cares about Kurds other than Kurds.

The only reason we care about Kurds is because they should have been the force left to keep a lid on ISIS and because the word "Kurd" now becomes the very definition of the US with a yellow streak up our backs a mile wide, betrayal and a US President to owned and dead between the ears to know what is happening around him. He is abused by Erdagon, MBS, KJU and is literally owned by Putin.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Ok, so let's hypothesize for a second. Let's say the Turkish army shows up, breaks the locks and takes the bombs.

So what?

The Turkish military is somewhat competent, they have the ability to safeguard the bombs against theft, and who would they use the bombs against and to what end? the use of a nuclear weapon In an act of aggression would make Turkey in an international pariah. and every country in Europe is affiliated with either NATO or Russia, who have the full capacity to retaliate with nuclear weapons. plus 50 B-61 bombs is, on the grand scheme of things, very small. they could maybe destroy ten cities pretty thoroughly and then they'll be wiped out. The actual capability of possessing those bombs is not great.
Click to expand...

In short "Ho HUM. So what if the Turks get the nuclear weapons. It isn't important enough to do anything about because everyone knows that no one would ever use them.".

PS - Since the weapons are so ineffectual and the adverse consequences of using them would be so dire, I presume that you would have absolutely no objection to Iran, Iraq, the DPRK, Cuba, Argentina, or any other country possessing similar weapons. Am I correct or would that be a case of "But that's DIFFERENT!!!"?
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Nothing other than using the "legitimacy" of Syria as a country for a rational. Its not a country. Nobody treats it like a country. It has a flag and borders it does not defend. That is essentially why Trumpkin should never have left the field. Syria is nothing more than strategically advantageous land to use as a launching pad to geopolitical objectives. Nobody cares about Syria. Nobody cares about Syrians other than Syrians and nobody cares about Kurds other than Kurds.

The only reason we care about Kurds is because they should have been the force left to keep a lid on ISIS and because the word "Kurd" now becomes the very definition of the US with a yellow streak up our backs a mile wide, betrayal and a US President to owned and dead between the ears to know what is happening around him. He is abused by Erdagon, MBS, KJU and is literally owned by Putin.
Click to expand...

I take it that you agree that my postulated position is highly likely to be the one that is (in essence) adopted by the Turks, the Russians, and the Syrians AND that the US government isn't going to do anything effective about it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
In short "Ho HUM. So what if the Turks get the nuclear weapons. It isn't important enough to do anything about because everyone knows that no one would ever use them.".

PS - Since the weapons are so ineffectual and the adverse consequences of using them would be so dire, I presume that you would have absolutely no objection to Iran, Iraq, the DPRK, Cuba, Argentina, or any other country possessing similar weapons. Am I correct or would that be a case of "But that's DIFFERENT!!!"?
Click to expand...

Iraq and the DPRK are a unique case, as far as Cuba or Argentina? They don’t have the capacity for more then a few bombs and their militaries are competent enough to safe guard them.

Obviously we don’t want reckless proliferation of weapons but let’s be honest. Nuclear weapons are surprisingly useless to you unless you have a lot of them or you face threat of war from an enemy that doesn’t politically want to start a nuclear war
What would Cuba or Argentina do with a bomb?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I take it that you agree that my postulated position is highly likely to be the one that is (in essence) adopted by the Turks, the Russians, and the Syrians AND that the US government isn't going to do anything effective about it.
Click to expand...

As long as we agree that Trumpkin has boxed himself into an entirely untenable position, once again playing a strong hand weakly (apparently one of his only endearing qualities) and that:
- Legitimacy in Syria is a sham
- Legitimacy is a cover for figurehead Assad keeping his wealth as that is all he has ever cared about
- Legitimacy is a cover for Putin gaining the immense strategic advantage the territory of Syria gives him in the ME
- Legitimacy is a cover for Iran gaining what it has wanted for decades, a land bridge to the Mediterranean
- Putin is now the controlling influence of the ME
- Israel and Saudi are left trying to play nice with Putin because their fate is much more in his hands now than anything that the US President can offer
- the "Pause" itself is actually a sham and it appears Trumpkin is either too dimwitted to see or too unscrupulous to see that the Turks to this point are basically "Pausing" long enough for the barrels of their guns to cool down.
 
