Turkey, U.S. sign deal to train and equip Syrian opposition

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-u-sign-deal-train-equip-syrian-opposition-184828671.html

(Reuters) - The United States and Turkey have signed an agreement to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition fighters, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday.

The U.S. military has said it is planning to send more than 400 troops, including special operations forces, to train Syrian moderates at sites outside Syria as part of the fight against Islamic State militants.

"The agreement was signed by the foreign ministry undersecretary and the U.S. ambassador," the official told Reuters.

U.S. officials have said they plan to train about 5,000 Syrian fighters a year for three years under the plan. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Turkey, have publicly offered to host training sites.

Turkey hopes the training will also bolster the weakened and divided Syrian opposition in their war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
war·mon·ger
ˈwôrˌməNGɡər/
noun
noun: war-monger
a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.


never ending war, awesome. hope a republican makes it into office in 2016, this way some liberals might once again find their back bone & protest against war.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-u-sign-deal-train-equip-syrian-opposition-184828671.html



war·mon·ger
ˈwôrˌməNGɡər/
noun
noun: war-monger
a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.
Do you realize how much this and most gun-rights people's advocacy of the 2nd Amendment have in common? What you call "warmonger" is the same exact thing, when put against you, is "the right to defend myself".

Additionally, training someone or a group to defend themselves is in no way, shape, or form encouraging or advocating aggression or warfare. If so, then every 2A lover would fall under that same category of warmonger.

Since you advocate gun rights under the 2A, are you a warmonger?

never ending war, awesome. hope a republican makes it into office in 2016, this way some liberals might once again find their back bone & protest against war.
Again, we aren't at war. And also, do you not realize that the past 3 reds who have attempted or won the election for POTUS also has advocated for a never-ending war?

James Hetfield said it perfectly in King Nothing:

Metallica: King Nothing said:
Care for what you wish
Care for what you say
Care for what you wish; you may regret it
Care for what you wish; you just might get it
BL.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,834
Midlife, Midwest
hope a republican makes it into office in 2016, this way some liberals might once again find their back bone & protest against war.
That seems a very roundabout way of getting to where you want to go.

ISIS is operating in Turkey's back yard. Most of the population of Turkey is Muslim. Turkey seems like an excellent partner to have if we are to avoid getting into a wider war against ISIS or elsewhere in the Middle East.

Lastly, without a draft it seems highly unlikely you will ever see massive anti-war demonstrations among young people (or anybody else) here in the United States.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
Do you realize how much this and most gun-rights people's advocacy of the 2nd Amendment have in common? What you call "warmonger" is the same exact thing, when put against you, is "the right to defend myself".

Additionally, training someone or a group to defend themselves is in no way, shape, or form encouraging or advocating aggression or warfare. If so, then every 2A lover would fall under that same category of warmonger.

Since you advocate gun rights under the 2A, are you a warmonger?



Again, we aren't at war. And also, do you not realize that the past 3 reds who have attempted or won the election for POTUS also has advocated for a never-ending war?

James Hetfield said it perfectly in King Nothing:



BL.
what a neat twisting of meanings :rolleyes:

----------

That seems a very roundabout way of getting to where you want to go.

ISIS is operating in Turkey's back yard. Most of the population of Turkey is Muslim. Turkey seems like an excellent partner to have if we are to avoid getting into a wider war against ISIS or elsewhere in the Middle East.

Lastly, without a draft it seems highly unlikely you will ever see massive anti-war demonstrations among young people (or anybody else) here in the United States.
I would really love it if there was a draft, mandatory, no exceptions.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Train and equip what Syrian opposition?

Turkey hates Shi'ite Syria more than they fear ISIS, so I doubt they really care who gets the weapons. And we certainly don't know who are "the good guys."

Obama doesn't have clue one what he is doing. He is the worst foreign policy president in American history, and that includes Dubya.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Obama doesn't have clue one what he is doing. He is the worst foreign policy president in American history, and that includes Dubya.
Not for nothing, but you should read up on William Henry Harrison's foreign policy before stating that Obama, let alone any other POTUS has the worst foreign policy.

BL.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Not for nothing, but you should read up on William Henry Harrison's foreign policy before stating that Obama, let alone any other POTUS has the worst foreign policy.

BL.
Well, maybe ever was a little hyperbolic. More like the worst since LBJ (who, let's be honest, wasn't that bad except for Vietnam.)
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
Train and equip what Syrian opposition?

Turkey hates Shi'ite Syria more than they fear ISIS, so I doubt they really care who gets the weapons. And we certainly don't know who are "the good guys."

Obama doesn't have clue one what he is doing. He is the worst foreign policy president in American history, and that includes Dubya.
terrorist of course.
 

lowendlinux

Contributor
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,309
North Country (way upstate NY)
Do you realize how much this and most gun-rights people's advocacy of the 2nd Amendment have in common? What you call "warmonger" is the same exact thing, when put against you, is "the right to defend myself".

Additionally, training someone or a group to defend themselves is in no way, shape, or form encouraging or advocating aggression or warfare. If so, then every 2A lover would fall under that same category of warmonger.

Since you advocate gun rights under the 2A, are you a warmonger?



Again, we aren't at war. And also, do you not realize that the past 3 reds who have attempted or won the election for POTUS also has advocated for a never-ending war?

James Hetfield said it perfectly in King Nothing:



BL.
I think this verse is more poignant

"And it all crashes down
And you break your crown
And you point your finger
But there's no one around

Just want one thing
Just to play the king
But the castle crumbled
And you've left with just a name"
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Back on topic, especially regarding warmonger, with the definition provided in the OP:

war·mon·ger
ˈwôrˌməNGɡər/
noun
noun: war-monger
a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.
What is the difference between training these people, and boot camp at Ft. Bliss, Ft. Leavenworth, Or Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB for our armed forces? Both are ordered so by a political leader or activist who advocates aggression or warfare, so they both match the above definition. So does that mean that every POTUS we elect is a warmonger? And to extend that, by right, since the people and the electoral college elect the POTUS, does that mean that we, the people of the United States, are all warmongers?

Not trying to twist words, but seeking clarity, because it sounds like statements geared toward the POTUS should also be geared towards everyone else, because it isn't just Obama at this point. that term would describe every POTUS going back to Washington.

BL.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
Back on topic, especially regarding warmonger, with the definition provided in the OP:



What is the difference between training these people, and boot camp at Ft. Bliss, Ft. Leavenworth, Or Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB for our armed forces? Both are ordered so by a political leader or activist who advocates aggression or warfare, so they both match the above definition. So does that mean that every POTUS we elect is a warmonger? And to extend that, by right, since the people and the electoral college elect the POTUS, does that mean that we, the people of the United States, are all warmongers?

Not trying to twist words, but seeking clarity, because it sounds like statements geared toward the POTUS should also be geared towards everyone else, because it isn't just Obama at this point. that term would describe every POTUS going back to Washington.

BL.
first of all, do you agree Obamas actions fit the description?

second.

a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
first of all, do you agree Obamas actions fit the description?
No, I don't. Because by nature of our Constitution by doing this, he is providing for the common defense, just like our armed forces would be providing for that same defense; just as the same as 2A advocates.

All of them are well within the bounds of our laws.

second.

a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups
You left out the other conditional: OR GROUPS. Groups is all inclusive. That would mean everyone, so my question still stands. What is the difference between this, and what we do for training our own armed forces, as both match your definition?

BL.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
If we aren't going to commit, we should just retire from the situation and let the Arabs and Muslims sort it out.

Whoever is left standing, we create trade deals with those people.

Nothing good can come from half-assing GWOT. Go all in, or get all out.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
Can someone explain to me why it’s OK for the US to arm and train Anti Government forces in Syria, but it’s WRONG for Russia to do the same in Ukraine?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
Can someone explain to me why it’s OK for the US to arm and train Anti Government forces in Syria, but it’s WRONG for Russia to do the same in Ukraine?
because Obama can do no wrong, wait, the U.S are the "good" guys, EVERYONE else is a terrorist:eek:

----------

He's authorized training and equipping another nations troops, either for defensive purposes, or to prepare them for a direct offense against ISIS at the behest of the Turkish government.

That's more an act of enabling than it is warmongering.
do you mean terrorist?

----------

1.No, I don't. Because by nature of our Constitution by doing this, he is providing for the common defense, just like our armed forces would be providing for that same defense; just as the same as 2A advocates.

All of them are well within the bounds of our laws.



2.You left out the other conditional: OR GROUPS. Groups is all inclusive. That would mean everyone, so my question still stands. What is the difference between this, and what we do for training our own armed forces, as both match your definition?

BL.
common defense against who? Syria?
2.perhaps you missed the part that addresses other nations. he is using a terrorist group to undermine another nation (Syria), just like he did with Libya.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,834
Midlife, Midwest
Can someone explain to me why it’s OK for the US to arm and train Anti Government forces in Syria, but it’s WRONG for Russia to do the same in Ukraine?
Because Russia (along with Britain, and the USA) signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994.

Basically, in exchange for Ukraine giving up all its nuclear weapons, the other signatories (but basically Russia) agreed not to interfere in Ukraine's internal politics; and to respect the borders of Ukraine as then demarcated.

Thats why.

(And there is no similar document, signed by anyone, agreeing not to interfere in an armed rebellion in Syria.)

If we are to expect any other country to peacefully give up its nuclear weapons (Israel, Pakistan, India?) under similar circumstances in the future - those countries need to have some reassurance that the commitments of countries like the USA and Britain actually mean something.

Sorry for ruining everyone's day with troublesome things like facts.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Can someone explain to me why it’s OK for the US to arm and train Anti Government forces in Syria, but it’s WRONG for Russia to do the same in Ukraine?
In all seriousness, I would much prefer it if the Netherlands would train and equip Kurds in Northeastern Syria and Northern/Northwestern Iraq to defend Kurdish territories against ISIL. You must know someone in der Staten-Generaal you could ask to introduce such a measure.

You do have a good point. Why is that the U.S. always has to do this?


As for your point about Ukraine? Do you think the Russian troops in Ukraine are actually Ukrainian "rebels"?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
Because Russia (along with Britain, and the USA) signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994.

Basically, in exchange for Ukraine giving up all its nuclear weapons, the other signatories (but basically Russia) agreed not to interfere in Ukraine's internal politics; and to respect the borders of Ukraine as then demarcated.

Thats why.

(And there is no similar document, signed by anyone, agreeing not to interfere in an armed rebellion in Syria.)

If we are to expect any other country to peacefully give up its nuclear weapons (Israel, Pakistan, India?) under similar circumstances in the future - those countries need to have some reassurance that the commitments of countries like the USA and Britain actually mean something.

Sorry for ruining everyone's day with troublesome things like facts.
Yeah. They are just to give them up
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,741
I would really love it if there was a draft, mandatory, no exceptions.
Conscription is a really awkward point right now for a few reasons. The main one is that it's applied unequally across both social classes and genders, with many strange edge cases. It's also unlikely that trying to expand it to a more uniform coverage would be politically popular. The only positive I can really see to it is that uniformly applied conscription would make it impossible for people to easily accept any declaration of war outside US borders.