Rand Paul: Arm the Kurds [Video]

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul: Arm the Kurds

Rand is one of the few, if not the only politician talking about this. Despite all of the anti-ISIS bluster from the establishment right and left, they refuse to arm the Kurds, who are successfully fighting ISIS. In addition to defensive (armor) and offensive (heavier) weapons, the Kurds need all the help we can give them in detecting and avoiding roadside IEDs, mines and bombs.

Why isn't this common sense action already taking place? Because of the stubborn and futile dream of the establishment leftists and neoconservatives to claim that they created a unified, democratic Iraq. Sorry, that train left the station long ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq4d2bRgrA

[heavenlyboy34]

Interventionism is "common sense"? Since when?

[Brett85]

Cruz actually talked about it as well. So far Rand and Cruz are the only two who are actually talking about that.

[phill4paul]

Interventionism is "common sense"? Since when?

^^^. +rep.

[specsaregood]

Interventionism is "common sense"? Since when?

Ok, sell them the weapons or trade it for future oil rights. how about that?

[phill4paul]

Ok, sell them the weapons or trade it for future oil rights. how about that?

Weapons manufacturing companies or the U.S. Gov?

[The Gold Standard]

How about arming no one?

[AuH20]

It's the only reasonable option between the two horrible choices.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul: Arm the Kurds

Rand is one of the few, if not the only politician talking about this. Despite all of the anti-ISIS bluster from the establishment right and left, they refuse to arm the Kurds, who are successfully fighting ISIS. In addition to defensive (armor) and offensive (heavier) weapons, the Kurds need all the help we can give them in detecting and avoiding roadside IEDs, mines and bombs.

Why isn't this common sense action already taking place? Because of the stubborn and futile dream of the establishment leftists and neoconservatives to claim that they created a unified, democratic Iraq. Sorry, that train left the station long ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq4d2bRgrA

because the Kurds probably aren't involved in the greater scheme. They may wipe out ISIS entirely and we can't have that. :) Rand is very astute throwing a major curveball to the MIC.

[specsaregood]

Weapons manufacturing companies or the U.S. Gov?

Manufacturers or Arms dealers. Let them sell to the kurds without many/any restrictions under terms they negotiate themselves. That's what I would suggest if I was Randal.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interventionism is "common sense"? Since when?

The U.S. is actively working to stop anyone from selling arms to the Kurds. That is interventionism. ISIS started an actual, real, offensive war against the Kurds. Do you want to deny them the right of self-defense?


Ok, sell them the weapons or trade it for future oil rights. how about that?

Exactly.

565563826041401344

[AuH20]

The U.S. is actively working to stop anyone from selling arms to the Kurds. That is interventionism. ISIS started an actual, real, offensive war against the Kurds. Do you want to deny them the right of self-defense?

565563826041401344

I would love to see the Kurds decimate the CIA's ISIS/ISIL. And that would really take a proverbial bullet out of the Neocon's chamber.

[Brian4Liberty]

because the Kurds probably aren't involved in the greater scheme. They may wipe out ISIS entirely and we can't have that. :) Rand is very astute throwing a major curveball to the MIC.

Actually, it's a mixed bag for the establishment and neoconservatives. They want the Kurds to initiate revolt and separation in Syria and Iran. But they don't want them to do anything in Turkey or Iraq, not even defend themselves from others aggression.

[thoughtomator]

I think he's only floating this idea as a way of pointing out that the Kurds are the only group in the conflict besides Assad which is not already being armed by us. It is peculiar, no? We arm the Israelis, Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Turks, Jordanians, and various "rebel" groups... yet the Kurds are oddly left out despite being in direct land conflict with ISIS.

[AuH20]

I think he's only floating this idea as a way of pointing out that the Kurds are the only group in the conflict besides Assad which is not already being armed by us. It is peculiar, no? We arm the Israelis, Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Turks, Jordanians, and various "rebel" groups... yet the Kurds are oddly left out despite being in direct land conflict with ISIS.

Very telling. Like I stated earlier, the Kurds may be the wildcard.

[specsaregood]

I think he's only floating this idea as a way of pointing out that the Kurds are the only group in the conflict besides Assad which is not already being armed by us. It is peculiar, no? We arm the Israelis, Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Turks, Jordanians, and various "rebel" groups... yet the Kurds are oddly left out despite being in direct land conflict with ISIS.

we've been screwing the kurds over repeatedly for decades now.

[AuH20]

we've been screwing the kurds over repeatedly for decades now.

Senior Bush did that.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/1613


The tragedy on the borders follows the defeat of a month-long uprising by the Kurds in northern Iraq by overwhelmingly superior Iraqi armed forces. United States forces occupying southern Iraq since the end of Operation Desert Storm did nothing to stop Saddam Hussein from brutally crushing the Kurdish revolt and an earlier revolt by Shiites in the south.

Now, according to Kurdish organisations in Australia, some 2.5 million Kurds are attempting to escape into Iran and Turkey.

The Kurds are angry at almost every government currently involved in the post-Gulf War mess in the Middle East. Chahin Bakr, a spokesperson of the coordinating committee of Kurdish organisations in Australia, told Green Left Weekly that his people had been betrayed by the US and the Soviet Union.

The US had urged the Kurdish and Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War but quickly denied support for the uprising once US military objectives had been achieved. George Bush's rhetoric about waging the Gulf War for democracy is being exposed — at the expense of the Kurds.

[specsaregood]

The U.S. is actively working to stop anyone from selling arms to the Kurds. That is interventionism. ISIS started an actual, real, offensive war against the Kurds. Do you want to deny them the right of self-defense?

Exactly.
565563826041401344

I can see the interventionism argument as valid if he is proposing just giving them weapons. However, if we are destroying military equipment they could use, its a valid argument that we could give these things to the kurds (or better yet sell to them). Its still interventionism to a degree; but moderate compared to everything else we are doing over there.

[heavenlyboy34]

I can see the interventionism argument as valid if he is proposing just giving them weapons. However, if we are destroying military equipment they could use, its a valid argument that we could give these things to the kurds (or better yet sell to them). Its still interventionism to a degree; but moderate compared to everything else we are doing over there.
Yeah, man! What could possibly go wrong? SMH. :(
http://bsc.omg-squee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/clarkson-what-could-possibly-go-wrong.jpghttp://ronaldrogers.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/what-me-worry.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

I can see the interventionism argument as valid if he is proposing just giving them weapons. However, if we are destroying military equipment they could use, its a valid argument that we could give these things to the kurds (or better yet sell to them). Its still interventionism to a degree; but moderate compared to everything else we are doing over there.

Yeah, selling anyone arms could be considered a bad idea, but is it actual "intervention"? Or is it free trade? ;)

It's hard to claim neutrality after we already armed ISIS in Syria, and armed the Iraqis only to have those arms also fall into the hands of ISIS. Then there is the active campaign to make sure that no one else arms the Kurds. Not very neutral.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, man! What could possibly go wrong? SMH. :(


That sounds a lot like the position of gun grabbers in America. "The criminals all have guns, but if we just stop selling guns to honest civilians, things will get better."

[specsaregood]

Yeah, man! What could possibly go wrong? SMH. :(
http://bsc.omg-squee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/clarkson-what-could-possibly-go-wrong.jpghttp://ronaldrogers.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/what-me-worry.jpg

Why do you hate freedom?

[AuH20]

That sounds a lot like the position of gun grabbers in America. "The criminals all have guns, but if we just stop selling guns to honest civilians, things will get better."

Like it or not, we are involved (thanks to traitors in the state department and CIA) and as chief executive Rand would be forced to put out the fire in the least harmful fashion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do you hate freedom?

I'm a Bad American(TM). ;) :D :cool:

[Brian4Liberty]

Like it or not, we are involved (thanks to traitors in the state department and CIA) and as chief executive Rand would be forced to put out the fire in the least harmful fashion.

To say the least.

[heavenlyboy34]

That sounds a lot like the position of gun grabbers in America. "The criminals all have guns, but if we just stop selling guns to honest civilians, things will get better."
Whut? Last I checked, gun grabbers weren't trying to arm (or disarm) foreigners in a civil war on the other side of the world.

[phill4paul]

Yeah, selling anyone arms could be considered a bad idea, but is it actual "intervention"? Or is it free trade? ;)


It's "free trade" if a company does it. It's "intervention" if our government does it.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's "free trade" if a company does it. It's "intervention" if our government does it.

Yup, this^^

[robert68]

The high regard and endorsement he expresses for what the "first George Bush did", leading the real beginning of the war on Iraq in 1991, gives credence to full scale interventionism.

[specsaregood]

It's "free trade" if a company does it. It's "intervention" if our government does it.

So we allow the govt to sell the equipment they are destroying in Afghanistan( as randal proposed) to private merchants, who can then turn around and sell the equipment directly to the kurds? And then its not interventionism?

[specsaregood]

The high regard and endorsement he expresses for what the "first George Bush did", leading the real beginning of the war on Iraq in 1991, shows Rand to be a full scale interventionist.

It shows me that he knows how to prevent neocon arguments against his proposal.

[phill4paul]

It shows me that he knows how to prevent neocon arguments against his proposal.

Which would be...well...interventionist.

[Matt Collins]

Rand Paul: Arm the Kurds

Rand is one of the few, if not the only politician talking about this. Despite all of the anti-ISIS bluster from the establishment right and left, they refuse to arm the Kurds, who are successfully fighting ISIS. In addition to defensive (armor) and offensive (heavier) weapons, the Kurds need all the help we can give them in detecting and avoiding roadside IEDs, mines and bombs.

Why isn't this common sense action already taking place? Because of the stubborn and futile dream of the establishment leftists and neoconservatives to claim that they created a unified, democratic Iraq. Sorry, that train left the station long ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq4d2bRgrAIt's my understanding that the Turks (allies of the US federal government) don't want the Kurds to have much power.

[AuH20]

It shows me that he knows how to prevent neocon arguments against his proposal.

The Neoconservative think-tanks want more expeditionary expenditures and direct military engagement. Rand essentially cuts them off at the chase and arms the Kurds at a fraction of the price. Consequently, the illogical and oft used meme that U.S. hard power needs to be everywhere so as to maintain order is discredited.

[phill4paul]

So we allow the govt to sell the equipment they are destroying in Afghanistan( as randal proposed) to private merchants, who can then turn around and sell the equipment directly to the kurds? And then its not interventionism?

Destroy the equipment to the point of non-functioning and sell it as scrap. Then whomever buys may do what they want. If the government won't sell it to it's own citizens then it needs to become slag.

[Brett85]

The high regard and endorsement he expresses for what the "first George Bush did", leading the real beginning of the war on Iraq in 1991, shows Rand to be a full scale interventionist.

Right, because if you support one war, that means you support every war. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Good read:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/analysis-why-kurds-are-losing-patience-u-s-over-isis-n303481

Dum dum dum dum.....


The Kurds believe Kirkuk's oil will make the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq an economically viable, even wealthy, state. Control of Kirkuk is the key to nationhood that Kurds have always sought.

There is a formal referendum coming on the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan. Before ISIS came along, Kurds might have seen the benefit of keeping their uneasy alliance with the Iraqi state. They needed the money that the central government was sending north and the Iraqi army, with its superior, American-provided weapons was a better guarantee of safety in a volatile region than the lightly-armed Peshmerga. All that has changed now. And the referendum, originally scheduled to take place last year, is almost guaranteed to show that Iraqi Kurds are ready to break away.

All of this puts two key elements of the U.S. policy in the region on a collision course.

"The United States not only has to worry about the Islamic State, but it also needs to worry about the future unity of Iraq," says Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East specialist at Washington's Center for Strategic Studies.

"This is a little bit of a combination of a juggling contest and a tightrope walk," Cordesman continued. "If you make a mistake, essentially you can trigger a new form of civil conflict."

Economically VIABLE, INDEPENDENT STATE.

[heavenlyboy34]

Right, because if you support one war, that means you support every war. :rolleyes:

Fair point, but you have to admit that using GHWB's reasoning to justify something as deadly serious as interventionism is a quite bad precedent to set.

[idiom]

The Kurds have been listed as terrorists for 30 years, mostly due to pissing of NATO member Turkey.

Something something entangling alliances.

[robert68]

Right, because if you support one war, that means you support every war. :rolleyes:

He begins the interview citing that "leadership" of the "first George Bush" as exactly what is needed. They're his words.

[AuH20]

He begins the interview citing that "leadership" of the "first George Bush" as exactly what is needed. They're his words.

And it's brilliant framing against his critics. Using George Bush as essentially your rhetorical human shield, before you introduce a controversial idea is pretty shrewd if you ask me. He's intentionally utilizing their idols and language to hamstring their agenda. I have my own contentions with Rand Paul, but these interviews are not for OUR CONSUMPTION.

[heavenlyboy34]

And it's brilliant framing against his critics. Using George Bush as essentially your rhetorical human shield, before you introduce a controversial idea is pretty shrewd if you ask me. He's intentionally utilizing their idols and language to hamstring their agenda. I have my own contentions with Rand Paul, but these interviews are not for OUR CONSUMPTION.
GHWB is not that admired by the GOP base, AFAIK. Appealing to Regan is sensible. Bush I, not so much.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's my understanding that the Turks (allies of the US federal government) don't want the Kurds to have much power.

Yep.


Actually, it's a mixed bag for the establishment and neoconservatives. They want the Kurds to initiate revolt and separation in Syria and Iran. But they don't want them to do anything in Turkey or Iraq, not even defend themselves from others aggression.

[Brett85]

Fair point, but you have to admit that using GHWB's reasoning to justify something as deadly serious as interventionism is a quite bad precedent to set.


He begins the interview citing that "leadership" of the "first George Bush" as exactly what is needed. They're his words.


GHWB is not that admired by the GOP base, AFAIK. Appealing to Regan is sensible. Bush I, not so much.

You guys must not understand the GOP base very much. The Republican Party as a whole is not at all libertarian. I mean, I'm one of the more "moderate" or "statist" members here or whatever you want to call me, and the rank and file Republicans where I live basically think that I'm like a radical anarchist. These are people who still have a high opinion of Jeb Bush in public opinion polls. They nominated McCain and Romney. You have to use language that they can relate to in order to bring them closer to the principles of liberty. Rand isn't going to be able to run as a hardcore non interventionist if he wants to have any chance at all to win the GOP primary, but he's still far better than anyone else who will be running.

[thoughtomator]

Which would be...well...interventionist.

Politics is a circus. Rand needs both the whip and the chair to do this properly.

[Danke]

The Kurds have been listed as terrorists for 30 years, mostly due to pissing of NATO member Turkey.

Something something entangling alliances.

Not true. Only a group called the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) are frowned upon.

[orenbus]

The Kurds have been listed as terrorists for 30 years, mostly due to pissing of NATO member Turkey.

Something something entangling alliances.

This.

I wonder what happens with the weapons we give (or allow the Kurds to be given) after Syrian civil war comes to a close, any thoughts on the Kurds turning those weapons on Turkey, an ally and NATO member?

Remember many of the Kurds consider their land, which they consider should be an independent state, not only to include parts of Syria and Iraq, but Turkey as well. This may not be as clear cut as some may like.

[Todd]

Maybe we should have not given ISIS these first

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/8/1410202983560/Isis-fighters-drive-a-US--009.jpg

[Danke]

This.

I wonder what happens with the weapons we give (or allow the Kurds to be given) after Syrian civil war comes to a close, any thoughts on the Kurds turning those weapons on Turkey, an ally and NATO member?

Remember many of the Kurds consider their land, which they consider should be an independent state, not only to include parts of Syria and Iraq, but Turkey as well. This may not be as clear cut as some may like.


Again, not true. It is just a small faction that the Turks have been fighting. I know and have flown with Kurds in the Turkish military.



http://www.freewebs.com/unitedofgreatkurdistan/kurdistan.jpg

[orenbus]

Interesting video from August about the PKK in Iraq.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0u_CttB0I

[philipped]

He's intentionally utilizing their idols and language to hamstring their agenda. I have my own contentions with Rand Paul, but these interviews are not for OUR CONSUMPTION.

That's basically what should be taken. Rand needs neocon support for the nomination but Rand is not gonna conflict his positions and move toward full on interventionism and shouldn't, Rand should only show clearly that *unlike* his father his FP will essentially not be "reactionary" as some describe is the flaw in the thinking both Junior and elder share.

[orenbus]

I know and have flown with Kurds in the Turkish military.

Kurds in the Turkish military aren't the ones that would be getting the arms in question.

I do tend to agree with Rand about the boots on the ground in Syria fighting ISIS should include the Turkish military at 14:18 in this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqBz_wkfvBA

My view on this is that those involved in the conflict should include more regional powers to bring about resolution, as this to some extent is a cultural, religious, civil war that extends beyond ISIS for the people in that region even after the "Islamic State" is dealt with.

[TaftFan]

I agree. Unlike some of these militia groups, there is no danger of mistaking the Kurds for radical Muslims. They are an oppressed minority in Iraq and have been fighting ISIS effectively. Better they defeat ISIS than it continue to spiral out of control, which will then lead to a U.S. re-invasion of Iraq.

And to add to the idea, how about we demilitarize the police departments and send that equipment to the Kurds and Jordanians.

[Danke]

The Kurds have been listed as terrorists for 30 years...



This.




Kurds in the Turkish military aren't the ones that would be getting the arms in question.

Are you daft?

[twomp]

Kurdistan: A Gangster State



What’s more, Iraqi Kurdistan has been touted as an island of relative peace and prosperity, ripe for Western investment, and a source of all that "good news" that’s supposedly being suppressed by the mainstream media. A massive propaganda campaign – engineered by the GOP-connected public relations firm of Russo, Marsh, and Rogers (RM&R) – has been launched to portray Barzani-land as a model of Iraqi "democracy." According to RM&R:


The gangster state of Kurdistan is Abramoff-ism in power. Criminal cartels run the state apparatus, doling out rewards and punishments in a system of bribery and kickbacks – and the occasional gangland-style murder. We are, in short, exporting our own system, albeit with none of the legal and constitutional constraints against the more brazen forms of gangsterism.

The effort to dress up the Kurdish tyranny is just one of the more cynical efforts by the War Party to prettify an abominable abortion as the birth of "democracy" in Iraq. It’s no coincidence that RM&R was instrumental in the founding of "Move America Forward," the neocon front group running television ads proclaiming the "news" that WMD have been found in Iraq but the "mainstream media" is suppressing it. In the Bizarro World parallel universe of the War Party, up is down, the president’s own admission that the "intelligence" was wrong is discounted, and Kurdistan is a "democratic" utopia "parallel" to ours – where someone can get 30 years in prison for exposing official corruption.

read the rest here:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/09/kurdistan-a-gangster-state/

[juleswin]

How about arming no one?

Exactly, this being none of our business. Also, why are the kurds considered the good guys? Don't arm anybody and this way whatever fallout comes about, it wont be blamed on America.

[juleswin]

The U.S. is actively working to stop anyone from selling arms to the Kurds. That is interventionism. ISIS started an actual, real, offensive war against the Kurds. Do you want to deny them the right of self-defense?



Exactly.

565563826041401344

Really? how about the news about the US airdropping weapons to the kurds in Kobani(sp)? The kurds are sell out, they would do anything the US and Israel wants them to do and you bet your ass that what the US and Israel wants is what is good for the US and not what is good for Iraq.

[idiom]

Again, not true. It is just a small faction that the Turks have been fighting. I know and have flown with Kurds in the Turkish military.



http://www.freewebs.com/unitedofgreatkurdistan/kurdistan.jpg

Yeah and only a small portion of Isis is a problem in Iraq, the rest are in Syria and on our side...

[Danke]

Kurdistan: A Gangster State



read the rest here:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/09/kurdistan-a-gangster-state/

GOP is the War Party?

[AuH20]

Exactly, this being none of our business. Also, why are the kurds considered the good guys? Don't arm anybody and this way whatever fallout comes about, it wont be blamed on America.

Until CIA-ISIS executes a plot in the U.S. mainland and the authorities lock-down our country. You have to be thinking two to three steps ahead of these people.

[orenbus]

Are you daft?

LOL. If your main point is that not all Kurds or Kurd groups fighting in Iraq and Syria have been listed as terrorists, you are correct, however as mentioned the PKK has, as well as the PYD / YPG by Turkey.

[Liberty Commentary]

Pretty sad to see, in all honesty. I know it's been said time and time again, but Rand is no Ron.

Ron would have stood on principle and talked bluntly, even with Fox News. What does Rand accomplish if he doesn't even teach people the way? He's accepting the failed policy of interventionism. Maybe that even gets him elected, but in the end, does it really teach anyone anything? Will history be forever changed? Will the American people learn the truth? Somehow I doubt it, at least with this approach.

Rand is a big fan of the band Rush. I think it's only fitting that I cite some of these lyrics from "Spirit of the Radio".

But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity

[orenbus]

I posted the below back in September, but still good information for those interested.

##########

Insightful piece for those of you that have been following the various fighting group parties in Iraq and Syria and left wondering why the U.S. considers the Kurds in Syria as a threat placing them on the U.S. terrorist list back in '97, and yet that same specific group were the ones helping to evacuate the Christian groups from Iraq into Syria during the whole ISIS threat build up. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of the article, however the history and relations between the U.S., Turkey, Iraq, and Syria are interesting to know as background information.


Why Does The U.S. Like Iraq's Kurds But Not Syria's?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/23/350579007/why-does-the-u-s-like-the-kurds-in-iraq-but-not-in-syria



http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/09/22/syria-kurds3_custom-22f6e7d31b22665a77887f6d781e498451e36200-s4-c85.jpg
The U.S. has different policies toward different Kurdish groups. The U.S. works closely with Iraqi Kurds, whose policemen form a line in this photo. But the U.S. labels a militant Kurdish group from Turkey, the PKK, a terrorist organization. A PKK supporter waves a yellow flag of the group's leader. Three separate Kurdish militias have been fighting the group that calls itself the Islamic State.

In Iraq, Kurdish militiamen fighting the group that calls itself the Islamic State are key American allies.

In Syria, some Kurdish fighters battling the very same Islamic State are considered part of a terrorist group, according to the U.S. government.

What gives?

In both Iraq and Syria, the Kurds are a long-repressed minority who are fighting back against the threat posed by the Islamic State. In the northern parts of both countries, Islamic State advances have driven large numbers of Kurds from their homes. In the latest upheaval, an Islamic State offensive has driven more than 100,000 Kurds from northern Syria into Turkey in just a matter of days.

With the U.S. military now bombing in Syria and in urgent need of allies on the ground, why does the U.S. have such a dim view of Kurdish fighters in Syria when it is counting so heavily on the Kurdish fighters in Iraq?

The U.S. also says it's going to train "moderate" Syrian rebels, a process that could take a year to generate some 5,000 fighters. Yet the U.S. has given no indication so far that it's prepared to work with the Kurdish militias in Syria that are already clashing with the Islamic State.

Well, it's the Middle East, so it's complicated. And it involves the Kurds, so it's beyond complicated.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/09/22/syria-kurds4_custom-26dff7e0103bf7696f466ec95766fb2ce762489a-s4-c85.jpg

There is no short answer. Here's a short-ish answer:

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein persecuted the Kurds throughout his brutal rule, using chemical weapons to wipe out as many as 5,000 Kurds in the village in Halabja in 1988. The Kurds, therefore, staunchly supported the U.S. wars against Saddam and developed a close relationship with the U.S. military, which helped train the Kurdish peshmerga fighters.

The Kurds, who formally achieved semi-autonomy in northern Iraq nearly a decade ago, have their share of problems, including recurring internal divisions. Still, their enclave has been the most peaceful and prosperous part of Iraq in recent years.

Kurdish fighters have resisted the advances of the Islamic State, and when the U.S. began bombing the extremist group, Kurdish forces swiftly moved into areas vacated by the group. The U.S. and the Kurds would like to replicate this model throughout northern Iraq.

Kurdish Forces Say They're Waiting For U.S. Weapons

Meanwhile, there are plenty of parallels in Syria, where the Kurds have been repressed for decades by the current president, Bashar Assad, and his father, the late Hafez Assad.

There's one key difference. The Kurdish militia in Syria, known as the YPG, is closely aligned with a militant Kurdish group in Turkey, the PKK, that has fought for Kurdish self-rule since the 1980s.

In that long battle, Turkey declared both PKK and YPG terrorist groups.

The U.S., as a fellow NATO member, concurred with Turkey's assessment and put the Turkish PKK on the U.S. terrorist list back in 1997. The U.S. did not add Syria's YPG, but has acknowledged the close relationship and has ostracized the Syrian Kurdish militants as well.

Yet this old policy is being challenged by the new realities.

The Turkish and Syrian Kurdish militias have both battled the Islamic State in ways that have directly helped the U.S. effort.

"Syrian and Turkish Kurdish fighters are gaining influence and a stronger foothold. America can no longer ignore them," analyst Aliza Marcus, who has studied the Kurds for years, wrote recently. "The Kurdish groups from Syria and Turkey reject radical Islamism. They are secular nationalists and natural American allies."

The strongest example was in August, when the U.S. carried out airstrikes against the Islamic State to assist the Yazidis, a religious minority that had thousands of members trapped in desperate conditions on the barren Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq.

The quickest escape route for the Yazidis was to neighboring Syria, where the Syrian Kurds of the YPG helped protect them from the Islamic State and guided them to safety.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/09/22/syria-kurds1_custom-ab36a4d949a86920d12642e3697fa066dba38a08-s4-c85.jpg

As in Iraq, the Kurds in northern Syria have carved out a semi-independent enclave and could potentially be part of the ground force the U.S. is looking for to beat back the Islamic State.

But that would require a change to the long-standing U.S. policy toward the Kurds that has tended to follow this strange rule:

If the U.S. is friendly toward a government (think Turkey), then it doesn't support that country's Kurdish nationalists. If the U.S. despises a government (think Saddam's Iraq), then it sympathizes with that country's Kurds. One exception was Syria, where the U.S. didn't like the government or the Kurds.

But the upheavals in the Middle East have meant discarding many old rules.

Last year, Turkey reached a cease-fire with the PKK. In addition, Turkey is coming to view the Kurdish areas in neighboring countries less as a threat and more as a buffer from the chaos in Syria and Iraq. Turkey is now, for example, trading extensively with the Kurds of northern Iraq.

U.S. calculations are changing as well, as the Americans urgently search for allies in Syria. The Kurdish YPG militia, stiffened by several years of fighting in Syria, said Monday it had halted the latest advance by the Islamic State. The Turkish PKK forces were also reported to be involved in the clashes.

For generations, the Kurds have felt ignored by the West and repressed by assorted rulers in the Middle East. Now they seem destined to play a larger role.

"If Mr. Obama really wants to ensure no boots on the ground," wrote Marcus, the expert on Kurds, "he will have to rethink America's policy toward Kurdish nationalism, and recognize the Kurds, and not only Iraqi ones, are his main ally against (the Islamic State)."




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460333-Why-Does-The-U-S-Like-Iraq-s-Kurds-But-Not-Syria-s

[Brett85]

Pretty sad to see, in all honesty. I know it's been said time and time again, but Rand is no Ron.

Ron would have stood on principle and talked bluntly, even with Fox News. What does Rand accomplish if he doesn't even teach people the way? He's accepting the failed policy of interventionism. Maybe that even gets him elected, but in the end, does it really teach anyone anything? Will history be forever changed? Will the American people learn the truth? Somehow I doubt it, at least with this approach.

Rand is a big fan of the band Rush. I think it's only fitting that I cite some of these lyrics from "Spirit of the Radio".

But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity

Because supporting minimal intervention isn't the same as supporting hyper intervention. Rand is no Ron, but he's no McCain or Graham either.

[H. E. Panqui]

Republicrat foreign interventionists sound so certain they 'know' what's going on thousands of miles away...:rolleyes:...

...having been so 'informed' :rolleyes: by the lyin' brian williams dan rather media!..and their favorite stinking republicrat politicians..

...hopefully someday you 'libertarians' :rolleyes: will form some voluntary foreign legion where you can get up off the couch and go save the world!..with YOUR money, YOUR life...and keep your meathook$ out of the trea$ury...

..and hopefully someday miserable dumbass republicrat interventionists realize that the best way for uncle shame to lower the hideous level of violence around the planet is to stop participating in, encouraging, etc., it...

[twomp]

Until CIA-ISIS executes a plot in the U.S. mainland and the authorities lock-down our country. You have to be thinking two to three steps ahead of these people.

Are you serious? So the Kurds take out ISIS and we will have peace in the world? Once ISIS is gone, a whole entire new boogie man will be created that will require us to "arm their enemies" in order to stop them. The cycle repeats itself because people like you and Rand Paul support it.

[jmdrake]

It's the only reasonable option between the two horrible choices.

I can think of a lot of other options.

1) End the policy of "regime change" against Assad and openly team up with Assad to wipe out ISIS in Syria. Assad was initially working with the United States in the global war on terror. But he never supported the war against his fellow Ba'thist Saddam Hussein, and more recently he was in talks with Iran for a gas pipeline that would have sold natural gas to Europe. Can't have that now can we?

2) Quit giving any help to the FSA as they have shown themselves to be feckless at best and allies of ISIS at worst. It was the FSA that sold that American journalist to ISIS that got beheaded.

3) Bomb ISIS controlled oil wells. Oil is ISIS #1 source of income. Currently we aren't bombing the oil wells because we want to preserve them for a "post Assad" Syria. (See point #1) We are bombing ISIS controlled refineries but so what? They take crude oil across the border with Turkey and sell it for money or swap it for refined fuel. The only way to stop this is to take out the damn wells.

4) Let the CIA snatch and grab all Kuwaiti, Qatari and Saudi billionaires who are bankrolling ISIS. Seriously, why do we keep Osama Bin Laden's goat herder in Gitmo but the people financing this terror group are getting away scot free? Hell, we even know the names of these people.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html
Treasury also singled out Qatari Salim al-Kuwaru, who secured “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for ISIS, as well as acting as the financier for the terror group’s Iraqi affiliates. A third Qatari targeted by Treasury is Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Umayr al-Nu’aymi, a funder and fixer for ISIS-linked Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq who, according to a December Treasury report, “oversaw the transfer of over $2 million per month to [Al-Qaeda] in Iraq for a period of time.”

Seriously, why isn't Mr. al-Kuwaru or Mr. Umayr al-Nu'aymi looking over his shoulder worrying about a drone strike? Because the whole global war on terrorism is a fake a farce and a fraud.

[AuH20]

Are you serious? So the Kurds take out ISIS and we will have peace in the world? Once ISIS is gone, a whole entire new boogie man will be created that will require us to "arm their enemies" in order to stop them. The cycle repeats itself because people like you and Rand Paul support it.

Who said the game is fair? I didn't set up the rules. The people who insist on doing nothing haven't been keeping score of late. Any prospective president will have to deal with this elaborate game of whack-a-mole.

[Liberty Commentary]

It seems we didn't learn anything from our friend Ron Paul over the course of his 2 Republican Party presidential runs.

http://www.journeywithjesus.net/BookNotes/Chalmers_Johnson_Blowback_sm.jpg

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fJtjzR4UNE

[dillo]

Wouldnt arming the Kurds piss off Turkey, not that I really care about Turkey but there could be some fallout from that. Turkey gets more radicalized, turns into Saudi Arabia

[heavenlyboy34]

Republicrat foreign interventionists sound so certain they 'know' what's going on thousands of miles away...:rolleyes:...

...having been so 'informed' :rolleyes: by the lyin' brian williams dan rather media!..and their favorite stinking republicrat politicians..

...hopefully someday you 'libertarians' :rolleyes: will form some voluntary foreign legion where you can get up off the couch and go save the world!..with YOUR money, YOUR life...and keep your meathook$ out of the trea$ury...

..and hopefully someday miserable dumbass republicrat interventionists realize that the best way for uncle shame to lower the hideous level of violence around the planet is to stop participating in, encouraging, etc., it...
Being in the center of the American Empire gives them a perfect view, don'tcha know? :rolleyes:

[TaftFan]

Wouldnt arming the Kurds piss off Turkey, not that I really care about Turkey but there could be some fallout from that. Turkey gets more radicalized, turns into Saudi Arabia

Their regime isn't going to radicalize (in terms of Islam) because we help the Kurds, any more than Saddam did when we took him to task for gassing the Kurds.

[AuH20]

I don't think there has been a single individual in this thread who has even discussed mobilization of U. S. forces into the region. That is a nonstarter from my perspective

[twomp]

Who said the game is fair? I didn't set up the rules. The people who insist on doing nothing haven't been keeping score of late. Any prospective president will have to deal with this elaborate game of whack-a-mole.

When did I mention anything about being fair? Why are you so bent on taking out ISIS? Do you have information that we don't? Is ISIS really the big bad boogie man the MSM told you it is? Why are you so scared? Why do you insist we take them out? Pull our assets out of the area and let the people there deal with them. Is that so difficult? Maybe if you were so concerned, you should cut out a check to the Kurds out of your own pocket to help them buy weapons.

[orenbus]

I don't think there has been a single individual in this thread who has even discussed mobilization of U. S. forces into the region. That is a nonstarter from my perspective

We can agree on that, if you are talking ground troops though knowing TPTB you know it's just a matter of time.

[heavenlyboy34]

When did I mention anything about being fair? Why are you so bent on taking out ISIS? Do you have information that we don't? Is ISIS really the big bad boogie man the MSM told you it is? Why are you so scared? Why do you insist we take them out? Pull our assets out of the area and let the people there deal with them. Is that so difficult? Maybe if you were so concerned, you should cut out a check to the Kurds out of your own pocket to help them buy weapons.+a bunch

[Brian4Liberty]

Whut? Last I checked, gun grabbers weren't trying to arm (or disarm) foreigners in a civil war on the other side of the world.

You do know what an analogy is, don't you?


Kurdistan: A Gangster State


I am completely disillusioned now. Next thing you're going to tell me is that there is gangsterism and corruption in Mexico, Chicago and DC!


Exactly, this being none of our business. Also, why are the kurds considered the good guys? Don't arm anybody and this way whatever fallout comes about, it wont be blamed on America.

Unfortunately, it has will continue to be "our" business, whether people here like it or not. Blocking or embargoing weapons is active intervention. Stop doing that.


Really? how about the news about the US airdropping weapons to the kurds in Kobani(sp)?

You'll have to remind us what you are referencing here. Sure, a few tidbits have gone to Kurdistan. Didn't they get 25 armored Humvees?


...hopefully someday you 'libertarians' :rolleyes: will form some voluntary foreign legion where you can get up off the couch and go save the world!..with YOUR money, YOUR life...and keep your meathook$ out of the trea$ury...


Who suggested US money or troops?

The U.S. is actively preventing and blocking weapons sales by anyone to the Kurds. I suppose you would like us to continue that, and maybe the Kurds will just surrender to ISIS, and take the pillaging, raping, cleansing and killing that they deserve. Then the survivors can live happily ever after under the ISIS caliphate.

[jjdoyle]

Because supporting minimal intervention isn't the same as supporting hyper intervention. Rand is no Ron, but he's no McCain or Graham either.

Then he isn't a very good constitutional conservative if he isn't Ron, so why should we support him again? Ron Paul attracted people and changed some hardcore neocons to liberty lovers with his message and record. But, oh right, Rand is "playing the game". He's one of us. But everybody else isn't one of us and just in for themselves. I wonder how that book tour will go this spring?

Rand Paul is taking positions to try and keep off the coming attacks in 2016, and he's taking some positions to simply NOT be his father, because he doesn't have good talking points and can't say what his father's message and record was better than Ron could? LOL.

[Brett85]

Then he isn't a very good constitutional conservative if he isn't Ron, so why should we support him again?

It's possible for someone to be a Constitutional Conservative and support an interventionist or hawkish foreign policy. The Constitution requires that Congress declare war before we go to war; the Constitution doesn't ban wars. Even someone like Ted Cruz, who is fairly hawkish on foreign policy issues, could still be considered to be a Constitutional Conservative since he doesn't believe that the President has the authority to take our country to war unilaterally, without going through Congress.

[jmdrake]

I don't think there has been a single individual in this thread who has even discussed mobilization of U. S. forces into the region. That is a nonstarter from my perspective

It doesn't matter. It's going to happen anyway. (U.S. troops). Hell, it already has happened! Obama already sent more troops back into Iraq and he announced that the Afghan draw down is going to be delayed. Nobody is gong to do the one thing that would stop ISIS which is to seriously go after their funding. Note that nobody responded to my post to that effect. If we aren't going to take out the ISIS oil wells and go after the Saudi, Kuwati, Qatari, (U.S.?) moneymen funding ISIS, ISIS will only grow.

[orenbus]

Hmm video I didn't see back in October it shows an American, Brian Wilson from Ohio, a veteran from the first Gulf War, fighting along side the YPG (which Turkey considers a Terrorist Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava#Foreign_relations)) in Syria at 3:15.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI4_CFXlxzY

A few interesting notes as well:


Turkey claims the YPG is the same as the PKK, which they consider a terrorist organisation, whereas YPG leaders insist the PKK is a separate organization.[53] Turkey has been accused of supporting ISIS attacks on the YPG, allowing them to conduct attacks from the Turkish border, photographic evidence of Turkish soldier saluting ISIS fighters and providing logistical support.[54]

There is military cooperation with Iraqi Kurdistan and the USA although there is no official support for Rojava or the YPG.

In January 2015, a UK parliament committee asked the government to explain and justify its policy of not working with the Rojava military to combat ISIS.[55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava#Foreign_relations

[jjdoyle]

It's possible for someone to be a Constitutional Conservative and support an interventionist or hawkish foreign policy. The Constitution requires that Congress declare war before we go to war; the Constitution doesn't ban wars. Even someone like Ted Cruz, who is fairly hawkish on foreign policy issues, could still be considered to be a Constitutional Conservative since he doesn't believe that the President has the authority to take our country to war unilaterally, without going through Congress.

Yeah, except Rand Paul is for meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and apparently having an entangling BLIND alliance with Israel, just because he HAS to have that, because he doesn't know how to address the issue. So, because he can't address it, he will continue to vote for more borrowing from China to give to Israel.

[Okaloosa]

Pretty sad to see, in all honesty. I know it's been said time and time again, but Rand is no Ron.

Ron would have stood on principle and talked bluntly, even with Fox News. What does Rand accomplish if he doesn't even teach people the way? He's accepting the failed policy of interventionism. Maybe that even gets him elected, but in the end, does it really teach anyone anything? Will history be forever changed? Will the American people learn the truth? Somehow I doubt it, at least with this approach.

Rand is a big fan of the band Rush. I think it's only fitting that I cite some of these lyrics from "Spirit of the Radio".



Policy not opinion affects what happens. Also for someone with a join date in 2015 you really missed Ron Paul and even he has authorized force in Afghanistan.

[Brett85]

Yeah, except Rand Paul is for meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and apparently having an entangling BLIND alliance with Israel, just because he HAS to have that, because he doesn't know how to address the issue. So, because he can't address it, he will continue to vote for more borrowing from China to give to Israel.

Where in the Constitution does it forbid entangling alliances?

[cindy25]

Rand is still the most anti-war candidate, but arming the Kurds is useless

[69360]

I think we should arm them. I've argued the point here many times in the past.

The Kurds have been a reliable ally despite getting screwed over by the US government many times. The peshmerga has proven itself a reliable fighting force and the Kurds have the safest territory in the area.

They have oil to pay for weapons, it wouldn't be a freebie on the backs of the US taxpayer. The US government it right now actively preventing the Kurds from selling oil. This needs to stop.

Selling weapons to an ally is not an intervention.

[jjdoyle]

Where in the Constitution does it forbid entangling alliances?

I would say a quick look at the national debt would be one place to look. You can give your paycheck to Israel if you want, but Rand Paul shouldn't vote to give money from American citizens to Ukraine, Israel, or the Kurds if he is trying to make some claim to being a fiscal conservative.

It's not my fault Rand Paul is changing positions and abandoning positions that attracted many to Ron Paul, and it's apparently only because Rand Paul has no clue how to phrase what was the best record to run on in forever, and he inherited that and is now throwing it under the GOP bus.

[Okaloosa]

Rand is still the most anti-war candidate, but arming the Kurds is useless

I think Rand is using this as an alternative to putting troops on the ground that the neo-cons will fight for and call him an isolationist for opposing. Rand doing these things is as much to make the neo-cons that call him isolationist look desperate and out of touch with reality. This election is not going to be about policy of Ron versus Rand but instead Rand going against King, Bolton, and Graham with Jennifer Rubin and the rest of the hawks in full attack.

[jjdoyle]

Policy not opinion affects what happens. Also for someone with a join date in 2015 you really missed Ron Paul and even he has authorized force in Afghanistan.

Public opinion can affect policy, and what happens. As someone with a join date of 2011 (unless you were here in 2007/08 under a different name), you must have missed Ron Paul's reading assignment to Rudy Giuliani, but here it is for you (and Rand as well):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

[orenbus]

This election is not going to be about policy of Ron versus Rand but instead Rand going against King, Bolton, and Graham with Jennifer Rubin and the rest of the hawks in full attack.

Sorry to go off topic but out of curiosity, do you seriously think any of those guys are going to run? I haven't been keeping up with King, Bolton or Graham and their intentions to announce, but just visualizing it, they don't seem like serious candidates to me, could be wrong though.

[cindy25]

Peter King wants exposure for a senate run. Bolton is a joke, but Graham will run. and with the southern tilted schedule, a pro-war base, and a possible terror attack (real or false flag) could win the nomination. France fell, and Wilkie won the 1940 nomination, so it could happen

[twomp]

I think we should arm them. I've argued the point here many times in the past.

The Kurds have been a reliable ally despite getting screwed over by the US government many times. The peshmerga has proven itself a reliable fighting force and the Kurds have the safest territory in the area.

They have oil to pay for weapons, it wouldn't be a freebie on the backs of the US taxpayer. The US government it right now actively preventing the Kurds from selling oil. This needs to stop.

Selling weapons to an ally is not an intervention.

Why don't you cut out a check and pay for it out of your own pocket instead of rallying the rest of the country to support you in your crusade against ISIS.

[twomp]

Training and arming the people in Afghanistan to fight for freedom against the Russians. Train and arming the people in Kosovo. Training and arming the people in Syria. Training and arming the people in Iraq. Training and arming the people in Libya. Training and arming the people in Yemen. Training and arming the Kurds. Training and arming the people in Western Ukraine.

It's the same old tired line over and over again. Why do you old people constantly fall for this B.S.?

[AuH20]

It doesn't matter. It's going to happen anyway. (U.S. troops). Hell, it already has happened! Obama already sent more troops back into Iraq and he announced that the Afghan draw down is going to be delayed. Nobody is gong to do the one thing that would stop ISIS which is to seriously go after their funding. Note that nobody responded to my post to that effect. If we aren't going to take out the ISIS oil wells and go after the Saudi, Kuwati, Qatari, (U.S.?) moneymen funding ISIS, ISIS will only grow.

I think you had a well-constructed, logical post earlier. I couldn't respond earlier at length, being on my smartphone.

[AuH20]

Rand is still the most anti-war candidate, but arming the Kurds is useless

The Peshmerga is a proven fighting force which has triumphed over ISIS numerous times. It's not like these weapons would be going to Iraqi security forces, which were basically yellow bellied mercs.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's the same old tired line over and over again. Why do you old people constantly fall for this B.S.?

Because it's not the usual suspects that are pushing for it.

[AuH20]

See my commentary in red


I can think of a lot of other options.

1) End the policy of "regime change" against Assad and openly team up with Assad to wipe out ISIS in Syria. Assad was initially working with the United States in the global war on terror. But he never supported the war against his fellow Ba'thist Saddam Hussein, and more recently he was in talks with Iran for a gas pipeline that would have sold natural gas to Europe. Can't have that now can we?

Given the geopolitical tension (see Russia) which led to the civil war in Syria to begin with, that's probably not going to happen.

2) Quit giving any help to the FSA as they have shown themselves to be feckless at best and allies of ISIS at worst. It was the FSA that sold that American journalist to ISIS that got beheaded.

Agreed, but that is easier said than done. Once again you have the problem of ancillary organizations within the U.S. intelligence umbrella acting independently.

3) Bomb ISIS controlled oil wells. Oil is ISIS #1 source of income. Currently we aren't bombing the oil wells because we want to preserve them for a "post Assad" Syria. (See point #1) We are bombing ISIS controlled refineries but so what? They take crude oil across the border with Turkey and sell it for money or swap it for refined fuel. The only way to stop this is to take out the damn wells.

Future contracts come into play as you noted.

4) Let the CIA snatch and grab all Kuwaiti, Qatari and Saudi billionaires who are bankrolling ISIS. Seriously, why do we keep Osama Bin Laden's goat herder in Gitmo but the people financing this terror group are getting away scot free? Hell, we even know the names of these people.

Another logical alternative but the system will never let this take this place.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html
Treasury also singled out Qatari Salim al-Kuwaru, who secured “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for ISIS, as well as acting as the financier for the terror group’s Iraqi affiliates. A third Qatari targeted by Treasury is Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Umayr al-Nu’aymi, a funder and fixer for ISIS-linked Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq who, according to a December Treasury report, “oversaw the transfer of over $2 million per month to [Al-Qaeda] in Iraq for a period of time.”

Seriously, why isn't Mr. al-Kuwaru or Mr. Umayr al-Nu'aymi looking over his shoulder worrying about a drone strike? Because the whole global war on terrorism is a fake a farce and a fraud.

[sabu140]

Public opinion can affect policy, and what happens. As someone with a join date of 2011 (unless you were here in 2007/08 under a different name), you must have missed Ron Paul's reading assignment to Rudy Giuliani, but here it is for you (and Rand as well):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

Public opinion can only do so much. If you can't win you can't change anything. Ron and Rand are outnumbered when it comes to foreign policy with only Amash and Jones being close to them on foreign policy in the Republican Party. We have work to do since that reading list hasn't affected much of anything except for the opinions of those on ronpaulforums and dailypaul.

[AuH20]

Training and arming the people in Afghanistan to fight for freedom against the Russians. Train and arming the people in Kosovo. Training and arming the people in Syria. Training and arming the people in Iraq. Training and arming the people in Libya. Training and arming the people in Yemen. Training and arming the Kurds. Training and arming the people in Western Ukraine.

It's the same old tired line over and over again. Why do you old people constantly fall for this B.S.?

Afghanistan was Brzezinski's brainchild.

Kosovo was all about keeping the Albanian & Turkish heroin trade routes open.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/balkans

Syria was largely predicated on hurting Russia economically.

This is a completely different animal.

[cajuncocoa]

And it's brilliant framing against his critics. Using George Bush as essentially your rhetorical human shield, before you introduce a controversial idea is pretty shrewd if you ask me. He's intentionally utilizing their idols and language to hamstring their agenda. I have my own contentions with Rand Paul, but these interviews are not for OUR CONSUMPTION.
What difference does it make if he NEVER does anything for OUR CONSUMPTION ever again? As long as he wins, right? Priorities, people!!

[AuH20]

What difference does it make if he NEVER does anything for OUR CONSUMPTION ever again? As long as he wins, right? Priorities, people!!

Actually, no. He doesn't have to win. He just has hang on for a few rounds and "steal the microphone." Lose the battle but win the war. Remember when Rocky Balboa narrowly 'lost' to Apollo Creed in the first film? That's Rand's job. Ron never got close to stealing the microphone, since he was besmirched as crazy.

[orenbus]

Wanting to get Turkey's position on what is happening in Syria and in relation to the Kurds, found this BBC interview with the Turkish Ambassador to NATO from a few months ago where things got heated, interesting stuff. It really is surprising that this isn't a bigger story, can't find a whole lot of information regarding the question of why Turkey isn't playing a larger role in Syria from the Turks themselves.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FZjoisHhKQ

BBC HARDtalk's Stephen Sackur is unrelenting in this interview with Turkish Ambassador to the United Nations Mehmet Fatih Ceylan regarding Turkey's failure to join the international coalition to stop the Islamic State (ISIS / ISIL)

[jjdoyle]

Actually, no. He doesn't have to win. He just has hang on for a few rounds and "steal the microphone." Lose the battle but win the war. Remember when Rocky Balboa narrowly 'lost' to Apollo Creed in the first film? That's Rand's job. Ron never got close to stealing the microphone, since he was besmirched as crazy.

And Rand won't be besmirched as crazy? Did you miss the vaccine issue, and how that was spun against him? I mean, what is Rand going to "steal the microphone" for, if it's simply to say what the other half dozen/dozen candidates on the stage are saying? At least with Ron, we got some constitutional truths and small government talk that made sense and helped shine a light in the GOP pitch dark blackness.

[AuH20]

And Rand won't be besmirched as crazy? Did you miss the vaccine issue, and how that was spun against him? I mean, what is Rand going to "steal the microphone" for, if it's simply to say what the other half dozen/dozen candidates on the stage are saying? At least with Ron, we got some constitutional truths and small government talk that made sense and helped shine a light in the GOP pitch dark blackness.

The other candidates are going to talk about the Federal Reserve, crony corporatism and the encroaching national security state? Really? The discussion from the other props is going to be mired on the typical LCD of American exceptionalism.

[The Gold Standard]

Whoever wants to arm the Kurds can send them their weapons and cash. I want nothing to do with it.

[heavenlyboy34]

You do know what an analogy is, don't you?

Sure I do. You know there are good and bad/accurate and inaccurate analogies, don't you?

[jjdoyle]

The other candidates are going to talk about the Federal Reserve, crony corporatism and the encroaching national security state? Really? The discussion is going to be mired on the typical LCD of American exceptionalism.

Ted Cruz is talking about ending the IRS and the Federal Reserve, and he ISN'T ONE OF US!? Yes, the other candidates will talk about the Federal Reserve, crony corporatism, and the encroaching national security state if necessary. Rand Paul is now one of them, with little/no difference between them, and will it be worth it? I say no, but will be gladly proven wrong when he wins the nomination and the General Election in a landslide with the smooth talking he has been doing.

[AuH20]

Ted Cruz is talking about ending the IRS and the Federal Reserve, and he ISN'T ONE OF US!? Yes, the other candidates will talk about the Federal Reserve, crony corporatism, and the encroaching national security state if necessary. Rand Paul is now one of them, with little/no difference between them, and will it be worth it? I say no, but will be gladly proven wrong when he wins the nomination and the General Election in a landslide with the smooth talking he has been doing.

beyond a brief soundbyte? I doubt it.

I'm not even a huge Rand Paul fan after the Faustian deal he made with McConnell, but even I see his critical value going forward.

[69360]

Why don't you cut out a check and pay for it out of your own pocket instead of rallying the rest of the country to support you in your crusade against ISIS.

Reading comprehension isn't a strong point with you is it?

I said we should allow the Kurds to SELL their oil and BUY our weapons.

[jjdoyle]

beyond a brief soundbyte? I doubt it.

I'm not even a huge Rand Paul fan after the Faustian deal he made with McConnell, but even I see his critical value going forward.

Beyond a brief soundbyte? Here they are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t59acWhw-Nk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbS8AJEhP0

Those are just two videos on the IRS with Ted.

[Peace Piper]

Kosovo was all about keeping the Albanian & Turkish heroin trade routes open.

Kosovo was the first Project for a New American Century war.
They allowed the website to expire but the proof is on the wayback machine, and screenshots.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

http://i.imgur.com/gbC15Jr.jpg



Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_ Harbor.22)

[AuH20]

Kosovo was the first Project for a New American Century war.
They allowed the website to expire but the proof is on the wayback machine, and screenshots.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

http://i.imgur.com/gbC15Jr.jpg


It's funny that the Serbs were fighting elements of radical Islam involved in the drug trade and they were punished for it.

[AuH20]

Kosovo was the first Project for a New American Century war.
They allowed the website to expire but the proof is on the wayback machine, and screenshots.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

http://i.imgur.com/gbC15Jr.jpg

Another good reference as well.

http://serbianna.com/analysis/archives/778


Therefore, if we look at the role of ex-President of America, Bill Clinton, it is apparent that not only did he give the green light for thousands of Islamists to slit the throats of Orthodox Christians in Bosnia; but he also supported the terrorist and criminal KLA in Kosovo who have been involved in organ trafficking and heroin. Tony Blair, the ex-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, also played his role in Kosovo by openly manipulating the facts and countless other political leaders also sold their souls.

Vojin Joksimovich, the author of Kosovo is Serbia, highlights what Frank Josef Hutch states at the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Hutch, a German journalist, revealed the role of the mujahideen who worked within the KLA command structure. The contractor that provided the funding of Islamists was the Pentagon contractor Military Professionals Resources Incorporated (MPRI).

Vojin Joksimovich states that “What Hutch’s testimony seems to suggest is that the Clinton administration assimilated Al Qaeda fighters into the KLA via MPRI in order to be able to deny that his administration was in bed with Al Qaeda.”

“MPRI has done dirty work for the U.S. government in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. German author Jurgen Elsasser in his book, translated as How Jihad Came into Europe: Holy Warriors and Secret Services in the Balkans, claims that MPRI took the best mujahideen fighters from Bosnia upon conclusion of the Dayton Accords and put them on their payroll, trained them in Turkey with the help of the Turkish army and sent 80 to 120 of them to Kosovo to help the KLA and later to Macedonia.” (Page 92 and 93 of Kosovo is Serbia by Vojin Joksimovich)

If we turn to events that happened in Bosnia then it is clear that Bill Clinton gave Islamists a free hand and somehow thousands of Islamists from distant lands were able to obtain visas and bypass many borders.


In my article called Bosnia and Clinton’s Radical Islamists I state that “Sky news has obtained clear and proper evidence of a major cover-up and footages of massacres against Serbian Christians have been seen. According to the investigation and footages which were shown, it is abundantly clear that thousands of radical Islamists from all over the world were given a free reign in Bosnia.”

“This free-reign meant that innocent Serbian Christians were to meet terrible and disturbing deaths at the hands of radical Islamists who celebrate openly while cutting the heads off innocent civilians. The same Islamic forces which unleashed September 11th and which stone people to death in order to create “year zero,” were welcomed openly by ex-President Clinton and by people within his administration.”

So the American Civil War was purely about Slavery while the Bosnian conflict was solely about ethnic genocide (wink, wink.) It's amazing the stuff they sell to the plebes these days.

[idiom]

If you arm the Kurds you have to go all the way to the creation of a Kurdish state and probable war with Turkey, Iraq and Iran to do so.

Otherwise, long term you are just screwing them over, and deliberately turning them into cannon fodder.

If you like the map the way it is, let Iran, Turkey, Syria and Jordan sort Isis out on their own and stay out.

[orenbus]

Was reading through some responses on different sites to Rand Paul's view in arming the Kurds and saw the following post on Reddit:


As much as I dislike ISIS - Arming the Kurds with weapons that could be later used against Turkey in their never-ending dispute may not be a fantastic idea. However, Turkey should really deal with ISIS themselves in the first place. Although that in itself is very problematic because the current government is regressing the society into a religious majority and thus aligning their values closer and closer with ISIS.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/2vk2xn/sen_paul_suggests_directly_arming_kurds_in_isis/

Is it true that the current Turkish government is regressing their society with values that closer align with ISIS?

Some of the comments from the Turkey ambassador to NATO would say no, however I am seeing reports of societal changes occurring in Turkey and have to wonder if down the road the U.S. may establish a similar type of relationship (if we are not there already) that we have with Saudi Arabia tolerating values and law that most Americans would find despicable and yet maintaining a strong alliance while giving a blind eye.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlRJUP1dCLY

[Danke]

Was reading through some responses on different sites to Rand Paul's view in arming the Kurds and saw the following post on Reddit:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/2vk2xn/sen_paul_suggests_directly_arming_kurds_in_isis/

Is it true that the current Turkish government is regressing their society with values that closer align with ISIS?

Some of the comments from the Turkey ambassador to NATO would say no, however I am seeing reports of societal changes occurring in Turkey and have to wonder if down the road the U.S. may establish a similar type of relationship (if we are not there already) that we have with Saudi Arabia tolerating values and law that most Americans would find despicable and yet maintaining a strong alliance while giving a blind eye.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlRJUP1dCLY

The military is in control. They have not permitted an Islamic state.

[idiom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlRJUP1dCLY

ROFL omg. "Will Turkey head to religious freedom, or is TURKISH FUCKING NATIONALISM getting in the way"

Label things what they are.

[orenbus]

Here are a couple others that are troubling about Turkey's recent religious direction as influenced by their government, and arrests against what we would consider basic rights such as freedom of speech, that could be a concerning trend.

Oct 10, 2014
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/141022/turkey-arrests-woman-red-stilettos-koran-tweet
Turkey arrests woman for tweet of high heels on a Quran


http://conservativetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Firefox_Screenshot_2014-10-25T16-16-31.084Z-470x425.png

A Turkish woman was arrested on suspicion of blasphemy and inciting religious hatred after allegedly stepping on the Quran and then posting the picture on Twitter, media reported on Wednesday.

The arrest came after Melih Gokcek, Ankara's controversial mayor from the ruling Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP), launched a criminal complaint against the 38-year-old-woman, who uses the Twitter handle @kedibiti (cat lice).

The woman, who has over 5,000 followers and describes herself as "an atheist who respects only humans," allegedly shared a picture showing a pair of red high heels on a copy of the Quran, Dogan news agency reported.


Jan 23, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtV-V4Evq90

Jan 19, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiVn3-0F_EA

Dec 26, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AtZeu5IL0Y

Jan 31, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbt8PjebWCo

Several websites have been blocked in Turkey, following court orders against sites that are considered insulting to Islam. Most recently, Facebook followed the court’s order by banning a number of them on its pages, so the social media networking site would avoid a possible nationwide ban. This follows protests across Turkey against the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo for printing a caricature of Prophet Mohammed.

[Foreigner]

I can think of a lot of other options.

1) End the policy of "regime change" against Assad and openly team up with Assad to wipe out ISIS in Syria. Assad was initially working with the United States in the global war on terror. But he never supported the war against his fellow Ba'thist Saddam Hussein, and more recently he was in talks with Iran for a gas pipeline that would have sold natural gas to Europe. Can't have that now can we?

2) Quit giving any help to the FSA as they have shown themselves to be feckless at best and allies of ISIS at worst. It was the FSA that sold that American journalist to ISIS that got beheaded.

3) Bomb ISIS controlled oil wells. Oil is ISIS #1 source of income. Currently we aren't bombing the oil wells because we want to preserve them for a "post Assad" Syria. (See point #1) We are bombing ISIS controlled refineries but so what? They take crude oil across the border with Turkey and sell it for money or swap it for refined fuel. The only way to stop this is to take out the damn wells.

4) Let the CIA snatch and grab all Kuwaiti, Qatari and Saudi billionaires who are bankrolling ISIS. Seriously, why do we keep Osama Bin Laden's goat herder in Gitmo but the people financing this terror group are getting away scot free? Hell, we even know the names of these people.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html
Treasury also singled out Qatari Salim al-Kuwaru, who secured “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for ISIS, as well as acting as the financier for the terror group’s Iraqi affiliates. A third Qatari targeted by Treasury is Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Umayr al-Nu’aymi, a funder and fixer for ISIS-linked Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq who, according to a December Treasury report, “oversaw the transfer of over $2 million per month to [Al-Qaeda] in Iraq for a period of time.”

Seriously, why isn't Mr. al-Kuwaru or Mr. Umayr al-Nu'aymi looking over his shoulder worrying about a drone strike? Because the whole global war on terrorism is a fake a farce and a fraud.

Great thread! Lots of interesting posts and discussion, I especially wholeheartedly agree with the above post.

Dear RPF's: When can I pass out +Reps? Do you have to have a certain reputation or number of posts?

[orenbus]

On Sunday, French President Francois Hollande hosted senior PYD leaders in Paris to discuss the victory in Kobani and their fight against the Islamic State group, in a meeting described by Khalil as the first of its kind, reflecting international interest in supporting Syria’s Kurds.

Kurdish and FSA commanders say they need weapons, and they have proved they are worthy but are prepared to go it alone.
http://militaryvetnews.com/fresh-off-victory-over-is-in-kobani-kurds-seek-more-success-middle-east/2/

http://kurdishdailynews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hollande-meeting-PYD-620x264.jpg

http://kurdishdailynews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hollande-meeting-pyd3-1024x683.jpg

564517209129496577

(In French) France 2 interviewed YPJ commander Nasrin Abdallah after meeting with François Hollande
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bT8rlK2Xr8


The Democratic Union Party (Kurdish: Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat, PYD; Arabic: حزب الاتحاد الديمقراطي‎, Ḥizb Al-Ittiḥad Al-Dimuqraṭiy) is a Rojava political party established in 2003 by Kurdish activists[2] in northern Syria. An affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and a founder member of the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, it is described by the Carnegie Middle East Center as "one of the most important Kurdish opposition parties in Syria"


The party is affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is listed as a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the United States, the European Union and NATO. The Democratic Union Party considers jailed PKK founder Öcalan as its ideological leader, and declares the People's Congress of Kurdistan (Kongra-Gel) as the supreme legislative authority of the Kurdish people. It incorporates into the United Kurdish Community in Western Kurdistan (KCK – Rojava) with its own organisational identity.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_%28Syria%29

[orenbus]

Kurdish Victory in Kobani Defeat for Turkish Policy
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/29/kurdish-victory-in-kobani-defeat-for-turkish-policy

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressly ruled out the northern Iraq model for Syria's Kurds.

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/a9999ba/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F57%2Fa1%2F8900c9b74eca905a6c030 f8a51ee%2F150129-kobani-editorial.jpg
Kurdish fighters walk down a street in the center of Kobani, Syria, near the Turkish border, on Wednesday.

“Kobani is free. Ocalan is next,” thousands of Kurds chanted across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria when they celebrated the liberation of Kobani on the Syrian-Turkish border after 133 days of bloody war against Islamic State (IS) fighters.The hard-earned victory there is seen as a watershed in the Kurds’ decadeslong struggle for ethnic rights. But some analysts say the most immediate winners are the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its imprisoned leader Abdullah Ocalan, and the losers are not just IS but Turkey as well.

The PKK and its Syrian affiliate, the People's Protection Units (YPG), have spearheaded the battle against the jihadists in Iraq and Syria, outshining the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters who fled when IS overran Shengal last summer. An increasing number of Iranian Kurds are rallying to the Syrian Kurds’ defense, spelling further politicization among Iran’s restive Kurds. But in the short term, the support serves Iran’s purpose of weakening IS and Turkey while exporting its Kurdish problem beyond its own borders — a tactic also used by late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, who allowed Ocalan to live and organize in Syria. With a network spanning Europe, North America and the Middle East, the PKK is arguably the most influential Kurdish movement in the world.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7HPEjDN9Mg

Its gains extend beyond the battlefield to the diplomatic arena. For the first time, the United States is overtly cooperating with the PKK, despite its continued inclusion on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Unremitting US-led coalition airstrikes against IS targets in and around Kobani tipped the battle decisively in the Kurds’ favor.

Asiyah Abdullah, co-chairwoman of the YPG’s political wing, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), confirmed that the Kurds had defeated IS in Kobani. She told Al-Monitor in a telephone interview, “The US airstrikes were extremely helpful.” Abdullah emphasized, however, that the campaign against the jihadists was continuing. “Our forces are now concentrating on winning back surrounding villages,” she said. The US Central Command said Kurdish forces control 90% of Kobani. “While the fight against [IS] is far from over, [IS'] failure in Kobani has denied them one of their strategic objectives,” Central Command said in a statement.

The defining moment for changing relations between the United States and the PKK came when US C-130 cargo planes dropped aid and weapons to beleaguered Kurdish forces on Oct. 19 just as the enclave was poised to fall. The move left Turkey, a key NATO ally that has been fighting the PKK on and off since 1984, in shock, and deepened long-running suspicions about US intentions in the region.


Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made little effort to mask his displeasure over the turn of events. Speaking to reporters on Jan. 26, Erdogan suggested that he had asked US President Barack Obama not to intervene on the side of the Kurds. “I told Mr. Obama, ‘Don’t drop those bombs [meaning weapons and other supplies]. You will be making a mistake.’ Unfortunately, despite our conversation, they dropped whatever was needed with three C-130’s and half of it landed in [IS'] hands. So who is supplying [IS], then?”

The displeasure is mutual. Washington has voiced frustration over Ankara’s refusal to let coalition planes use the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey for combat missions against IS. (Some policymakers in Washington argue the United States ought to build a military base in Iraqi Kurdistan to replace Incirlik.) Turkey’s rejection of Kurdish demands to let their fighters open a supply line to Kobani from the Turkish side proved to be the final straw: US airdrops ensued and Ankara was forced to open the corridor, but only for 150 or so Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga, who have been backing YPG forces with long-range artillery they deployed in Kobani.

Had Turkey backed the Kurds to begin with, “The view that Turkey is siding with IS would not be so widespread,” said a Western diplomat who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject.

The PKK and the PYD both claim that Turkey has been arming and training jihadists in a proxy war aimed at undermining the Syrian Kurds’ experiment with self-rule, and that its policy is having a boomerang effect. The Jan. 6 suicide bomb attack carried out by a female IS militant that claimed the life of a Turkish police officer in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet district was a sobering reminder that Turkey is not immune from the jihadists, either.

Turkey has repeatedly denied that it is colluding with Islamic extremists against Syria’s Kurds and points out that it is caring for more than 200,000 refugees from Kobani. More than a thousand wounded YPG fighters have also been treated in Turkish state hospitals, Turkish officials add. But there is little doubt that the Turkish government would have preferred a protracted stalemate to a victory by either side.

Erdogan has made it clear that he is opposed to any arrangements in Syria that would mirror the Iraqi Kurds’ de facto state in northern Syria. He repeated this view in his Jan. 26 comments to journalists, asking, “What is this? Northern Iraq? Now [they want] Northern Syria to be born. It is impossible for us to accept this. … Such entities will cause great problems in the future.”

Erdogan’s comments smack of Ankara’s shrill ultimatums when the Iraqi Kurds formed their own regional government in the 1990s. At the time, Turkey egged on the Iraqi Kurds against the PKK and the Iraqi Turkmen against the Iraqi Kurds. Relations between Ankara and Washington sharply deteriorated after US occupation forces foiled an alleged Turkish plot to assassinate Kirkuk’s Kurdish governor. Today, the Iraqi Kurds are Turkey’s closest regional allies and top trading partners, though their friendship has been tested by Turkish reluctance to take on IS. Might a similar scenario be replayed in Syria?

“Turkey could not stop the Kurds in Iraq; they are unlikely to do so in Syria,” said the Western diplomat. “Turkish policy has united the Kurds if not their leaders.” But Turkey can continue to make life difficult for them all the same. The Syrian Kurds are growing increasingly dependent on the flow of aid from Turkey. And unlike its mountainous borders with northeastern Iraq, where the PKK is based, Turkey’s borders with the Kurdish-populated regions in northern Syria are totally flat, making them an easier target for potential military intervention.

Yet for all of Erdogan’s chest thumping, this seems the least likely option. Setting aside a likely international outcry, the domestic repercussions would be huge. Erdogan’s Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has been conducting peace talks with Ocalan for the past two years, and a cease-fire declared in March 2013 has been holding, by and large. Neither side can afford to resume the war. The PKK is tied down by IS and the AKP is betting on a fourth straight victory in parliamentary elections due to be held on June 7.

“With Kobani, the fates of Turkish and Syrian Kurds have become irreversibly intertwined,” Arzu Yilmaz, a researcher on Kurdish affairs at Ankara University, told Al-Monitor. “And the more Turkish Kurdish fighters die for their common cause, the stronger the bond. Turkey’s Kurds see any attack against their Syrian brethren as an attack against themselves,” she said.

Still, Erdogan’s remarks suggest that Turkey will keep political and economic pressure on the Syrian Kurds and continue to badger them to join the Istanbul-based Syrian opposition and to declare war against the regime. This, in turn, risks further undermining support for the peace process among Turkey’s Kurds, potentially triggering a fresh cycle of violence and instability.

The recent spate of deadly street battles pitting pro-PKK Kurds against their pro-Islamist rivals in the town of Cizre on the Iraqi border is widely seen as an ominous spillover from Kobani. Such pan-Kurdish sentiments pose a dilemma for Ocalan, who insists that Turkey’s Kurds do not want a separate state. Abdullah, the PYD co-chairwoman, insists that the Syrian Kurds have no plans for independence, either. “We are fighting for democracy for all the Syrian people no matter their faith or ethnicity,” she said. “We want good, neighborly relations with Turkey and we invite Turkey to help rebuild our infrastructure and to help us heal the wounds of this war.” Abdullah deftly deflected any questions about alleged Turkish collusion, saying, “IS is not just a threat to the Kurds; they are a threat to everyone.”

Amberin Zaman is an Istanbul-based writer who has covered Turkey for The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Telegraph and the Voice of America. A frequent commentator on Turkish television, she is currently Turkey correspondent for The Economist, a position she has retained since 1999. On Twitter: @amberinzaman

[jmdrake]

I think we should arm them. I've argued the point here many times in the past.

The Kurds have been a reliable ally despite getting screwed over by the US government many times. The peshmerga has proven itself a reliable fighting force and the Kurds have the safest territory in the area.

They have oil to pay for weapons, it wouldn't be a freebie on the backs of the US taxpayer. The US government it right now actively preventing the Kurds from selling oil. This needs to stop.

Selling weapons to an ally is not an intervention.

If the Kurds have a surplus of oil, why are they buying oil from ISIS? :confused:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-16/isis-selling-cheap-oil-its-enemies-syrias-government-kurds

[H. E. Panqui]

69360 Becks and Limbaughs: "Selling weapons to an ally is not an intervention."

:rolleyes:

(Two guys in a fist-fight and 69360 wants to sell/give one or both a gun and he claims it's not 'intervening'...:rolleyes:...good grief!! these Republicrat warmongers and interventionists are twisted!!...:mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Military_Sales

Foreign Military Sales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The U.S. Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Defense)'s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program facilitates sales of U.S. arms, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to foreign governments. The purchaser does not deal directly with the defense contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor); instead, theDefense Security Cooperation Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Security_Cooperation_Agency) serves as an intermediary, usually handling procurement, logistics and delivery and often providing product support, training, and infrastructure construction (such as hangars, runways, utilities, etc.). The Defense Contract Management Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Contract_Management_Agency) often accepts FMS equipment on behalf of the US government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_government).
FMS is based on countries being authorized to participate, cases as the mechanism to procure services, and a deposit in a US Trust Fund or appropriate credit and approval to fund services.
Some U.S. Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Air_Force) FMS programs are assigned two-word codenames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name) beginning with the word PEACE, indicating oversight by USAF Headquarters.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Military_Sales#cite_note-1) The second word in these codenames is often chosen to reflect some facet of the customer, such as MARBLE for Israel or ONYX for Turkey. Codenames appear in all capital letters.


No partner nation has yet succeeded in applying strict schedule clauses to a FMS program.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Military_Sales#cite_note-2)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

[Brett85]

(Two guys in a fist-fight and 69360 wants to sell/give one or both a gun and he claims it's not 'intervening'...:rolleyes:...good grief!! these Republicrat warmongers and interventionists are twisted!!...:mad:

One is not a "warmonger" if they're not opposed to all intervention in all circumstances. The problem with many of you is that you simply don't see any nuance at all in foreign policy issues. So if someone has foreign policy views that aren't just 100% libertarian and non interventionist down to the last detail, you label them a "warmonger" and a "neocon." I will continue to tell you that as long as you do that, you will have an extremely small tent and won't make any progress at all in trying to change things.

[Brian4Liberty]

If you arm the Kurds you have to go all the way to the creation of a Kurdish state and probable war with Turkey, Iraq and Iran to do so.

That is where it could possibly head, but that is not a certainty at all.


Otherwise, long term you are just screwing them over, and deliberately turning them into cannon fodder.

They are cannon-fodder right now, and they have been outgunned by ISIS. You don't think they should be able to buy weapons and defend themselves? In the long-term they could be dead or subjugated by ISIS.


If you like the map the way it is, let Iran, Turkey, Syria and Jordan sort Isis out on their own and stay out.

Why would a U.S. citizen care about the map over there? And why should we be dedicated to an arbitrary map drawn by colonial conquistadors?

[jjdoyle]

One is not a "warmonger" if they're not opposed to all intervention in all circumstances. The problem with many of you is that you simply don't see any nuance at all in foreign policy issues. So if someone has foreign policy views that aren't just 100% libertarian and non interventionist down to the last detail, you label them a "warmonger" and a "neocon." I will continue to tell you that as long as you do that, you will have an extremely small tent and won't make any progress at all in trying to change things.

Well, I hope you enjoy your bankrupt tent, with the hot gas of the neocons. And it is exactly your type of justification for intervention in this case, when it is not JUST apparently, that is what the typical Republican and Democrat voters do for "their team". Make justifications and excuses all day long. If Rand can't make the case for Just War, then maybe he shouldn't be running for President? I thought he was supposed to be the better communicator?

But, maybe Proverbs 26:17 will help:
"Like one who takes a dog by the ears
Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him."?

Want to keep getting bit and attacked, keep on meddling...

[Brian4Liberty]

69360 Becks and Limbaughs: "Selling weapons to an ally is not an intervention."

:rolleyes:

(Two guys in a fist-fight and 69360 wants to sell/give one or both a gun and he claims it's not 'intervening'...:rolleyes:...good grief!! these Republicrat warmongers and interventionists are twisted!!...:mad:


Why do you want to actively prevent the Kurd's of the autonomous Kurdistan Region from defending themselves?

[Brett85]

If Rand can't make the case for Just War, then maybe he shouldn't be running for President?

I'm not convinced that this particular military action isn't a just war. I think that it may be the case that it's not succeeding, and that perhaps it would be a better strategy to have a more defensive strategy against ISIS than an offensive strategy, focusing on securing our borders and preventing them from coming in here. I'm not exactly certain about what we should do at this point, but I think there's far more of a justification for military action in this case than invading Iraq in 2003 or invading Vietnam, for example. So my point is that right now I'm not really sure what our strategy should be, but I don't see Rand supporting air strikes against ISIS to be the equivalent of him supporting a war like the Iraq invasion. Not every situation is exactly the same.

[69360]

Was reading through some responses on different sites to Rand Paul's view in arming the Kurds and saw the following post on Reddit:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/2vk2xn/sen_paul_suggests_directly_arming_kurds_in_isis/

Is it true that the current Turkish government is regressing their society with values that closer align with ISIS?

Some of the comments from the Turkey ambassador to NATO would say no, however I am seeing reports of societal changes occurring in Turkey and have to wonder if down the road the U.S. may establish a similar type of relationship (if we are not there already) that we have with Saudi Arabia tolerating values and law that most Americans would find despicable and yet maintaining a strong alliance while giving a blind eye.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlRJUP1dCLY

No it's not true, Turkey is starting to see the Kurds in a better light and as a valueable buffer between Turkey and the chaos that is IS. The situation on the ground and alliances are changing fast.


If the Kurds have a surplus of oil, why are they buying oil from ISIS? :confused:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-16/isis-selling-cheap-oil-its-enemies-syrias-government-kurds

I think that's refined fuel, not crude.


69360 Becks and Limbaughs: "Selling weapons to an ally is not an intervention."

:rolleyes:

(Two guys in a fist-fight and 69360 wants to sell/give one or both a gun and he claims it's not 'intervening'...:rolleyes:...good grief!! these Republicrat warmongers and interventionists are twisted!!...:mad:


You won't find any posts by me claiming to be a peace loving hippy in a drum circle singing kumbaya.

Intervention is US troops on the ground or US bombs falling out of the sky.

Selling arms to an ally isn't wrong. All war isn't wrong, sometimes it's justified. The Kurds have every right to defend their territory against IS and the US has every right as an ally to sell them arms to do it.

[orenbus]

You know the more we discuss this I think one question that hasn't been brought up yet in this thread, which may have caused confusion, is the following:

Are the Kurds being referenced by Rand in the OP interview limited to just the Peshmerga in Iraq or would the arms support also extend to the YPG/YPJ, PYD, not to mention the Yazidis which many/most consider themselves ethnic Kurds, and other Kurd groups in Syria fighting ISIS since much of the conflict that will occur against ISIS would center on Syria? (I'm assuming at this point Rand isn't considering the PKK)

This is something Rand making the case to arm the "Kurds" could be more clear on.

He does mention in the interview the flow of "arms through Baghdad" as does Cruz in an interview this past Sunday (however Cruz specifically mentioned arming the Peshmerga) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9WEw2-cLUU) although Rand in his interview doesn't mention which Kurds, so then the question is this; this idea of arming Kurds isn't really addressing Syria (but just a focus on Iraq) or is Syria also being addressed in these statements as well?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq4d2bRgrA#t=35

Also not to nitpick but Rand mentions that the troops on the ground need to be "Arab Troops" which includes the Iraqis and Kurds. I may be wrong about this, but pretty sure the Kurds do not consider themselves Arabs. If true someone may want to mention to Rand before the next talk on the topic.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Mexican cartels make ISIS look like amateurs. They've been videoing their torture regiments from beginning to end and posting them online for years. If that's the standard for intervention the U.S. government should've been in Mexico a decade ago. Americans are such suckers for this stuff. They get so worked up into a frenzy. These groups are masters at pushing buttons.

Now sing along...'Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass. It`s the American way.'

[heavenlyboy34]

Mexican cartels make ISIS look like amateurs. They've been videoing their torture regiments from beginning to end and posting them online for years. If that's the standard for intervention the U.S. government should've been in Mexico a decade ago. Americans are such suckers for this stuff. They get so worked up into a frenzy. These groups are masters at pushing buttons.

Now sing along...'Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass. It`s the American way.'

Yup, this. ^^ Neocons can occasionally be selective in which brown people they want to murder. :(

[NIU Students for Liberty]

What the fuck has happened to this website?

[devil21]

Rand sure is walking a tight ass line on FP. I get the political point of advocating arming the Kurds, though it's still more interventionism than I'd like to hear. The Kurds aren't controlled by the intelligence agencies that make up 'ISIS' and arming the Kurds essentially means arming both sides, in which case 'ISIS' may actually lose and DoD would have to explain why it started bombing the Kurds to help 'ISIS' advance. The thing is that most people won't understand the nuance of the political point and just see it as more interventionism and more arming of people we don't need to. I don't support it but I understand the point he's making. I'd rather he just expose 'ISIS' as the Syrian regime change puppet that it is instead of playing political chess over FP that most people (particularly base non-interventionists that he may lose support from) won't understand.


What the fuck has happened to this website?

You should visit more often if you don't see what's going on. It's been evident for a couple years. There is an effort underway to systematically subvert RPF by AIPAC lovers, Hasbara shills, and general neo-cons. Ill pm you a list.

[Liberty Commentary]

We need to change our principles in order to "get stuff done?" Who are we then? What is it that we stand for? Politics, at this point, is an educational experience. It's about winning hearts and minds, paving the way, not getting electoral votes.

It's not the policies that matter, but the ideas. To think that one man parading around as an establishment conservative (but apparently libertarian at heart) can drastically change all of the authoritarian policies in the US is quixotic (to use a term that they threw around at Ron). It must be remembered, it must be said again. Ron Paul often quotes Victor Hugo when he states that "nothing in the world is so powerful as an idea whose time has come." I'd say Ron and Hugo are correct when they state that. Nothing in this country will ever change if the people's minds don't change. Let's win the War (the battle of ideas), not the battle (the war of elections).

Rand, like Ron, has to show people the way. Maybe this means bending on some of the more trivial issues and maybe it means catering the message a different way than Ron, but out of all the areas to compromise, foreign policy is not the one. I'd go as far as to say that it's our most significant liberty issue. I quote Rothbard when I say that "war is the lifeblood of the state." Rand must not bend even an inch on foreign policy if he wishes to promote the cause of liberty.

[AuH20]

Rand sure is walking a tight ass line on FP. I get the political point of advocating arming the Kurds, though it's still more interventionism than I'd like to hear. The Kurds aren't controlled by the intelligence agencies that make up 'ISIS' and arming the Kurds essentially means arming both sides, in which case 'ISIS' may actually lose and DoD would have to explain why it started bombing the Kurds to help 'ISIS' advance. The thing is that most people won't understand the nuance of the political point and just see it as more interventionism and more arming of people we don't need to. I don't support it but I understand the point he's making. I'd rather he just expose 'ISIS' as the Syrian regime change puppet that it is instead of playing political chess over FP that most people (particularly base non-interventionists) won't understand.

Everyone in the political class is getting gung ho about going down the same tired road of occupation littered with uncontrolled budget projections & an undetermined schedule and Rand is getting hammered for proposing a comparatively benign Plan B? Really? ISIS needs to go, so there isn't another Hegelian option thrown at our feet in the future.

[AuH20]

What the fuck has happened to this website?

I think it's called living in the real world and dealing with dilemmas that don't easily conform to your philosophy 100% of the time. The primary goal is to pull back internationally but you can't just throw your arms up in the air and tell them you're going to do nothing. You'll look like a horse's ass. Sure, let CIA ISIS set up a staging area in 3 countries. Go right ahead. Being a senator or POTUS in the know also entails containing or cleaning up FABRICATED messes in the least harmful manner possible. I don't think many here get that.

[Brian4Liberty]

You know the more we discuss this I think one question that hasn't been brought up yet in this thread, which may have caused confusion, is the following:

Are the Kurds being referenced by Rand in the OP interview limited to just the Peshmerga in Iraq or would the arms support also extend to the YPG/YPJ, PYD, not to mention the Yazidis which many/most consider themselves ethnic Kurds, and other Kurd groups in Syria fighting ISIS since much of the conflict that will occur against ISIS would center on Syria? (I'm assuming at this point Rand isn't considering the PKK)

This is something Rand making the case to arm the "Kurds" could be more clear on.

He does mention in the interview the flow of "arms through Baghdad" as does Cruz in an interview this past Sunday (however Cruz specifically mentioned arming the Peshmerga) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9WEw2-cLUU) although Rand in his interview doesn't mention which Kurds, so then the question is this; this idea of arming Kurds isn't really addressing Syria (but just a focus on Iraq) or is Syria also being addressed in these statements as well?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq4d2bRgrA#t=35

Also not to nitpick but Rand mentions that the troops on the ground need to be "Arab Troops" which includes the Iraqis and Kurds. I may be wrong about this, but pretty sure the Kurds do not consider themselves Arabs. If true someone may want to mention to Rand before the next talk on the topic.

I assumed that he was talking specifically about the autonomous Kurdistan Region in Iraq, due to his mention that everything has to go through Baghdad today.

Not sure, but I believe you are correct in that the Kurds do not consider themselves Arabs. The Persians certainly do not consider themselves Arabs.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not convinced that this particular military action isn't a just war. I think that it may be the case that it's not succeeding, and that perhaps it would be a better strategy to have a more defensive strategy against ISIS than an offensive strategy, focusing on securing our borders and preventing them from coming in here. I'm not exactly certain about what we should do at this point, but I think there's far more of a justification for military action in this case than invading Iraq in 2003 or invading Vietnam, for example. So my point is that right now I'm not really sure what our strategy should be, but I don't see Rand supporting air strikes against ISIS to be the equivalent of him supporting a war like the Iraq invasion. Not every situation is exactly the same.

A friend pointed out to me recently that tactically if ISIS is to be destroyed and stay destroyed, it has to be destroyed by an Islamic nation: otherwise they will just rally around the fact that they were attacked by outsiders which will drive other countries to their cause and rally even more anti-western sentiment. ISIS might even come back.

IMO he's right.

And, I'll just go right ahead and say this isn't a just war as far as I'm concerned. ISIS hasn't actually done anything to the US, there's no meaningful national security risk, and bombing won't actually help our national security. You could make a case for their neighbors going in to fix an unstable situation on their borders, but from a US standpoint this isn't just. We can't just tell the entire rest of the world what to do.

I agree that its not exactly the same as 2003 though. 2003 was even more clear cut. I still know a lot of people who even agree with 2003.

[AuH20]

A friend pointed out to me recently that tactically if ISIS is to be destroyed and stay destroyed, it has to be destroyed by an Islamic nation: otherwise they will just rally around the fact that they were attacked by outsiders which will drive other countries to their cause and rally even more anti-western sentiment. ISIS might even come back.

IMO he's right.

And, I'll just go right ahead and say this isn't a just war as far as I'm concerned. ISIS hasn't actually done anything to the US, there's no meaningful national security risk, and bombing won't actually help our national security. You could make a case for their neighbors going in to fix an unstable situation on their borders, but from a US standpoint this isn't just. We can't just tell the entire rest of the world what to do.

I agree that its not exactly the same as 2003 though. 2003 was even more clear cut. I still know a lot of people who even agree with 2003.

Yet. That's the next shoe to drop. And as AF says, the game will be on. I'd rather not let it get to that point. If you think the political climate is unfavorable now, wait until an ISIS attack makes it a crazy nation.

[Brett85]

A friend pointed out to me recently that tactically if ISIS is to be destroyed and stay destroyed, it has to be destroyed by an Islamic nation: otherwise they will just rally around the fact that they were attacked by outsiders which will drive other countries to their cause and rally even more anti-western sentiment. ISIS might even come back.

I've gone back and forth on the issue but have lately started thinking that perhaps my original position was correct and we should just get out of the Middle East entirely, including air strikes. But I still understand that's simply not a feasible position for Rand to take in a GOP primary. He would probably get less than 10% of the vote if he took that position. I would rather win and water down the message a bit than "stay pure" and get demolished.

[Christian Liberty]

My opinions of how airstrikes would relate to each segment of Just War Theory (quotes from Wikipedia):


Just causeThe reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

This may meet this criterion, but the US basically caused the situation so I don't exactly trust them to fix it.


Comparative justiceWhile there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Orend) omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

I'm not sure. In this instance, who?


Competent authorityOnly duly constituted public authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorities) may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu)) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#cite_note-26)

I don't consider an entity that allows the murder of the unborn in its own territory, not to mention the tyrannies we discuss here on a daily basis, to be competent authority. This regime has more blood on its hands than ISIS does. I'm not saying that makes them more evil than ISIS (more just bigger and more powerful) but I'm definitely saying "no" to this one.


Right intentionForce may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

OK, I'm willing to assume the best here, against my better judgment, for the sake of argument.

Probability of successArms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

This is futile, at least if its the US doing it. It may not be futile if it was done by an Islamic country, I could be convinced either way on that point.


Last resortForce may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

I don't think we've done this.


ProportionalityThe anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

I have my doubts here to.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).


Yeah, and this doesn't qualify.

[AuH20]

I've gone back and forth on the issue but have lately started thinking that perhaps my original position was correct and we should just get out of the Middle East entirely, including air strikes. But I still understand that's simply not a feasible position for Rand to take in a GOP primary. He would probably get less than 10% of the vote if he took that position. I would rather win and water down the message a bit than "stay pure" and get demolished.

Forget about the primary for a second. If there is an ISIS attack on the U.S. mainland, the movement here is politically done. You can't just say I'm not going to do anything. You have to look at your options and weigh the long term pros and cons. Obviously, the cons of military engagement far outweigh the pros, so that is completely off the table. Arming the Kurds is a low-risk move that will be (a) inexpensive & (b) effective.

[69360]

A friend pointed out to me recently that tactically if ISIS is to be destroyed and stay destroyed, it has to be destroyed by an Islamic nation: otherwise they will just rally around the fact that they were attacked by outsiders which will drive other countries to their cause and rally even more anti-western sentiment. ISIS might even come back.

IMO he's right.


Jordan is presently bombing the crap out of IS.

[Brian4Liberty]

Everyone in the political class is getting gung ho about going down the same tired road of occupation littered with uncontrolled budget projections & an undetermined schedule and Rand is getting hammered for proposing a comparatively benign Plan B? Really?

Rand is playing chess. You are correct, the options being pushed right now by nearly everyone (leftist and neoconservative Marxists) is Team America to the rescue, send in our troops, damn the cost, damn the lives lost, damn the futility, damn the counter-productivity, damn that the fact that it is a temporary band-aid.

If Rand wants to oppose that, he has to present another option. Despite the angst this may cause in some purists, Rand can not say "let's turn away and do nothing". The neoconservative and leftist spin that would generate should be blatantly obvious.

Rand is proposing allowing some undefined amount of better weapons and armor be delivered to the Kurds who live there, who are fighting today, and who will stay there forever to maintain whatever order they can. They will not be abandoning the area like the Shiite central Iraqi government forces did, and they will not leave like America will eventually have to. It also supports the premise that the Kurds have a right to defend themselves from attack. If someone has a better move than that, they should run for office and propose it.

[Brett85]

Forget about the primary for a second. If there is an ISIS attack on the U.S. mainland, the movement here is politically done. You can't just say I'm not going to do anything. You have to look at your options and weigh the long term pros and cons. Obviously, the cons of military engagement far outweigh the pros, so that is completely off the table. Arming the Kurds is a low-risk move that will be (a) inexpensive & (b) effective.

Yeah, that's true. I wasn't talking about arming the Kurds. I was talking about my previous support for military action against ISIS and that I was probably incorrect on that. All indications are that the air strikes aren't working, that ISIS keeps growing despite our air strikes. I'm also not willing to go the extra step of sending ground troops into the region. We can't afford more trillion dollar wars overseas. I'm in favor of arming the Kurds but no longer believe the air strikes are a good idea.

[AuH20]

Yeah, that's true. I wasn't talking about arming the Kurds. I was talking about my previous support for military action against ISIS and that I was probably incorrect on that. All indications are that the air strikes aren't working, that ISIS keeps growing despite our air strikes. I'm also not willing to go the extra step of sending ground troops into the region. We can't afford more trillion dollar wars overseas. I'm in favor of arming the Kurds but no longer believe the air strikes are a good idea.

I concur with you on the air strikes. You don't want to personalize this war for ISIS recruitment. But I'm not against logistical support.

[Brian4Liberty]

A friend pointed out to me recently that tactically if ISIS is to be destroyed and stay destroyed, it has to be destroyed by an Islamic nation: otherwise they will just rally around the fact that they were attacked by outsiders which will drive other countries to their cause and rally even more anti-western sentiment. ISIS might even come back.

IMO he's right.

And, I'll just go right ahead and say this isn't a just war as far as I'm concerned. ISIS hasn't actually done anything to the US, there's no meaningful national security risk, and bombing won't actually help our national security. You could make a case for their neighbors going in to fix an unstable situation on their borders, but from a US standpoint this isn't just. We can't just tell the entire rest of the world what to do.

I agree that its not exactly the same as 2003 though. 2003 was even more clear cut. I still know a lot of people who even agree with 2003.

1) The Kurds are "Islamic".
2) ISIS attacked the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting a "just war".
3) We are currently telling the "rest of the world" not to sell weapons to the Kurds.
4) No one here is suggesting that the US expand it's presence over there, especially not sending more US troops.

[Christian Liberty]

I've gone back and forth on the issue but have lately started thinking that perhaps my original position was correct and we should just get out of the Middle East entirely, including air strikes. But I still understand that's simply not a feasible position for Rand to take in a GOP primary. He would probably get less than 10% of the vote if he took that position. I would rather win and water down the message a bit than "stay pure" and get demolished.

Ideally Rand would say whatever he believes. I think its a really fine line if you don't.

[Brett85]

1) The Kurds are "Islamic".
2) ISIS attacked the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting a "just war".
3) We are currently telling the "rest of the world" not to sell weapons to the Kurds.
4) No one here is suggesting that the US expand it's presence over there, especially not sending more US troops.

I think he was talking to me and referring to my support for air strikes against ISIS. I previously took that position because I viewed ISIS as being a threat, but now I see the evidence showing that our bombing of ISIS is merely serving as a recruitment tool for them. So, Ron Paul was right, I was wrong. I'll be honest about that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Mexican cartels make ISIS look like amateurs. They've been videoing their torture regiments from beginning to end and posting them online for years. If that's the standard for intervention the U.S. government should've been in Mexico a decade ago. Americans are such suckers for this stuff. They get so worked up into a frenzy. These groups are masters at pushing buttons.

Now sing along...'Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass. It`s the American way.'

Probably right there. If Rand suggests ending the war on drugs as a way to curb that, will someone accuse him of "intervening" in the internal affairs (wars) of Mexico?

[jjdoyle]

Probably right there. If Rand suggests ending the war on drugs as a way to curb that, will someone accuse him of "intervening" in the internal affairs (wars) of Mexico?

Terrible analogy. If Rand suggested what Ron Paul did, "Just come home.", as a way to curb ISIS, I don't see the issue. Rand Paul suggesting to end the drug "war", would make sense financially. If Rand Paul suggested sending arms to random Mexican states* that have had issues with the drug lords, that would be a problem.

[devil21]

Jordan is presently bombing the crap out of IS.

You don't really believe that, do you? What would a US ally gain by bombing a US intelligence agency controlled force??

Jordan is bombing Syrian infrastructure, if they're really bombing anything at all. Can people please stop acting like 'ISIS' isn't an intelligence agency controlled boogeyman that's sole purpose is to be a cover for Syrian regime change under false pretenses??? Enough with the propaganda!

[TaftFan]

You don't really believe that, do you? What would a US ally gain by bombing a US intelligence agency controlled force??

Jordan is bombing Syrian infrastructure, if they're really bombing anything at all. Can people please stop acting like 'ISIS' isn't an intelligence agency controlled boogeyman that's sole purpose is to be a cover for Syrian regime change under false pretenses??? Enough with the propaganda!

Can you drop the conspiracy bullshit and quit pretending it is? You have a narrative that you want to justify because you are a contrarian.

Leave fantasies for children and holidays.

[AuH20]

Can you drop the conspiracy bullshit and quit pretending it is? You have a narrative that you want to justify because you are a contrarian.

Leave fantasies for children and holidays.

ISIS is most likely seeded with Western money. However, the terrorists and foreign fighters that they are recruiting are the genuine article.

[TaftFan]

ISIS is most likely seeded with Western money. However, the terrorists and foreign fighters that they are recruiting are the genuine article.
Yeah, and that is different from ISIS being a CIA-run scheme and Jordan doing the bidding of U.S./Israel. None of that conspiracy narrative nonsense passes ANY sort of plausibility test, but people WILL believe insane things in order to keep their narrative alive.

[AuH20]

Yeah, and that is different from ISIS being a CIA-run scheme and Jordan doing the bidding of U.S./Israel. None of that conspiracy narrative nonsense passes ANY sort of plausibility test, but people WILL believe insane things in order to keep their narrative alive.

Actually, the so-called conspiracy narrative isn't so far-fetched if you examine Benghazi and the clues left there. But I think that we can both agree that the CIA is not running the day-to-day operations of ISIS.

http://www.agenda-21.co/robert-tosh-plumlee


Here are the questions that currently exist on his Facebook page:

1. Is the United States secretly arming and supporting various factions of the Syrian Rebels with high caliber impact weapons from The United States arsenals?
2. Is the United States little known Direct Commercial Sales Program, also known as ʻ‘The Blue Lantern Report”, being used as a ʻ‘cutoutʼ’ to secretly aid both sides of a Middle Eastern civil war?
3. Is America again playing both sides against the middle for corporate gain as previously demonstrated by the Cuban Project of the fifties and sixties, as well as the Iran Contra fiasco of the eighties and the South American—Mexican Drug Wars of the nineties?
It has been established via some field reports from the Middle East and some isolated media reports that the Direct Commercial Sales Program (DCSP) an American international program, which legally allows the United States to sell weapons to a host of foreign countries without monitoring those weapons after leaving our arsenals, stockpiles, and jurisdiction, has shipped High Impact weapons to Syrian Rebels during the last two years.
4. I have to ask. What happens to those weapons after legally being sold via this program and they leave our control?
5. Are they being monitored, traced, certified, and inventoried after arriving in other countries?
5. Will our troops one day again face these American made weapons on some foreign battlefield?
6. Is this Direct Commercial Sales program a secret cash cow for many US Corporations, International arms merchants, its insiders, or affiliates?
7. Is it possible this could be another ʻ‘off-‐‑the-‐‑booksʼ’ secret covert operation ran by the CIAʼ’s Special Tactical Unit, similar to the Iran-‐‑Contra operations of the eighties and the old Cuban projects of the fifties and sixties, where we supplied both sides weapons and escalated the conflict for personal and corporate gain?
8. Could we be selling and supplying dangerous high impact weapons, while aiding and financing both sides of a Civil War in Syria?
9. Could we be escalating the Middle East conflict either knowingly or unintentionally providing weapons to both sides of the Syrian conflict? These are simple questions. Iʼ’m just asking:
10. Did our Ambassador and others, weeks before they were murdered, notify our State Department and CIA that Syrian Rebels had obtained US Weapons, including “Stinger missiles’ from Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, shipped from CIA safe houses?
11. Were they told to “Stand Down?

[devil21]

Can you drop the conspiracy bullshit and quit pretending it is? You have a narrative that you want to justify because you are a contrarian.

Leave fantasies for children and holidays.

U mad bro?

I'll stop with the 'conspiracy bullshit' as soon as y'all stop with the propaganda.

[devil21]

Solid commentary. Many layers to an onion.

http://www.crescent-online.net/2013/12/bandar-is-no-bilal-he-is-wahshi-abu-dharr-4166-articles.html


Thirty years ago no one in their wildest imagination would have thought that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would become instrumental in destroying Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

[69360]

You don't really believe that, do you? What would a US ally gain by bombing a US intelligence agency controlled force??

Jordan is bombing Syrian infrastructure, if they're really bombing anything at all. Can people please stop acting like 'ISIS' isn't an intelligence agency controlled boogeyman that's sole purpose is to be a cover for Syrian regime change under false pretenses??? Enough with the propaganda!

IS is really controlled by the alien lizard men.

[fatjohn]

If Mitt Romney would have said this during a 2012 debate, Ron would have viciously attacked this philosophy and we would all be cheering Ron for it.

[Peace Piper]

If Mitt Romney would have said this during a 2012 debate, Ron would have viciously attacked this philosophy and we would all be cheering Ron for it.

Truth cuts like a knife

[Peace Piper]

What the fuck has happened to this website?

You ain't seen 'nothin yet.

As 2016 gets closer it will all be about Rand and the Republicans not policy.

[H. E. Panqui]

Brian strawmans: Why do you want to actively prevent the Kurd's of the autonomous Kurdistan Region from defending themselves?

:eek:....:rolleyes:

(..listen up, republicrat warmongers, interventionists, rand paul groupies, etc., I DO NOT WANT THE US GOVERNMENT "ACTIVELY PREVENTING" OR ACTIVELY ASSISTING "THE KURDS" (OR ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT AMERICANS) IN 'DEFENDING THEMSELVES'...

..ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU REPUBLICRAT WARMONGERS, INTERVENTIONISTS AND GROUPIES WOULD LIKE TO START SOME VOLUNTARY, PRIVATE "FOREIGN LEGION" WHEREBY YOU MIGHT BRING JUSTICE TO THE PLANET WITH YOUR HANDS AND WALLET$...GO FOR IT!!! DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!!

...sorry for the yelling but sheesh!!...you republicrats obviously suffer from a tendency towards 'banning anything that isn't mandatory'..RARELY IS THERE AN AREA WHERE YOU REPUBLICRATS DON'T ASSUME GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION...(individual) 'liberty' my arse...also you display a really really stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid naivety when you trust the likes of republic-rats bill and hillary and newt and dubya and harry and nancy and mitch and rand andonandonandonandon to 'bring justice to the planet'...it's pathetic...:(

[Brian4Liberty]

(..listen up, republicrat warmongers, interventionists, rand paul groupies, etc., I DO NOT WANT THE US GOVERNMENT "ACTIVELY PREVENTING" OR ACTIVELY ASSISTING "THE KURDS" (OR ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT AMERICANS) IN 'DEFENDING THEMSELVES'...

..ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU REPUBLICRAT WARMONGERS, INTERVENTIONISTS AND GROUPIES WOULD LIKE TO START SOME VOLUNTARY, PRIVATE "FOREIGN LEGION" WHEREBY YOU MIGHT BRING JUSTICE TO THE PLANET WITH YOUR HANDS AND WALLET$...GO FOR IT!!! DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!!

...sorry for the yelling but sheesh!!...you republicrats obviously suffer from a tendency towards 'banning anything that isn't mandatory'..RARELY IS THERE AN AREA WHERE YOU REPUBLICRATS DON'T ASSUME GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION...(individual) 'liberty' my arse...also you display a really really stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid naivety when you trust the likes of republic-rats bill and hillary and newt and dubya and harry and nancy and mitch and rand andonandonandonandon to 'bring justice to the planet'...it's pathetic...:(

Talk about strawmen. Who are you ranting about? No one here, obviously.

[Brian4Liberty]

Brian strawmans: Why do you want to actively prevent the Kurd's of the autonomous Kurdistan Region from defending themselves?


Let me clarify. Did you know that the U.S. currently is running a global embargo on arms sales to the autonomous Kurdish Region? Rand is suggesting that embargo be lifted. Do you oppose that?

[Brian4Liberty]

Terrible analogy. If Rand suggested what Ron Paul did, "Just come home.", as a way to curb ISIS, I don't see the issue.

You don't see an issue with that? Every neoconservative commentator would instantly screech "isolationist", and that would just be the start. And any chance at the GOP primary would be out the window.


Rand Paul suggesting to end the drug "war", would make sense financially. If Rand Paul suggested sending arms to random Mexican states* that have had issues with the drug lords, that would be a problem.

We already arm and train Mexican states, and then in turn half of them become gangsters. Our policies today are an absolute failure, as they are in Iraq. And "ending the drug war" could be spun as taking funds away from the drug lords, thus "intervention" against them.

[AuH20]

You don't see an issue with that? Every neoconservative commentator would instantly screech "isolationist", and that would just be the start. And any chance at the GOP primary would be out the window.


Forget about the primary. Who rushes to judgement without analyzing the situation? Sure, you can be extremely skeptical about any interventionist proposal, but to cavalierly promote yourself as anti-war or pro-interventionist is foolhardy. I think that's really the issue at hand. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I think it's very telling that Rand is acting as the only mature individual in the room in relation to his counterparts.

[Brian4Liberty]

Actually, the so-called conspiracy narrative isn't so far-fetched if you examine Benghazi and the clues left there. But I think that we can both agree that the CIA is not running the day-to-day operations of ISIS.


And the beauty of Rand's suggestion to allow arms sales to the autonomous Kurdish Region is that it doesn't matter how little or how much the CIA was involved in creating ISIS. Who is going to complain? ;)

[Brett85]

Brian strawmans: Why do you want to actively prevent the Kurd's of the autonomous Kurdistan Region from defending themselves?

:eek:....:rolleyes:

(..listen up, republicrat warmongers, interventionists, rand paul groupies, etc., I DO NOT WANT THE US GOVERNMENT "ACTIVELY PREVENTING" OR ACTIVELY ASSISTING "THE KURDS" (OR ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT AMERICANS) IN 'DEFENDING THEMSELVES'...

..ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU REPUBLICRAT WARMONGERS, INTERVENTIONISTS AND GROUPIES WOULD LIKE TO START SOME VOLUNTARY, PRIVATE "FOREIGN LEGION" WHEREBY YOU MIGHT BRING JUSTICE TO THE PLANET WITH YOUR HANDS AND WALLET$...GO FOR IT!!! DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!!

...sorry for the yelling but sheesh!!...you republicrats obviously suffer from a tendency towards 'banning anything that isn't mandatory'..RARELY IS THERE AN AREA WHERE YOU REPUBLICRATS DON'T ASSUME GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION...(individual) 'liberty' my arse...also you display a really really stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid naivety when you trust the likes of republic-rats bill and hillary and newt and dubya and harry and nancy and mitch and rand andonandonandonandon to 'bring justice to the planet'...it's pathetic...:(


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHOQAT0-Mk

[Brian4Liberty]

Forget about the primary. Who rushes to judgement without analyzing the situation? Sure, you can be extremely skeptical about any interventionist proposal, but to cavalierly promote yourself as anti-war or pro-interventionist is foolhardy. I think that's really the issue at hand. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I think it's very telling that Rand is acting as the only mature individual in the room in relation to his counterparts.

Oh yeah, it's about much more than running in the GOP primary. His ideas on this are worth exploring, and no one else is bringing them up.

The part highlighted below is very important as far as something that will actually work in the long run, IMHO...


Rand is playing chess. You are correct, the options being pushed right now by nearly everyone (leftist and neoconservative Marxists) is Team America to the rescue, send in our troops, damn the cost, damn the lives lost, damn the futility, damn the counter-productivity, damn that the fact that it is a temporary band-aid.

If Rand wants to oppose that, he has to present another option. Despite the angst this may cause in some purists, Rand can not say "let's turn away and do nothing". The neoconservative and leftist spin that would generate should be blatantly obvious.

Rand is proposing allowing some undefined amount of better weapons and armor be delivered to the Kurds who live there, who are fighting today, and who will stay there forever to maintain whatever order they can. They will not be abandoning the area like the Shiite central Iraqi government forces did, and they will not leave like America will eventually have to. It also supports the premise that the Kurds have a right to defend themselves from attack. If someone has a better move than that, they should run for office and propose it.

[orenbus]

Interesting answer from an interview with Rand Paul from October/November of last year where the topic of the Kurds came up as a part of a solution to the ISIS issue in Iraq along with the suggestion that the Iraqi government be more inclusive of Sunnis.

http://www.newsweek.com/rand-paul-isis-benghazi-and-bringing-us-troops-home-290947?piano_d=1


"The other thing that could dramatically change the situation on the ground and lessen the risk of ISIS—to our consulate as well as to our embassy—would be to see if we could be part of facilitating a peace agreement between the Kurds and the Turks. The main thing that prevents the Turks from being involved—and they could be involved in a big way—is that they're not sure who they dislike worse; in fact, they probably dislike the Kurds worse than they dislike ISIS.

So they're watching things unfold on their border because the people in those towns on the border have been fighting them for 70 years, trying to take Turkish land and make it into a Kurdish homeland. I think there is a possibility for there being a Kurdish homeland as part of Iraq. If that were to happen, and we were to support it, you might find that the Turkish Kurds would maybe be interested in a peace deal that would allow them, the Turks, to be more helpful.

None of this is easy, but I think there is a role for America to be involved with trying to help find a negotiated end or settlement that involves people who live there doing more to try to fix the problem."

[orenbus]

Ok here is something I briefly mentioned the other day but haven't really dug into; say we are talking about the Peshmerga Kurds in Iraq (forces of the autonomous Kurdish Region) getting arms the U.S. would be providing from those arms scheduled to be destroyed in Afghanistan as Rand mentioned or through some other means of providing them, what if those arms are then given by the Peshmerga to the YPG/YPJ or PKK after ISIS is removed from Iraq or even before then to help their fellow Kurds with the fight? Do we need to consider that possibility that as a result these actions may be a potential threat to Turkey, or is it something we really don't need to concern ourselves with as only our own national security considerations should be the priority regardless, as currently this may be the best way to deal with ISIS right now, and anything beyond that are distant considerations if at all?

What I've been reading its unclear if the current ultimate goal of the Kurds (depending on what country you are talking about) is to have a independent state and even if not the perception of other citizens in the countries and how they treat Kurds based on paranoia of a potential Kurdish state and resulting in imposing draconian laws on the Kurds adds to the complexity. Even the PKK as recently as this past year has declared a "cease-fire" and is no longer seeking an independent Kurdish state in Turkey, and yet from what I've read the Turks in the last couple of months has bombed PKK positions in Iraq while they fight ISIS. Should we even care about this? For example in a Turkish opinion poll (http://arsiv.setav.org/Ups/dosya/8504.pdf), 59% of self-identified Kurds in Turkey think that Kurds in Turkey do not seek a separate state (while 71.3% of self-identified Turks think they do). Regardless of whether the arms we provide may not ultimately be used in a fight for an independent Kurdistan they still could be used in revenge based internal war for Kurdish rights as they see them, if the respective states so decide to treat the Kurds differently or not in consideration of their cultural differences as they've done in the past.

Rand says in the Fox News interview the following;


"The Kurds are the best fighters over there. I think we really need to incorporate them and give them the goal of a homeland and I think they’ll be even more fierce fighters."

When he mentions "the goal of a homeland" is that suggesting the idea that the Kurds in Iraq should officially be allowed to break off from Iraq (if they choose to) and have their own independent state or is the idea that Iraq would recognize the Kurdish controlled areas as still being a part of Iraq but somehow having a hybrid governing relationship with the rest of the state? Also I'm a bit unclear here, in general, on if the U.S. has completely handed over sovereignty to the new Iraq government and/or how closely they do what the U.S. tells them to do in terms of the governing of their state in areas they currently have control? For example flow of "foreign" arms, assigning territories to be recognized by groups such as the Kurds within different parts of the country etc., I would imagine we have a lot of influence but can the Iraqis say no and if they do what happens then?

There are a few other considerations, but will post them up later.

Also btw here are some videos I was recently watching regarding Peshmerga Kurds being allowed to travel through Turkey to help the YPG/YPJ and FSA with laying down artillery fire in support of the fight for Kobani so to say that the Iraqi Kurds and Syrian Kurds do not work together or have a working relationship would be incorrect. The Peshmerga were allowed to travel through/near the Turkish border and one has to believe based on Kerry's comments and the comments of the previous video I posted with the interview of the Turkish ambassador to Nato, this permission most likely came at the urging of the U.S. to make sure ISIS did not win Kobani which U.S. fighter planes helped with fire support and supply drops of arms to the Syrian Kurds. Also there is an opinion video below I don't agree with all his opinions or the opinions in some of these other videos still interesting concepts are touched on.

En route for Syria: Kurdish Peshmerga forces arrive in Turkey
Oct 29, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnep3zjZj8Y

Kerry acknowledges Turkish concerns over peshmerga
Oct 20, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLohLD2MrQ

Turkey Allows Kurdish Military Peshmerga To Transit Through - Morris
Oct 21, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IetmbOOwnng

Documentary of the PKK and Turkey, compelling interview at 5:35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FaRv5Zis7s

[idiom]

If the goal isn't a Kurdish home state, then its criminal to support them because that is their obvious goal, and the US would be leading them on, into their doom.

There isn't a clean way to be a 'little bit involved'.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
When he mentions "the goal of a homeland" is that suggesting the idea that the Kurds in Iraq should officially be allowed to break off from Iraq (if they choose to) and have their own independent state or is the idea that Iraq would recognize the Kurdish controlled areas as still being a part of Iraq but somehow having a hybrid governing relationship with the rest of the state?...


The "hybrid" idea of a semi-autonomous region was in place while Saddam was still there. They have essentially governed themselves since then. And once the Shiite Iraqis fled northern Iraq, the farce was over, they were functionally independent. What we have now is the stubbornness of outsiders (like the U.S. and Turkey) that want to force them to remain "united" with the Shiite south.

They should become their own nation. The globalists and game players don't want it. Now breaking Kosovo away from Serbia was what they wanted, and they got that.

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHOQAT0-Mk

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.

[69360]

If the goal isn't a Kurdish home state, then its criminal to support them because that is their obvious goal, and the US would be leading them on, into their doom.

There isn't a clean way to be a 'little bit involved'.

That is exactly what the US did to the Kurds both after the gulf war and after and during the Iraq war.

The precedent is there for it to happen again.

It amazes me the Kurds are still an ally after how hard they have been screwed.

[jmdrake]

Hmm video I didn't see back in October it shows an American, Brian Wilson from Ohio, a veteran from the first Gulf War, fighting along side the YPG (which Turkey considers a Terrorist Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava#Foreign_relations)) in Syria at 3:15.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI4_CFXlxzY

A few interesting notes as well:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava#Foreign_relations

And ^that is how it should be handled. Individual Americans who want to go fight alongside the Kurds should be encouraged to do so and other individuals should raise money to help them.

[H. E. Panqui]

Brian4intervention queries: Did you know that the U.S. currently is running a global embargo on arms sales to the autonomous Kurdish Region?


(...yes and i'd like to extend that 'embargo' (of government) to everyone else...especially ?your warmongering iZraelis...but in a free society you, traditionalrepublican, rand paul, glenn beck, the tea party, hillary clinton, etc., would be free to 'arm the Kurds' to your hearts and wallet$ delight!... ...btw, thanks for the neg. rep...and the 'get your facts straight' comment..:rolleyes:

Idiom writes: 'If the goal isn't a Kurdish home state, then its criminal to support them because that is their obvious goal, and the US would be leading them on, into their doom. There isn't a clean way to be a 'little bit involved'


(...even though the radio republicrats are just learning to spell 'peshmerga' they have it all figured out...:rolleyes:....their republicrat leaders know exactly what to do with our money, lives, resources, etc..they know exactly who to give the arms to because they are geniuses at stuff like that...they know exactly how the rest of the planet should be because they are very 'nuanced thinkers'...they possess unsurpassed game theory knowledge taught to them by Georgetown and Haaaavaad University professors...don't even try to out-think or contradict them because they are just soooooo smart!..:rolleyes:

..In all sincerity, I wish these big government Republicrats would remove their craniums from their sphincters and consider that US intervention undermines the authenticity of foreign struggles for justice...MIND YOUR BUSINESS, REPUBLICRATS!.. (btw, did you know that the first US coins from the mint bore the inscription, 'MIND YOUR BUSINESS'...now 'in god [and republicrats] you trust'.. ;)

[orenbus]

FYI 2-3 weeks ago there was a anti-ISIS meeting in London, to discuss how to deal with ISIS in Iraq, where the head of the Kurds wasn't invited yet the the Iraq government was. The president of the Kurds took it as an offense considering the Kurds role in beating back ISIS in region, the U.S. state department responded in a press conference, video below.



Barzani: Kurds expected invitation to London anti-ISIS conference
http://rudaw.net/ContentFiles/98884Image1.jpg

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—The Kurdish President Masoud Barzani said he was disappointed that the Kurdistan Region was not invited to the anti-ISIS coalition conference in London where on Thursday world leaders pledged to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS).

“I express my and Kurdistan people’s disappointment with the organizers of this conference and it is unfortunate that the people of Kurdistan do the sacrifice and the credit goes to others,” said Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani in a statement.

Leaders of 21 coalition states gathered in London to stress their commitment against ISIS and the impact coalition air strikes have made against the radical group.

Barzani said that Kurdistan was leading the war against ISIS and it deserved to be present in such meetings.

“The people of Kurdistan bear the brunt of this situation and no country or party can represent or truly convey their voice in international gatherings,” he said.

The Kurdish president said that the Peshmerga “are the most effective force countering global terrorism today,”

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was at the conference where he told the coalition leaders that the Iraqi army need more weapons in its fight against ISIS.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said that air strikes had killed about half of the ISIS leaders in the last five months.

The London conference was held a day after Kurdish Peshmerga forces launched a major offensive against ISIS west of Mosul where they killed 200 militants and took tens of square miles of territory from the radical group.

http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/23012015


This was the state department's response to Barzani:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyptT3R7aZk

Interview with NBC News and follow up comments by John Kerry (at least to me it seems Kerry here is telegraphing the strategy which is to let the fight take longer to achieve a specific outcome, it's not just about defeating ISIS. /smh)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnvcV3P8oHU

Son of the president of the Kurd controlled northern Iraq in this interview talks about a confederation within Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5a2K7bue4

[orenbus]

A couple more interviews with Masrour Barzani head of Kurdistan security council and son of the President of Kurd controlled Iraq.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S80-s2fQJHk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY1hzA5TiiY

[kcchiefs6465]

Whoever wants to arm the Kurds should arm the Kurds. The US government should not be arming anyone, nor supplying air support, nor having boots on the ground (that is, ceasing all of the above and removing the largely 'unseen' troops on the ground).

It's pretty simple.

Them arming 'A,' 'B,' or 'C' under the banner of every one, no matter their political or moral inclinations, is obviously wrong, and considering how many times they obviously get it wrong, not to mention them funding and promoting many of these insurrections and pimpings of states, one would be wise to at least not wish to be associated with it... if for nothing else, there might be a God. Aside from that, they are stealing from people who wish not to fund such predictable disasters. They're making 'terrorists' at about the ratio of them killing one That is, you know, 29 to 1. With any understanding of human nature, one could say it is also extrapolating exponentially.

The only good thing would be the ending of the AUMF 2001. Not that they haven't set the precedent for practically anything (I mean, for decades upon decades but just in general right now)... as well as redefining words on whim or political and criminal convenience.

(on their hit list... though really, half those people certainly aren't a threat to anyone and the other half wouldn't have much thought twice about the United States had the United States not pursued the incredible foreign policy that they did).

[orenbus]

And ^that is how it should be handled. Individual Americans who want to go fight alongside the Kurds should be encouraged to do so and other individuals should raise money to help them.


Here are a few others:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUkP_C_fkB8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8eN46Ryt8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n-HzUTEoZc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJG3UG4dcmE

[Christian Liberty]

1) The Kurds are "Islamic".
2) ISIS attacked the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting a "just war".
3) We are currently telling the "rest of the world" not to sell weapons to the Kurds.
4) No one here is suggesting that the US expand it's presence over there, especially not sending more US troops.

TC is right that I was referring to his support for the airstrikes in the past. I agree that the Kurds are fighting a just war.


Yeah, that's true. I wasn't talking about arming the Kurds. I was talking about my previous support for military action against ISIS and that I was probably incorrect on that. All indications are that the air strikes aren't working, that ISIS keeps growing despite our air strikes. I'm also not willing to go the extra step of sending ground troops into the region. We can't afford more trillion dollar wars overseas. I'm in favor of arming the Kurds but no longer believe the air strikes are a good idea.

I don't think the US should just give money to the Kurds because I don't think taxpayers should be forced to pay for that against their will. I'm all for encouraging people to voluntarily donate money or weapons to the Kurds. I'm also all for letting people sell weapons to the Kurds.

[Brian4Liberty]

Brian4intervention queries: Did you know that the U.S. currently is running a global embargo on arms sales to the autonomous Kurdish Region?

(...yes and i'd like to extend that 'embargo' (of government) to everyone else...especially ?your warmongering iZraelis...but in a free society you, traditionalrepublican, rand paul, glenn beck, the tea party, hillary clinton, etc., would be free to 'arm the Kurds' to your hearts and wallet$ delight!... ...btw, thanks for the neg. rep...and the 'get your facts straight' comment..:rolleyes:


So, you want the U.S. to continue to pressure the rest of the world to not sell arms to the Kurds? No doubt that embargo extends to each and every one of us, with severe penalties. So that's what you want? The Kurds could consider that an act of war against them, if they were so inclined. But hey, if we can just eliminate all guns, then there would not be any killing either.

And congrats on the neg rep. They are few and far between. You are special.

[orenbus]

In somewhat related news today ISIS sent in some probe fighters to an airbase in western Iraq where 300-400 American soldiers are currently stationed. The ISIS fighters wearing stolen Iraq soldier uniforms were killed near the perimeter of the base, it's possible this may have been a probe to a future assault on a base that regularly receives mortar rounds. In the past 24 hours as a part of their advance ISIS fighters have been able to take over a town just nine miles away from the base.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpkTq8TVlqc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDZsrvYRk-U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2uRTg4_DAY

[orenbus]

Recent video of PKK younger members in Turkey with conflicting information, was just posted yesterday.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwe4msjHCXs

[orenbus]

Recent video of the Shia Militias fighting against the Islamic State in Iraq.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pEZcCJIKkg

[PaleoPaul]

If your best friend was being mugged every night, would you give him one of your guns to protect himself?

[devil21]

Vice News is a propaganda outlet. I don't trust anything started by Bill Maher.

[Ralph Coffman]

AMERICA HAS BEEN UNDER A SYSTEMIC ATTACK BY THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION, AKA THE BRITISH EMPIRE. THE INTERNATIONAL GANGSTER BANKSTER CRIME SYNDICATE THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OF THE WORLD'S PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKS AND THEIR DEBT SCRIPT CURRENCY WITH NO RESERVES BACKING IT IS ABOUT TO CRASH. WAR AND TOTAL ANNIALATION FITS IN WITH THEIR STATED GOALS OF DECREASING THE HUMAN POPULATION FROM 7 BILLION TO LESS THAN 1 BILLION. THIS "FINAL SOLUTION" FITS INTO THEIR EUGENIC VISION THAT USES MASS GENOCIDE FOR POPULATION REDUCTION, POPULATION CONTROL, & CONTROL OF POPULATION. "PERFECT"! - https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/britain-to-supply-75-armored-vehicles-for-war-in-ukraine/ We can expose the truth of 9/11, repeal the Patriot Act, disband the DHS, TSA, NDAA, etc., and try these mass murdering war criminals for their crimes against humanity. Get rid of the Traitors, quislings, fifth columnists, and dual-citizenship holders by rescinding their American citizenship and deporting them immediately and barring their reentry forever, then you will have a chance to get those liberties back if you choose wisely -

[H. E. Panqui]

Brian stalls: So, you want the U.S. to continue to pressure the rest of the world to not sell arms to the Kurds? No doubt that embargo extends to each and every one of us, with severe penalties. So that's what you want?

:rolleyes:

(...good grief, brian, i addressed this back on post #165!!!: "(..listen up, republicrat warmongers, interventionists, rand paul groupies, etc., I DO NOT WANT THE US GOVERNMENT "ACTIVELY PREVENTING" OR ACTIVELY ASSISTING "THE KURDS" (OR ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT AMERICANS) IN 'DEFENDING THEMSELVES'.....ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU REPUBLICRAT WARMONGERS, INTERVENTIONISTS AND GROUPIES WOULD LIKE TO START SOME VOLUNTARY, PRIVATE "FOREIGN LEGION" WHEREBY YOU MIGHT BRING JUSTICE TO THE PLANET WITH YOUR HANDS AND WALLET$...GO FOR IT!!! DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!!".......) end quote

:confused: ..why is my position so difficult to understand..please refer to classical libertarianism...stop listening to the bob barr, rand paul, ted cruz, neo-'libertarians!' (i.e. stinking republicans)

...btw, a little reality lesson for those caught up in the dominant and stinking republicrat paradigm whereby your republicrat concepts, world-views, etc., are riddled with 'the fallacy of reification': 'the U.S.'--as brian puts it--does not/can not 'pressure the world' or 'sell arms' or anything else...'the U.S.' is a concept/label and concepts/labels don't 'pressure' anyone...or 'sell' to anyone...you see, brian, only real, living people can 'pressure' and 'sell'...and those real people who will be doing the 'pressuring' and 'selling' are the likes of obomba and clintoon, and dubya and cheney and mitch and rand and their appointed fools ad gd nauseam....

....and when your best defense for this on-going stinking abomination of interventionism goes something like, "if we don't 'do it' (i.e. continue to act like a gd busybody interventionist fool) the media will call us names like 'isolationist''...well, it's pretty obvious you've got a twisted sense of right and wrong here...

..kcchiefs6465 does a great job explaining the standard, honest libertarian position nicely at post #183: "Whoever wants to arm the Kurds should arm the Kurds. The US government should not be arming anyone, nor supplying air support, nor having boots on the ground (that is, ceasing all of the above and removing the largely 'unseen' troops on the ground).


...i will note the 'interventionists', 'republicrats,' etc. here hold an opinion/position MUCH closer to the stinking republican pig warmonger glenn beck..rather than an honest, knowledgeable 'libertarian position'..that ought to tell you that you may be a little twisted, crack-addled ;) etc. ad nauseam..

[orenbus]

Wow talk about taking things out of context CNN here had a whole week to come up with something to talk about regarding the interview and this is what they came up with? They totally missed the larger point which is he was saying we shouldn't go back to U.S. boots on the ground and the larger point of the Kurds, lol who are these people?

Regardless of whether they agree or not with the stances they should at least represent in good faith the arguments being made. Cable news really is the WWF of politics.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUbBVcppKcs

[Saint Vitus]

If your best friend was being mugged every night, would you give him one of your guns to protect himself?

Since when were the Kurds our "best friend?". How long will it be before that "friend" turns its guns towards us. I wonder if Rand Paul would have supported arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets, or arming the Contras?

It would be nice if we still had a leader of this movement that talked about blowback and the hazardous results of meddling in the affairs of foreign nations.

[The Gold Standard]

If your best friend was being mugged every night, would you give him one of your guns to protect himself?

Sure I would. But you know what would be even better? I take one of my guns, point it at you, take your money, and buy my best friend a gun so he can protect himself.

[Brett85]

Sure I would. But you know what would be even better? I take one of my guns, point it at you, take your money, and buy my best friend a gun so he can protect himself.

It seems like this is basically just an anarchist/minarchist debate as your argument leads to the logical conclusion that there shouldn't be any government taxation or spending.

[Brett85]

It would be nice if we still had a leader of this movement that talked about blowback and the hazardous results of meddling in the affairs of foreign nations.

Right, because that strategy has worked out so well in the past.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpXHYtkOS8

[orenbus]

This goes here

/////////////



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7P2aWDoabA
Edit: at 10:30 Rand expands a bit more on thoughts regarding dealing with ISIS through supporting the Kurds and specifically a new Kurd homeland concept he referred to in an earlier Fox News interview. This would mean identifying Kurdistan as it's own nation with land that is currently already controlled by the Kurds in North East Iraq and in addition to lands moving West of the Peshmerga controlled areas all the way into the Northern parts of Syria. This all being conditional on the Kurds located in Turkey giving up fighting the Turks with the hope then that Turkey would also get directly involved in fighting ISIS, presumably in Syria and Iraq, and in conjunction with the Kurds.



http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/rand-paul.jpg
Left to Right: Rabbi Shlomo Gertzulin; Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Shlomo Werdiger, Senator Rand Paul, Rabbi Abba Cohen, Leon Melohn, Senator Ron Johnson, Yati Weinreb

–

Members of Agudath Israel of America’s National Board of Trustees convened in the nation’s capital to meet with Congressional leaders to advocate on issues ranging from the security of Israel, Iran sanctions, the alarming rise of global anti-Semitism, funding for homeland security and the advancement of school choice.

The Mission opened with a private dinner in the U.S. Capitol with Senator Rand Paul (R- KY) member Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Ron Johnson (R- WI) Chairman Homeland Security Committee, and Senator Robert Menendez (D- NJ) ranking member Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Meetings on Capitol Hill were scheduled with key members of the Senate and House. Agudath Israel’s intense legislative advocacy effort comes at a particularly sensitive moment in Washington.

Agudath Israel Board Chairman, Shlomo Werdiger, and Mission Chairman, Leon Melohn, both explained why Agudath Israel trustees came to Washington from across the country. “Crucial decisions will be made at the highest levels of government that may impact the Jewish people for generations to come. It is imperative that we add our voice and relay our deep concern to government leaders.”


http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/285442/exclusive-senator-rand-paul-addresses-agudath-israel-of-america-board-of-trustees-mission-in-us-capitol.html

[Saint Vitus]

Right, because that strategy has worked out so well in the past.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpXHYtkOS8


Non-interventionism has worked out great in the past, no matter what a bunch of bellends from South Carolina think.

[Brett85]

Non-interventionism has worked out great in the past, no matter what a bunch of bellend's from South Carolina think.

In order to get non intervention, or in order to at least get a foreign policy that is less interventionist than what we've had in the past, you have to actually win elections.

[orenbus]

This whole middle-east thing honestly makes my brain want to explode, the more I've delved into all the moving parts, the more complex (and cryptic) the answers to potential solutions become. It's no wonder Regan wrote what he did in his memoirs, makes me think of this.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/757/498/89c.gif

[Ralph Coffman]

Former French minister for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said: ‘’ I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.Naturally, I refused he said. SO WHY IS LONDON/ISRAEL/SAUDIA ARABIA trying to get America to Destroy Syria & Ukraine? I feel like I'm reliving Vietnam all over again!!! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUBWKJ5A_0

[Ralph Coffman]

Former French minister for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said: ‘’ I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.Naturally, I refused he said. SO WHY IS LONDON/ISRAEL/SAUDIA ARABIA trying to get America to Destroy Syria & Ukraine? I feel like I'm reliving Vietnam all over again!!! - Favorite Son soundtrack by CCR - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUBWKJ5A_0 - Roland Dumas TV Interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I

[sylcfh]

If the Kurds defeat ISIS, they'll want independence next.

The phony Iraqi government will fall apart, as Iraq is a fake country to begin with. The Ottoman Turks governed Iraq as three ethnic provinces.

[Brian4Liberty]

If the Kurds defeat ISIS, they'll want independence next.

The phony Iraqi government will fall apart, as Iraq is a fake country to begin with. The Ottoman Turks governed Iraq as three ethnic provinces.

Agree. Although the part of about the phony Iraqi central government falling apart is past tense now. It is over. It is three provinces right now, despite how badly the neocons and progs want to claim a unified Iraq as their victory.

[robert68]

This goes here


...
Edit: at 10:30 Rand expands a bit more on thoughts regarding dealing with ISIS through supporting the Kurds and specifically a new Kurd homeland concept he referred to in an earlier Fox News interview. This would mean identifying Kurdistan as it's own nation with land that is currently already controlled by the Kurds in North East Iraq and in addition to lands moving West of the Peshmerga controlled areas all the way into the Northern parts of Syria. This all being conditional on the Kurds located in Turkey giving up fighting the Turks with the hope then that Turkey would also get directly involved in fighting ISIS, presumably in Syria and Iraq, and in conjunction with the Kurds.

Israel needs oil. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have oil under them. But weapons built with US tax dollars will be needed to protect that territory.

[sylcfh]

Agree. Although the part of about the phony Iraqi central government falling apart is past tense now. It is over. It is three provinces right now, despite how badly the neocons and progs want to claim a unified Iraq as their victory.




We'll arm "rebels" everywhere except Iraq. The "coalition" needs to stay intact.

[Brian4Liberty]

Related:


Irbil, Iraq (CNN) After hours of heavy fighting, Kurdish fighters in Iraq have repelled an assault by ISIS fighters southwest of Irbil, Kurdish officials said.

Kurdish commanders say ISIS fighters had threatened to overrun Kurdish defensive positions in the area for a while, and the two sides were so close that airstrikes were not possible.

But by 3 a.m. local time Wednesday, the Peshmerga had succeeded in forcing ISIS back, allowing airstrikes to begin.

The commanders said about 40 ISIS fighters were killed, and Kurdish forces suffered several casualties. They said airstrikes contributed to the ISIS deaths.

A major assault

ISIS launched the major assault from several directions Tuesday night near the towns of Gwer and Makhmour.

The towns are about 45 kilometers (28 miles) from Irbil, the Kurdish capital.

A CNN team was in the area less than two weeks ago and was told by fighters at the front that ISIS was making almost daily attempts to infiltrate through Kurdish lines, which are strung out along a stretch of the River Zab.

Fortifications are few and far between. Volunteer fighters have very little in the way of weaponry.

In January, nearly 30 Peshmerga fighters were killed in the area by a surprise ISIS attack across the river.

Kurdish fighters battle equipment woes as well as ISIS in northern Iraq

Kurdish officials said they were concerned ISIS fighters would break through their lines. Had that happened, there would be little standing between ISIS and the Kurdish capital.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/middleeast/isis-conflict/