Deuce said:
You want to hand ownership of nuclear weapons to a dictator?
Click to expand...

No. That is why I opposed Obama stealing American terror victims' money and giving it to the biggest sponsor of Muslim terrorists in the world.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Opposing the legal government of Syria (as a Syrian) is Treason and traitors deserve only one thing. that is all.

Any time there's an active revolution it must be suppressed. As harshly as possible, revolutions do not improve people's lives, they only lead to death and misery and usually what happens if they're successful is massive purges bordering on near genocide, If you think Assad is bad, I guarantee you "freedom from Assad" would not be better in any objective way
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. By your logic there wouldn’t be a United States at all. And committing mass murder of civilians is not justified, period.

By your standard the Operation Valkyrie planners were all “traitors” who “deserved only one thing” as well. Like I said before, your argument is a load of crap.

Yes, when you let psychopaths like Assad and Pinochet run wild it does lead to mass deaths. Otherwise....not so much.
 
Tigerace117 said:
What a load of crap. By your logic there wouldn’t be a United States at all. And committing mass murder of civilians is not justified, period.

By your standard the Operation Valkyrie planners were all “traitors” who “deserved only one thing” as well. Like I said before, your argument is a load of crap.

Yes, when you let psychopaths like Assad and Pinochet run wild it does lead to mass deaths. Otherwise....not so much.
Click to expand...

I have openly said I would’ve been loyal to King George if I were alive in that time period.
 
Tigerace117 said:
What a load of crap. By your logic there wouldn’t be a United States at all. And committing mass murder of civilians is not justified, period.

By your standard the Operation Valkyrie planners were all “traitors” who “deserved only one thing” as well. Like I said before, your argument is a load of crap.

Yes, when you let psychopaths like Assad and Pinochet run wild it does lead to mass deaths. Otherwise....not so much.
Click to expand...

By all objective standards the operation Valkyrie planners were in fact traitors, they attempted to assasinate a political figure of their country while their country was at war, in part to orchestrate the surrender of said country to its enemies. I mean sure, we may like that act of attempted treason because it was against our enemy during that war, but don't kid yourself it was treason and people were executed for it which is a near universally accepted punishment for treason during time of war.

There is no reason to believe anti-assad forces would not have murdered civilians, in fact they consistently did. Syria is far better with Assad in power then making it into another Iraq.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This places "military intelligence" in a new light. Since it now 100% certain that Turkey will do what Turkey feels like doing - including occupying the territory of a neighboring country using military force (said to be kind of bad, yet no reason for a US military response, when Russia does so) then why is Turkey still in NATO or considered to be a "trusted" US ally?
Click to expand...

Turkey is only useful as an 'ally' because she has borders with Georgia (former USSR), and close proximity to Russia. Strategically useful, if you will. Then she goes and buys Russian S-400 missiles, and is considering buying Russian Su-47 and Su-57 jets instead of F-35. The Su-47 is, frankly, a better aircraft than anything the West has-including the F-22, so not a bad choice. The Su-57 will be exponentially superior. The Russians know how to build superlative airframes, and their WW2-era Yak-3 (485 mph), could fly rings around anything the Germans had until the Me.262 jet arrived too late to have any significant impact in the closing stages of the war.

YouTube

YouTube
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Iraq and the DPRK are a unique case, as far as Cuba or Argentina? They don’t have the capacity for more then a few bombs and their militaries are competent enough to safe guard them.

Obviously we don’t want reckless proliferation of weapons but let’s be honest. Nuclear weapons are surprisingly useless to you unless you have a lot of them or you face threat of war from an enemy that doesn’t politically want to start a nuclear war
What would Cuba or Argentina do with a bomb?
Click to expand...

They would have a deterrent against any future aggression. That's the idea of MAD.; but you're right nukes are as useless as an army without a war to fight.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I have openly said I would’ve been loyal to King George if I were alive in that time period.
Click to expand...

Bully for you. I like that so many Trumpettes have been forced to concede their true allegiances in the last few weeks. It warms the cockles of my heart!

Some have been honest about it from the start. Others NOT SO MUCH!
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I have openly said I would’ve been loyal to King George if I were alive in that time period.
Click to expand...

Gee, what a surprise.....not :roll:

Which, of course, makes the kind of rhetoric you spew even dumber.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
By all objective standards the operation Valkyrie planners were in fact traitors, they attempted to assasinate a political figure of their country while their country was at war, in part to orchestrate the surrender of said country to its enemies. I mean sure, we may like that act of attempted treason because it was against our enemy during that war, but don't kid yourself it was treason and people were executed for it which is a near universally accepted punishment for treason during time of war.

There is no reason to believe anti-assad forces would not have murdered civilians, in fact they consistently did. Syria is far better with Assad in power then making it into another Iraq.
Click to expand...

A “political figure” who was an illegitimate dictator who had run the country into the ground, murdered millions upon millions of unarmed civilians, unjustly tried to carve out “lebensraum” by enslaving numerous countries and generally did everything in his power to ensure that Germany would be destroyed. The fact that you have a hard-on for jackboots and brutal dictatorships who slaughtered huge numbers of their own people while claiming to fight the “left” does not change the facts.


Coming from a guy who thinks Franco and Pinochet were just grand, that’s a rather damning indictment of Assad.....of course, nothing that his own actions hadn’t already done.
 
marke said:
No. That is why I opposed Obama stealing American terror victims' money and giving it to the biggest sponsor of Muslim terrorists in the world.
Click to expand...

It was never American money, terror victims' or otherwise. It was Iran's; frozen assets released because Iran was in full compliance with the nuclear deal as confirmed by both the IAEA and Trump's own administration. Besides, most of that money was held in non-US banks. Quit lying and learn something for a change.

Obama Didn't Give Iran '150 Billion in Cash' - FactCheck.org

I know you have an aversion to facts that don't fit your narrative, but that's your problem.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
As long as we agree that Trumpkin has boxed himself into an entirely untenable position, once again playing a strong hand weakly (apparently one of his only endearing qualities)
Click to expand...

No problems with that.

jnug said:
and that:
- Legitimacy in Syria is a sham
Click to expand...

Currently, completely agreed.

jnug said:
- Legitimacy is a cover for figurehead Assad keeping his wealth as that is all he has ever cared about
Click to expand...

Currently, almost completely agreed. Mr. al-Assad is also concerned about keeping on breathing.

jnug said:
- Legitimacy is a cover for Putin gaining the immense strategic advantage the territory of Syria gives him in the ME
Click to expand...

With the proviso that you could fill in the name of whatever foreign government leader is supporting the legal Syrian government at any given moment in place of Mr. Putin's, I agree.

You could also change that around so that it referred to "the Syrian opposition" and it would be just as valid.

jnug said:
- Legitimacy is a cover for Iran gaining what it has wanted for decades, a land bridge to the Mediterranean
Click to expand...

No, I think that that falls into the "unexpected consequences that anyone who actually had any knowledge of the situation would have foreseen" category.

jnug said:
- Putin is now the controlling influence of the ME
Click to expand...

Maybe not THE controlling influence, but most definitely one of the major players (and one whose star is rising) while the stars of former major players are falling.

jnug said:
- Israel and Saudi are left trying to play nice with Putin because their fate is much more in his hands now than anything that the US President can offer
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, the President of the United States of America can OFFER one heck of a lot more than Mr. Putin can OFFER (mainly because Mr. Putin has a tendency to restrict his OFFERS to things that he can actually deliver and actually has some intention of delivering is the OFFER is accepted).

jnug said:
- the "Pause" itself is actually a sham and it appears Trumpkin is either too dimwitted to see or too unscrupulous to see that the Turks to this point are basically "Pausing" long enough for the barrels of their guns to cool down.
Click to expand...

No, I think that the Turks are actually sincere in their position of "We won't shoot you if you toss down your weapons and run fast enough and far enough away to suit us.".
 
marke said:
No. That is why I opposed Obama stealing American terror victims' money and giving it to the biggest sponsor of Muslim terrorists in the world.
Click to expand...

Mr. Obama stole American terror victims' money and gave it to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

I'm shocked - positively SHOCKED!
 
EMNofSeattle said:
By all objective standards the operation Valkyrie planners were in fact traitors, they attempted to assasinate a political figure of their country while their country was at war, in part to orchestrate the surrender of said country to its enemies. I mean sure, we may like that act of attempted treason because it was against our enemy during that war, but don't kid yourself it was treason and people were executed for it which is a near universally accepted punishment for treason during time of war.

There is no reason to believe anti-assad forces would not have murdered civilians, in fact they consistently did. Syria is far better with Assad in power then making it into another Iraq.
Click to expand...

In fact, a good case can be made that IRAQ was "far better" with Saddam in power than it is today.

NOTE - "Far better" and "good" do NOT mean the same thing. "Good" is "not standing in a cesspool at all" - "far better" is "standing in a cesspool up to your waist rather than up to (the bridge of) your nose".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
No problems with that.




No, I think that that falls into the "unexpected consequences that anyone who actually had any knowledge of the situation would have foreseen" category.
Click to expand...

So how can Iran's land bridge to the Mediterranean be "unexpected consequences and something "anyone who actually had any knowledge of the situation would have foreseen"




TU Curmudgeon said:
Don't be silly, the President of the United States of America can OFFER one heck of a lot more than Mr. Putin can OFFER (mainly because Mr. Putin has a tendency to restrict his OFFERS to things that he can actually deliver and actually has some intention of delivering is the OFFER is accepted).
Click to expand...

I would to some extent agree with that with one caveat. Have not seen enough instances where Trump has to be swayed to give Aid and Assistance based on what he is personally getting in return. "Hey Bebe, Got a spare hotel kicking around anywhere?" Putin moves based on geopolitical incentives. Trumpkin is hardly moved by them at all.



TU Curmudgeon said:
No, I think that the Turks are actually sincere in their position of "We won't shoot you if you toss down your weapons and run fast enough and far enough away to suit us.".
Click to expand...

Have you caught the news today. I would challenge you to find even 12 hours where this so called "Pause" has held.
 
As I said from the moment this issue became a topic...

The seriousness of this topic explains why this was so much more important than than the idiot lefts ridiculous "orange man bad" rhetoric. And the idiotic simple minded comments expressed regarding global politics, the long term future not just of this country but the entire world, the strategic importance of our military base in Turkey and the presence of ****ing nuclear bombs while a lot of idiots STILL run around with their idiot anti Trump bull**** without giving this any thought AT ALL...is just ****ing embarrassing.
 
Tigerace117 said:
A “political figure” who was an illegitimate dictator who had run the country into the ground, murdered millions upon millions of unarmed civilians, unjustly tried to carve out “lebensraum” by enslaving numerous countries and generally did everything in his power to ensure that Germany would be destroyed. The fact that you have a hard-on for jackboots and brutal dictatorships who slaughtered huge numbers of their own people while claiming to fight the “left” does not change the facts.


Coming from a guy who thinks Franco and Pinochet were just grand, that’s a rather damning indictment of Assad.....of course, nothing that his own actions hadn’t already done.
Click to expand...

Just because you agree with an illegal act being committed that does not mean that it would not be an illegal act when committed.

At the time of the American Revolution, the population of the colonies was divided (roughly) into:

  • 40% who didn't give a damn as long as everyone in Groups 2 and 3 left them along;
    *
  • 30% who supported the colonial based economic governing class because they had accepted the "official position" of the colonial based economic governing class that it was "defending freedom and law"; and
    *
  • 30% who supported the British Isles based economic governing class because they had accepted the "official position" of the British Isles based economic governing class that it was "defending freedom and law".

The forces of Group 2 prevailed and proceeded to "cleanse" the colonies of as many of the members of Group 3 as possible.

Had the forces of Group 3 prevailed then they would have proceeded to "cleanse" the colonies of as many members of Group 2 as possible.

The difference between "patriot" and "traitor" in any civil war (or revolution) is whether or not the person belongs to the side that wins the civil war (or revolution) [at least if one side wins decisively enough that it can afford to "cleanse" the country of the losing side's supporters].
 
jnug said:
So how can Iran's land bridge to the Mediterranean be "unexpected consequences and something "anyone who actually had any knowledge of the situation would have foreseen"
Click to expand...

When it occasions an "Oh SH**!" moment, it qualifies as "unexpected consequences". Just because it was NOT "unexpected" to almost everyone, it was most certainly "unexpected" to some.

jnug said:
I would to some extent agree with that with one caveat. Have not seen enough instances where Trump has to be swayed to give Aid and Assistance based on what he is personally getting in return. "Hey Bebe, Got a spare hotel kicking around anywhere?" Putin moves based on geopolitical incentives. Trumpkin is hardly moved by them at all.
Click to expand...

Which is rather like saying that Mr. Putin has his chess pieces on the 3-D chessboard and Mr. Trump has his top hat on the monopoly board.

jnug said:
Have you caught the news today. I would challenge you to find even 12 hours where this so called "Pause" has held.
Click to expand...

Obviously, as far as the Turks are concerned, the Kurds are:

  1. not running far enough;
  2. not running fast enough;
  3. not tossing away enough weapons; or
  4. some combination of two or more of the above

to fulfill their part of "The Deal" (which they didn't have any part in formulating).
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
A “political figure” who was an illegitimate dictator who had run the country into the ground, murdered millions upon millions of unarmed civilians, unjustly tried to carve out “lebensraum” by enslaving numerous countries and generally did everything in his power to ensure that Germany would be destroyed. The fact that you have a hard-on for jackboots and brutal dictatorships who slaughtered huge numbers of their own people while claiming to fight the “left” does not change the facts.
Click to expand...

When have I ever expressed support for Adolph Hitler? Your own argument is self-refuting because I openly have Identified my belief that Hitler was a leftist socialist. I'm glad he's gone, your objection seems to be that I dare question your Hero Joseph Stalin.


Coming from a guy who thinks Franco and Pinochet were just grand, that’s a rather damning indictment of Assad.....of course, nothing that his own actions hadn’t already done.
Click to expand...

I don't think Franco or Pinochet were "just grand" I simply view their regimes as being necessary to suppress Marxist revolution in the context of their time periods.
I'm not going to wait until we see the killing fields of Cambodia, by then it's too late. Really Franco was too late, Pinochet was very smart in taking action when he did. He does deserve some credit for saving his country from a civil war, while laying in place the foundations of a first world constitutional government, de-legitimizing forever communism as a political force in Chile, etc. Many people don't realize this, Pinochet also suppressed the far right in Chile, the far right and far left had armed militias fighting each other and the country was on a rapid path to a full on civil war. If Allende remained in office hundreds of thousands of Chileans may have died. Communists of course believe millions of deaths are justifiable to impose communism while criticizing every singular death that reaction produces, this is not a logical coherent philosophy.
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
Just because you agree with an illegal act being committed that does not mean that it would not be an illegal act when committed.

At the time of the American Revolution, the population of the colonies was divided (roughly) into:

  • 40% who didn't give a damn as long as everyone in Groups 2 and 3 left them along;
    *
  • 30% who supported the colonial based economic governing class because they had accepted the "official position" of the colonial based economic governing class that it was "defending freedom and law"; and
    *
  • 30% who supported the British Isles based economic governing class because they had accepted the "official position" of the British Isles based economic governing class that it was "defending freedom and law".

The forces of Group 2 prevailed and proceeded to "cleanse" the colonies of as many of the members of Group 3 as possible.

Had the forces of Group 3 prevailed then they would have proceeded to "cleanse" the colonies of as many members of Group 2 as possible.

The difference between "patriot" and "traitor" in any civil war (or revolution) is whether or not the person belongs to the side that wins the civil war (or revolution) [at least if one side wins decisively enough that it can afford to "cleanse" the country of the losing side's supporters].
Click to expand...

I really think the world would've turned out far better if the US became a dominion and then independent nation of the common wealth. Slavery would've been ended peacefully in the 1830s, likely would've been no war with Mexico, the predatory policies toward Latin America would've been far less severe, and the world wars may not have happened because Germany couldn't go to war with Britain without bringing what's the United States into the war
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom