decisions and their underlying motivations exist in a context. his oil comments and the fact that the troops were merely relocated within the middle east directly contradict the 'non-interventionist' narrative, which you seem to have subscribed to at least partially. calling that a straw man is a cheap and transparent cop out.

the same applies to the relation between kurds and americans. had the american empire never messed with the middle east, your statement would make perfect sense: not your fault, not your problem. that is, however, not the case. the kurds were americas most loyal and reliable ally in their fight against a terrorist organisation whose existence is a direct result of failed american foreign policy in the middle east. pretending that was irrelevant is simply ignorant.

i'm all for a withdrawal of ALL american troops from the middle east, and there is obviously no way this could happen in a manner that'll be satisfactory to everyone, but blatantly screwing over the only 'good guys' in that whole mess under the guise of 'non-interventionism', while simultaneously increasing troop presence in neighbouring countries, and protecting 'the oil' but not your allies, is NOT a step in the right direction.

it's mindblowing that people actually buy that..

More straw men. I'm not copping out. I'm just not here to entertain your whims. Your opinions are valid in their own right or in relevant context. But you're barking up the wrong tree. If you quote to argue, please stay on topic and in context of what I actually said. Don't include me in your rants.

This post was edited by NatureNames on Oct 23 2019 08:27pm

that's not possible - fender aka henrich has noticed you and put a virtual golden star on you: aka he's targeted you as an enemy of his personal crusade to re-institute a reich

again, what i provided IS relevant context. it is strictly on topic and relevant because it refutes your assumption about troops being withdrawn from the middle east, and also the rather naive notion that american imperialism was somehow about 'justice for 9/11' - if that was the real motive, america wouldn't cozy up to the saudis...

i get that you don't want to address the points i made since it'd be rather difficult to find even somewhat reasonable arguments against them, but simply pretending they are irrelevant is pretty ridiculous - even if you insist on a very narrow framing in order to exclude as much context as possible.

Israel should be pushed into the sea by Turkey.

Yes, it's ugly and cynical, but it totally makes sense. By sending troops to Saudi-Arabia, Trump is protecting the only ally in the region that really matters. The boom of fracking and shale oil has massively reduced US dependency on Middle Eastern oil, and greatly diminished the strategical value of smaller oil reserves like those in Syria, Iraq or Iran. The shift in US foreign policy, which began under Obama and thus well before Trump, simply reflects this shift in their strategical interests in the region.

Also note the attack on a large Saudi oil field, carried out by Iran, from a few weeks ago. This was an attack which directly threatened American interests, so sending additional US troops to deter the Iranians is a logical reaction. The main difference between Trump and previous US administrations is that Trump is too indifferent or stupid to keep up the sugarcoating of cold-hearted, cynical, self-interested US foreign policy under the guise of "spreading democracy" or "defending human rights".

I made NO such assumption. I made NO such notion. You're making this stuff up.

This is the Straw Man I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Read my original comment carefully. Then read your replies. If you can't see it you are beyond help. My patience on this matter has expired.

This post was edited by NatureNames on Oct 24 2019 02:33am

not just assumptions, you even explicitly stated it. maybe you should read your own posts carefully before you try to bail the conversation because you can't answer my arguments:



so teaching you that the troops are NOT leaving the middle east, that they remain there to 'protect' someone else's oil, and that 9/11 was at best an incident to get the public behind the oil and profit wars that created those terrorists in the first place is hardly a 'straw man' (maybe actually read the articles you link), but rather a direct refutation of your narratives.



and just for the record, i don't know where you're coming from, and it's completely irrelevant. whether you're a genuine anti-interventionist who just doesn't see through the lies that trump tries to sell the world, or if you realise it but simply want to stick to the official script, it really doesn't matter, it doesn't change the facts...

selling the kurds to erdogan / putin / assad while 'protecting' the oil was not a step in the right direction by any stretch of the imagination. it was a massive strategic blunder, undermining america's reputation and reliability even further, and it was yet another clear signal to the world what kind of regimes this administration favours and obeys - not that it was needed...

This post was edited by fender on Oct 24 2019 02:55am

^fender, you actually sound delusional at this point. Consider seeing a psychologist. Good luck to you. Byee!

can't even say this was your worst dodge. you didn't even have to violate the definition of a term for it, just good old ad hom. kk, thx, bye.