General The US getting punked out like a little bitch by Turkey - why not more discussion on this?

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
What happened to MAGA?

The French have never been bent over and spanked like this - at least they fight before they surrendered. I understand some of you cucks will come on here and say something like 'it's in our strategic interests to appease our NATO ally Turkey even if they are attacking our other allies' but then why fuck with them in the first place? Why set yourself up to look so pathetic?

The US has literally fought and prolonged wars over the idea of 'maintaining American prestige', with the rationale that looking weak will have geopolitical consequences. Well, how you could possibly look any weaker than not only refusing to support your ally when attacked and immediately ceasing to arm them, but most importantly of all, not responding to a direct threat from Turkey to attack your own forces if you don't back down?

Bizarrely all the US has responded with is some whimpering to minimize civilian casualties - you don't even have the balls or the sense to throw out some meaningless rhetoric to at least not appear to be such snowflakes. I genuinely can't think of another example where a nation has backed down so quickly and easily, and this is the most powerful economy and military the world has ever seen.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
The U.S. has never had more than a military alliance with the YPG. It's always refused a political alliance because it didn't want to upset Turkey. There aren't any U.S. troops in Afrin and the U.S. didn't want to be forced to pick sides.

There are 2,000 U.S. troops in Manbij. Turkey will not attack that city.
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
conor mcgregor nut hugger said:
The U.S. has never had more than a military alliance with the YPG. It's always refused a political alliance because it didn't want to upset Turkey. There aren't any U.S. troops in Afrin and the U.S. didn't want to be forced to pick sides.

There are 2,000 U.S. troops in Manbij. Turkey will not attack that city.
Click to expand...
A) None of that changes the fact that Turkey has made the US look like their little fuckdoll. I am aware that the US' interest is primarily in Eastern Syria and that fighting Turkey over the Kurds would be foolish - but once you've put yourself in this position, you can do more than just roll over and publicly present your anus. Do you think the US not responding to a direct threat on its troops makes it look strong? This move comes after Erdogan has quietly pushed a narrative that the US was behind the coup attempt against him and has made nice with Russia.

B) I'm betting that you are wrong about Manbij. The US has done nothing so far to signal to Turkey that they are going to do shit to stop them. If they don't attack Manbij, I think it will be because of the inherent cost-benefit equation fighting the Kurds - there is no sensible reason to think the US will step in at this point.
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
M

member 3289

Guest
lordofthepies said:
A) None of that changes the fact that Turkey has made the US look like their little fuckdoll. I am aware that the US' interest is primarily in Eastern Syria and that fighting Turkey over the Kurds would be foolish - but once you've put yourself in this position, you can do more than just roll over and publicly present your anus. Do you think the US not responding to a direct threat on its troops makes it look strong? This move comes after Erdogan has quietly pushed a narrative that the US was behind the coup attempt against him and has made nice with Russia.

B) I'm betting that you are wrong about Manbij. The US has done nothing so far to signal to Turkey that they are going to do shit to stop them. If they don't attack Manbij, I think it will be because of the inherent cost-benefit equation fighting the Kurds - there is no sensible reason to think the US will step in at this point.
Click to expand...
A) The local U.S. commander in Manbij said that U.S. Forces "would defend themselves if attacked". That's as much of a response as you're going to get when the threat is coming from a NATO ally.

Russia controlled the skies over Afrin before the Turks started their assault and pulled all their troops out before the attack began. This was obviously coordinated behind the scenes with Erdogan/Putin. To what end, I don't know.

B) I don't think the Turks attack Manbij as long as there are U.S. troops there, but you might end up being right about the reason. Despite having dominance over the skies, they're not making very much progress in Afrin. They're not fighting ISIS here, they're fighting a highly trained Kurdish militia in the YPG that has the benefit of a mountainous terrain.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
lordofthepies said:
Turkish state media is reporting that the US' response to this threat was to agree to Turkey's demands to cease supporting the Kurds. US has not disputed this claim:

Amid Syria incursion, Turkish state media claims U.S. to stop arming Syrian Kurds
Click to expand...
Throughout most of our military alliance with the YPG, we've only given weapons to "Arab factions" of the SDF and not to the Kurds. I know that's probably bullshit, but it's shown consistent nominal support for Turkey at least.

The direct arming of Kurds only started within the past year when the fight against ISIS in Raqqa was intensifying and the Kurds needed the weapons lest they risk not capturing the city.
 
SongExotic2

SongExotic2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD. #ASSBLOODS
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
42,000
54,202
Turkey are more formidable than recent enemies. Better to let them wipe each other out for a bit.

