A Republican and a Democratic Senator agree that directly arming Kurds makes them "our boots on the
60 replies, posted
[quote]he United States needs to provide weapons directly to the Kurdish army that is fighting ISIS in Iraq, two senators said Sunday.
Both Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, told on CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" on Sunday that even after a Jordanian pilot was burned alive by the terror organization, they don't want to see the United States send ground troops into the region in addition to its air strikes.
But the United States should provide more military aid to the Arab armies already fighting ISIS on the ground -- especially the Kurds' Peshmerga -- they said.
"What makes no sense whatsoever is the Obama administration is refusing to directly arm the Kurds," Cruz said.[B] "We need to arm the Kurds now, because they are our boots on the ground."[/B]
But Cruz stopped short of calling for U.S. ground troops, saying there are other options that must be tried first.
"In my view, American boots on the ground should always be the last step, and we need to exercise other steps before that," he said. "We have the availability of overwhelming air power, and we have boots on the ground that are ready and eager to fight -- the Peshmerga -- and they lack sufficient tools and equipment to do so."
Kaine said the United States can't do the work that Arab armies and police forces need to do.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/08/politics/isis-ted-cruz-tim-kaine-ground-troops/index.html[/url]
Yes lets arm one of the sides in this multifaceted conflict
This is an infallible plan that has literally never gone wrong ever before ever
[QUOTE=Dermock;47102472]Yes lets arm one of the sides in this multifaceted conflict
This is an infallible plan that has literally never gone wrong ever before ever[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, Kurds aren't burning alive their prisoners.
Isn't that the definition of proxy war?
[QUOTE=MR-X;47102491]Isn't that the definition of proxy war?[/QUOTE]
It's something the US has had a lot of practice in so I'm sure it'll go over just fine.
here we go again!
I presume the end goal of the Kurdish campaign is the formation of a Kurdish state. It'd be interesting to see if arming them would be a tacit endorsement for that state, especially considering the US's relationship with Turkey. It might come back to bite them if a Kurdish State does form carved out of Iraq, Syria and possibly even Turkey. I don't doubt a war would break out in that situation due to resistance from all non-Kurdish sources.
[QUOTE=Dermock;47102472]Yes lets arm one of the sides in this multifaceted conflict
This is an infallible plan that has literally never gone wrong ever before ever[/QUOTE]
Yeah, usually we arm both sides.
[QUOTE=Dermock;47102472]Yes lets arm one of the sides in this multifaceted conflict
This is an infallible plan that has literally never gone wrong ever before ever[/QUOTE]
First of all, the Kurds are a pretty developed nation. (Yes, nation, as in nation. Not, nation-state).
Second, they are the most pro west group you can find in Iraq Iran Syria.
Third, they aren't religious fanatics.
And fourth, they have been giving a lot of hell to ISIS.
[QUOTE=MR-X;47102491]Isn't that the definition of proxy war?[/QUOTE]
Isn't the idea of a proxy war that both factions are being sustained by an outside party?
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;47102524]First of all, the Kurds are a pretty developed nation. (Yes, nation, as in nation. Not, nation-state).
Second, they are the most pro west group you can find in Iraq Iran Syria.
Third, they aren't religious fanatics.
And fourth, they have been giving a lot of hell to ISIS.[/QUOTE]
Just like the last time the US armed "moderates with pro-west views" to fuck with someone they didn't like, right?
This is literally how Osama was billed when it was the anti-soviet jihad. I'll believe it when I see it.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47102554]Isn't the idea of a proxy war that both factions are being sustained by an outside party?[/QUOTE]
Vietnam was a proxy war for the Soviets while the Soviet-Afghan War was a proxy war for the Americans.
It has a fluid definition.
But this is a main reason as to why IS has all those weapons in the first place, all those who funded the Arab spring with weapons ended up indirectly creating the problems we have today.
[QUOTE=Vasili;47102572]But this is a main reason as to why IS has all those weapons in the first place, all those who funded the Arab spring with weapons ended up indirectly creating the problems we have today.[/QUOTE]
Left overs from the Second Gulf War didn't help; if I recall, majority of their equipment came from that initially.
[editline]8th February 2015[/editline]
As well as their experience in combat.
I would like to see an internationally recognised Kurdistan happen, but it's probably a pipe dream at the moment since surrounding countries wouldn't want to give up their borders.
[QUOTE=Dermock;47102563]Just like the last time the US armed "moderates with pro-west views" to fuck with someone they didn't like, right?
This is literally how Osama was billed when it was the anti-soviet jihad. I'll believe it when I see it.[/QUOTE]
The main difference being that the Pashtun at that time were a OVER undeveloped nation, and the US gave absolutely 0 fucks after the Soviets were expelled. So yeah, living in a mud hut for over some decades can turn people into extremists.
The Kurds are already a quite developed nation by Middle East standards. Have you seen their capital? That's secular progress bro. And we need to arm that progress.
[QUOTE]But this is a main reason as to why IS has all those weapons in the first place, all those who funded the Arab spring with weapons ended up indirectly creating the problems we have today.
[/QUOTE]
The main main, number 1 reason being the US invading a country with retarded reasons -Still waiting for the WMDs- and being more incompetent than the soviets at puppet regime-ing the country.
[QUOTE=Coffee;47102612]I would like to see an internationally recognised Kurdistan happen, but it's probably a pipe dream at the moment since surrounding countries wouldn't want to give up their borders.[/QUOTE]
could probably carve one out of the chaos that is Iraq and Syria but Turkey would be hella mad.
[QUOTE=Dermock;47102563]Just like the last time the US armed "moderates with pro-west views" to fuck with someone they didn't like, right?
This is literally how Osama was billed when it was the anti-soviet jihad. I'll believe it when I see it.[/QUOTE]
nah osama was billed when we hit it and quit it so pakistan and saudi arabia got to play in the power vacuum
[editline]8th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;47102638]
The main main, number 1 reason being the US invading a country with retarded reasons -Still waiting for the WMDs- and being more incompetent than the soviets at puppet regime-ing the country.[/QUOTE]
we suck at at puppet regimes because we're way more transparent than the USSR/Russia
they're like "get out" and we're like "okay" but then we actually leave and then shit gets fucked
[QUOTE=Jund;47102681]nah osama was billed when we hit it and quit it so pakistan and saudi arabia got to play in the power vacuum
[editline]8th February 2015[/editline]
we suck at at puppet regimes because we're way more transparent than the USSR/Russia
they're like "get out" and we're like "okay" but then we actually leave and then shit gets fucked[/QUOTE]
The Russians DID manage to put up some industries and long although piss shit regimes. The US, being the world superpower, couldn't do jack shit in 10 years and left the place as it was. No wonder that in 2 days ISIS popped up here and there and stormed the whole area.
you're not like "get out", you're like "We don't get anything else as this is becoming too costly in political and financial terms so let's pull the plug here".
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;47102772]The Russians DID manage to put up some industries and long although piss shit regimes. The US, being the world superpower, couldn't do jack shit in 10 years and left the place as it was. No wonder that in 2 days ISIS popped up here and there and stormed the whole area.
you're not like "get out", you're like "We don't get anything else as this is becoming too costly in political and financial terms so let's pull the plug here".[/QUOTE]
The organization that now is known as ISIS actually was formed in 2006 to fight American occupying forces. The name is new, but this organization is almost a decade old.
[editline]8th February 2015[/editline]
That was about the "popped up in 2 days" thing.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;47102520]Yeah, usually we arm both sides.[/QUOTE]
Arming both sides is a lot like playing with yourself.
It might feel good but if you get caught, it's super awkward.
The Kurds are good people; very liberal and a lot more like people in the West... but the Mujahideen didn't seem like they would ever be problematic either.
Granted the Kurds seem more promising than the Mujahideen, but things can always change in the Middle East.
The Kurds have proven themselves over decades to prove themselves to be pro western and reasonably trustworthy. They are stable and have remained stable even under extreme duress. They are culturally compatible with the West. Arming them is probably reasonably low in cost and could solidify our alliance.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47102887]The Kurds have proven themselves over decades to prove themselves to be pro western and reasonably trustworthy. They are stable and have remained stable even under extreme duress. They are culturally compatible with the West. Arming them is probably reasonably low in cost and could solidify our alliance.[/QUOTE]
I feel like the only reason we haven't by now is because of how massively pissed off everyone around them would be if we did it
[QUOTE=GunFox;47102887]The Kurds have proven themselves over decades to prove themselves to be pro western and reasonably trustworthy. They are stable and have remained stable even under extreme duress. They are culturally compatible with the West. Arming them is probably reasonably low in cost and could solidify our alliance.[/QUOTE]
My hope is that they get armed and establish are relatively free state and nothing bad happens after that. I really am cheering for them. But I'm still concerned that there will be unintended consequences given how things usually go.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47102818]The organization that now is known as ISIS actually was formed in 2006 to fight American occupying forces. The name is new, but this organization is almost a decade old.
[editline]8th February 2015[/editline]
That was about the "popped up in 2 days" thing.[/QUOTE]
I know
I mean the sucess and how it appeared from one day to another on the media. All I knew is that the US pulled out of Iraq and the next minute I heard a group called ISIS seized like half Iraq
[QUOTE=Jund;47102936]I feel like the only reason we haven't by now is because of how massively pissed off everyone around them would be if we did it[/QUOTE]
If we do, I hope we do it in the most covert way possible. Any Western presence needs to be ghostly.
[QUOTE=Coffee;47102612]I would like to see an internationally recognised Kurdistan happen, but it's probably a pipe dream at the moment since surrounding countries wouldn't want to give up their borders.[/QUOTE]
shit, let's give em Florida
[QUOTE=Jund;47102936]I feel like the only reason we haven't by now is because of how massively pissed off everyone around them would be if we did it[/QUOTE]
The Germans gave Milans, G3, G36, and a lot of ammo
Nobody complained, because its fine.
The Kurds are not the Mujahideen
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
