A Republican and a Democratic Senator agree that directly arming Kurds makes them "our boots on the - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47102481]On the other hand, Kurds aren't burning alive their prisoners.[/QUOTE] But on the third hand, the Kurds will just escalate the long standing stalemate between them , turkey and Iran with all the guns they will inevitably be stashing once this is all over I mean arming rebels worked out in Afghanistan right?

Yea but this would be a mistake for the US to arm the YPG or the PKK, which are the two Kurdish groups in Syria doing the heavy lifting. If they win, then that means the US is going to have to admit that they armed our future enemies.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47103082]But on the third hand, the Kurds will just escalate the long standing stalemate between them , turkey and Iran with all the guns they will inevitably be stashing once this is all over I mean arming rebels worked out in Afghanistan right?[/QUOTE] Dunno why everyone is assuming this situation is exactly identical to Afghanistan. Believe it or not, the Middle East actually isn't a broken record with the exact same situation happening over and over again.

[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 Kurds have been pro-west and funded by the US and friends for at least 30 years and it hasn't gone wrong (yet). They are pretty much the reason the invasion of Iraq went so smoothly in places.

[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] Kurds have been extremely stable and modern as middle eastern groups go. Kurds have help us Americans whenever possible and have never backed down against groups.

[QUOTE=Jsm;47103146]The Kurds have been pro-west and funded by the US and friends for at least 30 years and it hasn't gone wrong (yet). They are pretty much the reason the invasion of Iraq went so smoothly in places.[/QUOTE] The Iraqi and Iranian kurds have been pro-west, mostly because the US has been funneling them arms and money to counter Hussein and the Iranian government since the 1970s or earlier. Kurds in Turkey and Syria tend to be more hostile to the west because they were promised a Kurdish state following WWI and instead their territory was taken by France and then eventually Turkey. Rather than backing their claim, the west instead recognized Turkey and held onto Syria. Fast forward decades later, and you have the PKK and the PYD- communists and anarchists, for all practical purposes- who have a history of guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and anti-western sentiment- as the primary forces against IS. The YPG and YPJ, the military wings of the PYD, have openly rejected aid from the US-backed FSA and have refused to work in the past with the Iraqi kurds over ideological differences. The Kurds aren't on homogeneous group, they have at least four distinct groups in different nations with internal political struggles and vastly different histories.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47103213']The Iraqi and Iranian kurds have been pro-west, mostly because the US has been funneling them arms and money to counter Hussein and the Iranian government since the 1970s or earlier. Kurds in Turkey and Syria tend to be more hostile to the west because they were promised a Kurdish state following WWI and instead their territory was taken by France and then eventually Turkey. Rather than backing their claim, the west instead recognized Turkey and held onto Syria. Fast forward decades later, and you have the PKK and the PYD- communists and anarchists, for all practical purposes- who have a history of guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and anti-western sentiment- as the primary forces against IS. The YPG and YPJ, the military wings of the PYD, have openly rejected aid from the US-backed FSA and have refused to work in the past with the Iraqi kurds over ideological differences. The Kurds aren't on homogeneous group, they have at least four distinct groups in different nations with internal political struggles and vastly different histories.[/QUOTE] no the kurds are the good guys give them guns to solve the problem

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;47103072]The Germans gave Milans, G3, G36, and a lot of ammo Nobody complained, because its fine. The Kurds are not the Mujahideen[/QUOTE] The difference is that Turkey is one of our few "trustworthy" allies in the area and can really hold that over our heads if we try anything, especially due to Incirlik AB Negative relations will really hurt our power projection

Arming the Kurds would be like arming the Poles during the Industrial era. You'd be doing nothing but pissing off all the regional powers that would have to give up parts of their borders. Although I'm all for it.

I'm all for supporting the Kurds.

[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] Not really, the Kurds have been committed to secularism and democratic values for decades. Osama was always an Islamic extremist, we just used him to further our own agenda.

[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] So was sending military supplies to the Allies in WW1 and WW2 a bad idea, or are you now going to expand on this overly simplistic non-argument?

[QUOTE=catbarf;47103689]So was sending military supplies to the Allies in WW1 and WW2 a bad idea, or are you now going to expand on this overly simplistic non-argument?[/QUOTE] I'm assuming he's most likely referring to the Soviet-Afghan War, in which the US very obviously made bad choices in arming the Mujahidin and then leaving them to fend for themselves following the war's conclusion. Or, if you want to go further back, you could examine various aspects of World War II. The Office of Strategic Services directly armed the Viet Minh and saved Ho Chi Minh, who agreed to fight the Japanese on behalf of the Allies provided that the United States support independence for Indochina at the negotiation tables whenever the war ended. When the war did end, the United States immediately balked and allowed France to reconsolidate its power: this led to the Viet Minh seeking the help of the Soviet Union, who gladly provided them with material and military logistics to drive out the French and create North Vietnam. We all know what happened here. You could also take, for example, Burma. The minority Karen and Kachin ethnic groups supported Allied clandestine operations against the Japanese and the Burmese majority (who, ironically were recruited by the Japanese to drive out the British), also in promise for an independent Karen state following the end of the war. But when the Burmese changed sides and established a nationalist Burmese-controlled state, The United States completely backed out and Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister at the time laughed the Karen out of the room: this led to the infamous 70-year civil war between the Karen and the government. While I also support the Kurds, there is a long history of armed and well-organized groups fighting for these major powers in return for independence (after having sought this for decades or even centuries) and being screwed over by these powers once it's done. I could see why the US would want to be sure they know what they are getting into before committing so openly to the Kurds. In this case, I am under the impression the Kurds will likely seek support in the creation of an independent Kurdistan, which is a pretty reasonable end goal, [I]if[/I] they can get the diplomatic support from others in the region.

[QUOTE=itak365;47103795]I'm assuming he's most likely referring to the Soviet-Afghan War, in which the US very obviously made bad choices in arming the Mujahidin and then leaving them to fend for themselves following the war's conclusion. Or, if you want to go further back, you could examine various aspects of World War II. The Office of Strategic Services directly armed the Viet Minh and saved Ho Chi Minh, who agreed to fight the Japanese on behalf of the Allies provided that the United States support independence for Indochina at the negotiation tables whenever the war ended. When the war did end, the United States immediately balked and allowed France to reconsolidate its power: this led to the Viet Minh seeking the help of the Soviet Union, who gladly provided them with material and military logistics to drive out the French and create North Vietnam. We all know what happened here. You could also take, for example, Burma. The minority Karen and Kachin ethnic groups supported Allied clandestine operations against the Japanese and the Burmese majority (who, ironically were recruited by the Japanese to drive out the British), also in promise for an independent Karen state following the end of the war. But when the Burmese changed sides and established a nationalist Burmese-controlled state, The United States completely backed out and Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister at the time laughed the Karen out of the room: this led to the infamous 70-year civil war between the Karen and the government. While I also support the Kurds, there is a long history of armed and well-organized groups fighting for these major powers in return for independence (after having sought this for decades or even centuries) and being screwed over by these powers once it's done. I could see why the US would want to be sure they know what they are getting into before committing so openly to the Kurds. In this case, I am under the impression the Kurds will likely seek support in the creation of an independent Kurdistan, which is a pretty reasonable end goal, [I]if[/I] they can get the diplomatic support from others in the region.[/QUOTE] Yes, thank you, that's exactly my point. There are cases where arming one faction against another doesn't work out. There are cases where it does. To suggest that it's a bad idea simply because sometimes it has gone badly before is extremely simplistic and just plain wrong. In this case, even if we're looking at it from a perspective of the lesser of two evils, the Kurds win over ISIS by a huge margin.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47103118]Dunno why everyone is assuming this situation is exactly identical to Afghanistan. Believe it or not, the Middle East actually isn't a broken record with the exact same situation happening over and over again.[/QUOTE] no, but the kurds are not exactly liked in the middle east, if they turned around and created a kurdish state (which they probably deserve), it'll be another israel, where everyone around the region will spend the next 50 years condemning, plus it'll hamper any efforts with iran in warming up diplomacy i'm for arming them and giving more support for them, but with that comes a level of responsibility for the future that i don't think our short-sighted politics can really keep up with

I'm for supporting the Kurds but man the track record for this kind of thing is just bad.

It's nice to see a Republican and a Democratic agreeing on something for once.

[QUOTE=itak365;47103795]I'm assuming he's most likely referring to the Soviet-Afghan War, in which the US very obviously made bad choices in arming the Mujahidin and then leaving them to fend for themselves following the war's conclusion. Or, if you want to go further back, you could examine various aspects of World War II. The Office of Strategic Services directly armed the Viet Minh and saved Ho Chi Minh, who agreed to fight the Japanese on behalf of the Allies provided that the United States support independence for Indochina at the negotiation tables whenever the war ended. When the war did end, the United States immediately balked and allowed France to reconsolidate its power: this led to the Viet Minh seeking the help of the Soviet Union, who gladly provided them with material and military logistics to drive out the French and create North Vietnam. We all know what happened here. You could also take, for example, Burma. The minority Karen and Kachin ethnic groups supported Allied clandestine operations against the Japanese and the Burmese majority (who, ironically were recruited by the Japanese to drive out the British), also in promise for an independent Karen state following the end of the war. But when the Burmese changed sides and established a nationalist Burmese-controlled state, The United States completely backed out and Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister at the time laughed the Karen out of the room: this led to the infamous 70-year civil war between the Karen and the government. While I also support the Kurds, there is a long history of armed and well-organized groups fighting for these major powers in return for independence (after having sought this for decades or even centuries) and being screwed over by these powers once it's done. I could see why the US would want to be sure they know what they are getting into before committing so openly to the Kurds. In this case, I am under the impression the Kurds will likely seek support in the creation of an independent Kurdistan, which is a pretty reasonable end goal, [I]if[/I] they can get the diplomatic support from others in the region.[/QUOTE] Here's the issue with all of those examples - the West backed out from giving aid after they were done using them to fight an enemy. All the west has to do for the Kurds is help them stabilize their country when the conflict is over and that can easily be averted.

[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] Don't the Kurds themselves also not want to be a nation state and would rather have stateless communalism as visualised by Murray Bookchin ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/08/why-world-ignoring-revolutionary-kurds-syria-isis[/url]) ?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47104803]Here's the issue with all of those examples - the West backed out from giving aid after they were done using them to fight an enemy. All the west has to do for the Kurds is help them stabilize their country when the conflict is over and that can easily be averted.[/QUOTE] Let's be realistic though, that's not going to happen. Arming the Kurds is a possibility, but giving aid and helping them establish their own state (the logical progression) is a whole new level of commitment that would alienate pretty much all our allies in the region.

codepink said arming the kurds is bad because some kurdish women they talked to said there are enough arms in the region support peace don't arm the kurds!!!

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;47105913]codepink said arming the kurds is bad because some kurdish women they talked to said there are enough arms in the region support peace don't arm the kurds!!![/QUOTE] What Kurdish women? The PKK has had units of elite female fighters for decades.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47105218]Let's be realistic though, that's not going to happen. Arming the Kurds is a possibility, but giving aid and helping them establish their own state (the logical progression) is a whole new level of commitment that would alienate pretty much all our allies in the region.[/QUOTE] Well, Iraq has virtually fallen into the sphere of Iranian influence, no matter how much America tries not to believe it, and Turkey is becoming further from its friends today more than ever. Maybe it's time to get a new friend in town.

[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] there is literally no connection between Osama and the groups armed during the first Afghanistan war. He openly gloated about never having gotten help from the west

So a democrat and a republican agrees to spend more money on weapons, benefitting the military industrial complex. I'm surprised.

[QUOTE=mrpirate;47108030]So a democrat and a republican agrees to spend more money on weapons, benefitting the military industrial complex. I'm surprised.[/QUOTE] Better than agreeing to sending American boots on the ground.

Although, I will say, supporting the rebels in Libya hasn't bitten us in the ass yet.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47108151]Better than agreeing to sending American boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] Yeah because those are the only two choices.

[QUOTE=mrpirate;47115191]Yeah because those are the only two choices.[/QUOTE] Other options being?

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;47104884]Don't the Kurds themselves also not want to be a nation state and would rather have stateless communalism as visualised by Murray Bookchin ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/08/why-world-ignoring-revolutionary-kurds-syria-isis[/url]) ?[/QUOTE] There are anarchist/libertarian socialist factions, such as the PKK and its affiliates. The YPG have an autonomous region established now (Rojava).