Once turkey start winning the USA can say
"Hey now. Settle down turkey, it says here you have been committing war crimes"

Turkey will say fuck off.

Then the USA can save the day with the full support of all the losing teams that turkey was whipping.

Win win
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
conor mcgregor nut hugger said:
A) The local U.S. commander in Manbij said that U.S. Forces "would defend themselves if attacked". That's as much of a response as you're going to get when the threat is coming from a NATO ally.

Russia controlled the skies over Afrin before the Turks started their assault and pulled all their troops out before the attack began. This was obviously coordinated behind the scenes with Erdogan/Putin. To what end, I don't know.

B) I don't think the Turks attack Manbij as long as there are U.S. troops there, but you might end up being right about the reason. Despite having dominance over the skies, they're not making very much progress in Afrin. They're not fighting ISIS here, they're fighting a highly trained Kurdish militia in the YPG that has the benefit of a mountainous terrain.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of those comments by the US Colonel and I strongly disagree about that being a sufficient response. It was a generic and weak response if you look at the actual wording and he's not a senior policymaker. The Pentagon's spokesman even flat out avoided any answer on the subject of US troop removal from Manbij when asked. The only action we have seen from a senior administration official is McMaster calling Turkey and seemingly bowing down to their demands.

Considering that none of Turkey, Russia, Syria and Iran want the US to remain in Syria, and the US has just abandoned the ally whose territory it is occupying, I don't see how it has any moves left to make. I do accept that we don't know how Manbij will play out at this point, but the signs aren't looking good for the Kurds.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
lordofthepies said:
I'm aware of those comments by the US Colonel and I strongly disagree about that being a sufficient response. It was a generic and weak response if you look at the actual wording and he's not a senior policymaker. The Pentagon's spokesman even flat out avoided any answer on the subject of US troop removal from Manbij when asked. The only action we have seen from a senior administration official is McMaster calling Turkey and seemingly bowing down to their demands.
Click to expand...
What would be an appropriate response in your opinion?
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
conor mcgregor nut hugger said:
What would be an appropriate response in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Senior general, Pentagon spokesman or senior US policymaker could address threat directly and state that any 'deliberate attack' (leaves some wriggle room) on US forces would result in severe consequences.

Not the local commander vaguely responding by saying that US troops 'have the right to defend themselves' 'if necessary'. I think it should be pretty clear that that is just a generic response to a question about US troops coming under attack being made by someone who is not in a position to determine the actual response to the specific threat.
 
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,719
56,226
lordofthepies said:
You mean the title question?
Click to expand...
Yes. You wanted to know why it isn't being talked about. The reason is that America's hands are tied so the idea of getting a pound of flesh from the Turks is a non starter.

lordofthepies said:
Those are tactical nukes, not strategic nukes by the way. US would not be worried about them in the slightest.
Click to expand...
The U.S. is always worried about Russia.
 
megatherium

megatherium

el rey del mambo
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
10,485
13,272

View: https://youtu.be/_w1bUpaOf7E




Ottoman military bands are thought to be the oldest variety of military marching bands in the world. Though they are often known by the word mahtar (مهتر; mehter in Ottoman Turkish) in the West, that word, properly speaking, refers only to a single musician in the band. In Ottoman, the band was generally known as mehterân, though those bands used in the retinue of a vizier or prince were generally known as mehterhane (مهترخانه, meaning roughly, "a gathering of mehters", the band as a whole is often termed mehter bölüğü ("mehter company [troop]"), mehter takımı ("mehter platoon"). In the West, the band's music is also often called Janissary music because the janissaries formed the core of the bands.
 
Last edited:
Disciplined Galt

Disciplined Galt

Disciplina et Frugalis
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
26,030
30,793
Megaterio Llamas said:

View: https://youtu.be/_w1bUpaOf7E




Ottoman military bands are thought to be the oldest variety of military marching bands in the world. Though they are often known by the word mahtar (مهتر; mehter in Ottoman Turkish) in the West, that word, properly speaking, refers only to a single musician in the band. In Ottoman, the band was generally known as mehterân, though those bands used in the retinue of a vizier or prince were generally known as mehterhane (مهترخانه, meaning roughly, "a gathering of mehters", the band as a whole is often termed mehter bölüğü ("mehter company [troop]"), mehter takımı ("mehter platoon"). In the West, the band's music is also often called Janissary music because the janissaries formed the core of the bands.
Click to expand...
Snapped me right to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom