U.S. Consents to a Turkish Invasion in Syria; Kurdish Forces Call It 'A Stab in the Back'

Plus: Guns, gender discrimination, religious schools, immigrants, and abortion before the Supreme Court; thousands injured in Iraqi protests; and more...

The U.S. will pull back troops from northern Syria to make way for Turkey to take over, the White House announced on Sunday. "Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria," said the White House statement, using awfully euphemistic language for what many are describing as a Turkish invasion undertaken with U.S. consent.

The U.S. military will neither support Turkey's moves nor act against them.

Obviously, those who prefer an endless U.S military presence in the Middle East are upset by this. But even some non-interventionists, such as Justin Logan, have been critical of the Trump administration's actions here, saying the sudden withdrawal fails to give Kurdish and other forces in Syria enough time to prepare to push back against Turkey.

"In eight words: Trump is f**king over Kurdish allies in Syria," tweeted Daniel Drezner.

Kurds say they were acting in good faith working with US on security mechanism but now feel Turkey was just working on reconnaissance the whole time (joint patrols, flights over Rojava, pulling back from the border etc). This has left them incredibly weak as assault looms 2/

— Josie Ensor (@Josiensor) October 7, 2019

The "safe zone" Turkey wants to set up "would effectively extend Turkey's border 30 km into Syria," explains Brett McGurk, a Stanford-based foreign affairs analyst.

The U.S. military has already withdrawn forces from Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain posts in the area, officials said. It's not clear if the U.S. will withdraw troops from northern Syria entirely.

"Syria's Kurds warned on Monday a Turkish military invasion would spark a major ISIL resurgence and vowed to battle Turkey's military," reports Al Jazeera. "The Kurdish-led [Syrian Democratic] force also denounced Washington for the pullout."

Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) spokesman Kino Gabriel told al-Hadath TV:

There were assurances from the United States of America that it would not allow any Turkish military operations against the region. But the [US] statement today was a surprise and we can say that it is a stab in the back for the SDF.

Turkey is not only a NATO member, U.S. ally, and recipient of American aid and arms; it's also a place where Trump has personal business. Many commentators have highlighted a Trump tweet from 2012 announcing the opening of Trump Towers Istanbul:

The man who tweeted this—and who still has business interests in Turkey—was the same man who just unilaterally made a US foreign policy decision to help Turkey's president while abandoning America's Kurdish allies, leaving them to a dire fate. https://t.co/UBrMuYdQzS

— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) October 7, 2019

Here's the White House statement:

(White House)

McGurk objects that the U.S. "is not holding any ISIS detainees" itself. Captured ISIS fighters are being held by the SDF, "which Trump just served up to Turkey."

Trump tweeted more about Syria this morning, in a typically confused mix of facts and garbled braggadocio.

The United States was supposed to be in Syria for 30 days, that was many years ago. We stayed and got deeper and deeper into battle with no aim in sight. When I arrived in Washington, ISIS was running rampant in the area. We quickly defeated 100% of the ISIS Caliphate,…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2019

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), usually one of the biggest Trump sycophants in Congress, has called the move "a disaster in the making." Graham tweeted this morning that "if this plan goes forward," he will sponsor a "Senate resolution opposing and asking for reversal of this decision. Expect it will receive strong bipartisan support."

---

FREE MINDS

Iraq has undergone days of protests, as "large crowds of mostly young Iraqis have poured onto the streets of Baghdad and other cities in an outburst of anger over chronic unemployment, corruption and poor public services, including access to water and electricity," Al Jazeera reported on Saturday.

Along with tear gas, police have also fired water cannon, live rounds and rubber bullets to disperse the rallies, which began on Tuesday when thousands in Baghdad answered a call on social media.

The prime minister "imposed a near-total internet blackout" and a curfew that was lifted Saturday.

Al Jazeera notes: "At least 109 people have now been killed since the unrest began on Tuesday—and more than 6,000 people have been injured."

---

FREE MARKETS

The Supreme Court is back in session today. On the upcoming docket: cases about whether gender identity is covered by laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation; a New York law preventing people from taking legally owned firearms to gun ranges out of the city; a Louisiana law requiring abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals; the Trump administration's changes to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; and Montana's exclusion of religious schools from a state scholarship program.

---

QUICK HITS

• "Increasingly, when Congress and state legislatures enact laws, they leave many of the details to administrative agencies," notes Michael Van Beek at The Hill. "A law they enact often will include an enforcement catch-all, which says that anyone violating any rules created to enforce it is guilty of a crime. But because bureaucrats, not lawmakers, actually determine these rules, they are the ones who decide what is criminal conduct and what is not."
• "Everything We Know About The Bizarre Case Of The Ukrainian 'Orphan' Who May Be An Adult Woman"
• Propaganda throwback:

https://twitter.com/djlavoie/status/1180951197441839109

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

The U.S. military will neither support Turkey's moves nor act against them.

Well, there you go.

[John]

Do you want to go to war with Turkey over Syrian Kurdistan or at best stay in Syria forever to deter Turkey there?

Trump says no and I think he is right about that.

[Don't look at me!]

He is right, but he won’t be allowed to be right.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

That whole area was doomed to become a war zone the minute the previous administration decided to play fuck-fuck games against Assad during the Arab Spring. The irony is that the Syrians have, for the most part, left the Kurds alone since the military pulled out from that region way back in the early days of the ISIS invasions.

If Assad's smart, he'll offer the Kurds a carrot in the form of increased autonomy in that part of Syria, in exchange for allying themselves with him against the Turks and being a buffer state on the border. He doesn't want Turkey moving in there any more than the Kurds do.

[John]

Assad's strategy has always been to attack all of the moderate elements within the opposing side of the civil war with the goal of leaving the world the choice of supporting him or allowing radical Islamists to take over Syria.

So, the fact that Assad has left the Kurds alone is pretty strong evidence that those Kurds are not the nice western loving Kurds of northern Iraq but crazy jihadists. The media being simple minded hacks don't seem to understand that there are different factions among the Kurds and not all of the factions are friendly.

[JFree]

Just utter bullshit from start to finish john.

[John]

No its not. Anyone who knows the first thing about Syria knows that was Assad's strategy.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/26297329?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Occasionally you can say something interesting. But then you turn around and are just shockingly pig ignorant.

[JFree]

The Syrian Civil War is ethnic and tribal. Period. Assad's strategy is 80% about protecting the Alawites (who are Shia). That is his ethnic group and the base of his Army. 20% is about protecting the western cities of Syria - Hama, Homs, Idlib, Aleppo, Damascus - which are, like most cities everywhere, where ethnic/cultural minorities tend to gather and which (like the Alawites) also tend to support any leader of Syria who is somewhat secular or not strongly Sunni Arab. Ethno-religious map of Syria

The 'Arab Spring' (moderate secular types wanting 'democracy'/'accountability) based opposition to Assad arose in those Western parts of Syria. So that is exactly where his army has spent all their time fighting. ISIS came over from Iraq into EASTERN Syria and set up their HQ there at Raqqa. If you look at that map, it becomes very obvious why he wasn't fighting ISIS and trying to 'liberate' Eastern Syria. Cuz you can't get there and protect your flank until AFTER western Syria is secured.

Map also shows why it was the Kurds - NOT the US - who carried the weight of the fight v ISIS. They are not 'Islamists' - FFS - they were the ONLY people in that region fighting ISIS - don't be a stupid piece of shit just because the US is now stabbing them in the back. Russia's only interest is their port in Latakia (middle of Alawite area). Iran's major interest is the Shia connection with Assad and his ability to help support the supply of Shia in Lebanon (Hezbollah). Turkey's opposition to Assad (and broader dislike of Syria) is because the Alawites/minorities also have a significant presence in Turkey in Hatay Province. Turkey's opposition to the Kurds is because a major part of southeast Turkey is populated by Kurds.

This conflict is just example #3,657,458,926 of why the US fails so often in foreign policy. Because we have lazy idiots in charge who can't speak any language, don't understand anything local, and think of everything in either domestic US policy terms or 'our other allies'/'global' terms. And they are always supported by even lazier idiots the moment a conflict can be reduced to USAUSAUSA chant.

[John]

None of what you say is inconsistent with the fact that Assad released all of his radical Islamic prisoners at the start of the war or that he has targeted the secular elements of the resistance to him.

You are lazy and stupid and know one fact and think it explains an entire complex situation. Tribalism explains some of what is going on but it doesn't explain all of it. You are just pulling facts out of your ass without thinking about them.

You are a perfect example of the lazy and stupid thinking that you are accusing me of.

[JFree]

know one fact and think it explains an entire complex situation

No. What I understand is geography and the basic notion of time. Events that happen later are not the cause of events that happened earlier. And wormholes/transporter beams do not exist.

ISIS and the earlier Islamist group (Al Nusra Front) came into Syria - through Iraq initially - well after the Civil War started in Syria. They were mostly foreigner - not Syrians - and were veterans from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Nusra Front did go West to the Aleppo/Idlib area within the first year of the war, joined up with the other rebel groups and quickly proved themselves more capable. And were part of the groups that the US/Europeans (and prob Saudis and Turks) trained. They are exactly who the Syrians have been fighting.

ISIS (virtually all either Iraqi or foreign) came into Syria about two years later - and has had no interest in fighting Assad. They simply filled the power vacuum in eastern Syria - fighting Al Nusra Front (which became Al Qaeda) and taking their eastern areas, declared a caliphate, and welcomed a boatload of foreigners (who then entered Syria thru Turkey) to train for jihad. It is precisely because ISIS has no interest in fighting Assad (their first act after taking over from Al Nusra in eastern Syria was to head back into Iraq) and prefer to use their area to train people for global jihad that they were deemed a threat - to everyone EXCEPT Assad who has other things on his plate that are far more immediate.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

So, the fact that Assad has left the Kurds alone is pretty strong evidence that those Kurds are not the nice western loving Kurds of northern Iraq but crazy jihadists.

I don't think it's necessarily that so much, as the determination that the juice isn't worth the squeeze as long as the US is wandering around there. What a lot of people don't know is that the Kurds have been pretty brutally oppressed by the Syrians for decades, but as the country began falling apart, Assad actually offered them greater rights and autonomy to try and maintain whatever loyalty they might have had.

They turned him down, but it's particularly notable that, when the Syrian military pulled out of the area, they left things largely intact.

[darkflame]

He's right, but at the same time, I have a bad feeling that we just created the next Osama Bin Laden. Like much of what Trump does, the end goal is correct, but the execution could be better.

[grb]

How dare you criticize policy execution by Dear Leader? When dealing with a "very stable genius" like Trump, such worries should be forbidden. After all, Trump reassured everyone today in his finest statesman-like manner (via-tweet):

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)”

If you can't trust Trump after he said that, when can you trust him ?!?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

As if you had any understanding of the situation beyond regurgitating what you heard on NPR, you whisker-biscuit, noodle-armed bitch.

[Rufus The Monocled]

Of course he's right. That they claim to care about the Kurds is bull shit and points to how full of shit they are. They never fucken cared about the Kurds. They were always just convenient pawns in a big boy game.

Did I say full of shit enough this morning?

[John]

You can never say it enough Rufus.

[Rufus The Monocled]

I don't see how the Kurds - as tough a people who deserved some help - getting a country is America's problem. People who think this should be forced to go to each American family and explain why they should sacrifice their sons and daughters for Kurdistan.

And the 'but the Kurds!' angle really grates because they never gave a shit about them in the past.

[John]

The Kurds still have northern Iraq. Why does the US need to go to war to give them part of Syria?

[Rufus The Monocled]

It's beyond asinine. And if Russia 'benefits' from it so be it. Whatever 'benefit' they get is their problem.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The people bitching about this are basically arguing that America needs to maintain a Cold War imperialistic stance. That the left, particularly the neoliberals, are unironically making these claims shows just how insane and bass-ackwards the current timeline has become.

[John]

Max Boot wrote a while back that the US needed to be involved in Syria despite the fact that there is no realistic means for the US to stabilize Syria by being there. He literally argued that the US should spend money and lives to be in Syria while admitting that being there will not bring any stability. His position seemed to be that the US needs to be at war there as an end in itself or that being at war is itself a goal worth pursuing.

It was the craziest thing I have read in a very long time.

[Rufus The Monocled]

I remember Max Boot when he was all over the invasion of Iraq as one of its biggest proponents.

[juris imprudent]

Just about every thought Boot has is crazier than the last one.

[Rufus The Monocled]

Hello.

Oh. NOW the Kurds matter?

It's not like Western allies always screwed them over, right?

Everyone is FULL OF SHIT.

[juris imprudent]

ENB in particular this morning. Oh, Trump has real estate in Turkey, well THAT explains everything!!! FFS, Turkey is a NATO ally - all stop; no further explanation necessary. The Kurds are not an ALLY because they are not a state, they are - in the eyes of the legal (if not nice) sovereign state of Syria - a group of rebel separatists. It would be like the US siding with the Catalonian separatists againt Spain and the EU.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Iraq has undergone days of protests, as "large crowds of mostly young Iraqis have poured onto the streets of Baghdad and other cities in an outburst of anger over chronic unemployment, corruption and poor public services, including access to water and electricity..."

Venezuela would like to take this opportunity to point out that you don't have to be commies (but it helps).

[JesseAz]

So trump is evil if he stays in syria..
And hes evil if he pulls out of Syria...

Wish non interventionists would male up their mind.

[Longtobefree]

Nice typo - - - - - -

[JesseAz]

Most leftists are beta, so I stand by my typo.

[juris imprudent]

So, a war boner, just a less impressive one than Graham sports.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The Supreme Court is back in session today.

Poised for a nice string of cowardly if not outright bad decisions.

[JesseAz]

"On the upcoming docket: cases about whether gender identity is covered by laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation; "

Are there other mental disorders we want protected under unrelated laws? If you want coverage under discrimination laws, petition congress. You have enough idiots on Hollywood to ramp up the pressure. Dont simply ask courts to reinterpret existing laws.

[JesseAz]

It also turns out.. not shockingly... many transgenders regret transitioning. Just as studied from JHU show, gender dysphoria is generally a phase.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/03/experience-i-regret-transitioning

Yet liberals want to chemically castrate and poison kids as young as 8 in their stupor of transgender support.

[John]

You mean allowing kids to permanently mutilate their bodies because they happen to feel a certain way during their childhood ends badly for most of them? Big if true.

Transgenderism is pure insanity

[JesseAz]

There is even a term for the new surge in transition regret. They call it Trendsgender, ie it is now popular to be a trans kid, so many do it for social gain.

[John]

I am sure they do. They are kids. They are not fully developed personalities. It is nothing but child abuse to allow them to make life altering decisions about their bodies for purely psychological reasons. Anyone who thinks this is okay has lost their mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

In many of these cases it isn't even real transgenderism, it's Munchhausen by proxy on the part of their parents.

In elementary school I lost a bet, and had to ride a bicycle around the block in a dress. Thank God that happened in the 1960's, if it was today they'd have had me on an operating table so fast your head would swim.

[Mickey Rat]

I think it has to do with that the courts accepted as a stronger legal argument that sexual orientation was immutable in order to establish rights to same sex marriage, for example (even though now LGTB activists seem to be putting forth orientation as a spectrum since Obergefell is settled). Therefore, gender identity must be considered immutable for the legal arguments, no matter what the science says.

[John]

And yet there is zero scientific evidence of there being any such thing as a "gay gene". Moreover, human experience is filled with examples of people who will for whatever reason have sex with their own sex only to later go back to being straight.

But, the left cause is all about "science".

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

there is zero scientific evidence of there being any such thing as a “gay gene”

There is no 'gay gene', but it is widely known that there are complications during gestation that trigger hormonal changes in a female fetus or do not trigger hormonal changes in a male fetus. Babies can be born with full normal sexual development, but with a brain that has not been encoded for attraction to the opposite sex. Technically it is a birth defect. That is not to suggest that people born such are defective, and it is certainly not a mental illness.

[John]

Show a citation for that because it sounds like complete bunk. If it were true, they could tell if someone was going to be gay at birth and I have never heard that to be the case.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a past president of the American Psychological Association, is a leading motivational expert and an authority on learned helplessness. Dr. Seligman's research has been supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the National Science Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation.

How about this guy? He is a real psychologist who writes about real science and not feel-good bullshit. His book What You Can Change and What You Can't talks about attraction extensively.

And, no, they can't tell at birth because the brain is a complex organ made up of trillions of cells that no one with an iota of intelligence thinks they can decipher on anything other than the most fundamental level.

Unless they start growing human fetuses to study at every stage of development and then allow some to mature to find their sexual preferences, they will never be able to determine exactly when such an event takes place. But it does. We have an the entire history of art, the history of film, and now, an internet full of porn to study to determine what attracts most males. It is consistent enough to determine that there is some level of encoding in the male mind.

[John]

That is just a complex way of saying you can't control your desires. And that is true and has been known forever. To put it in simple terms, I can't stand black licorice and my wife loves the stuff. Neither one of us made a choice to desire or not desire it. It is just how our body functions.

The same is true of sexual attractions. I am straight but very few Asian or black women do much for me. Again, I didn't make that choice. It is just what I find desireable.

So do gays choose to find the same sex attractive? Not anymore than I choose to find the women I find attractive that way. But so what? The whole basis of morality is that we are responsible for our actions and rejecting our base desires. Just because I didn't choose to find lots and lots of women attractive, doesn't make me cheating on my wife with one of them above moral judgement because "I was born that way".

The same is true of being gay. Gays find the same sex attractive. They can't help that anymore than I can help lusting after women other than my wife. Whether they act on that desire is their choice and not something akin to race or sex that they can't choose.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

That is just a complex way of saying you can’t control your desires.

No it's not. That's a pretty straightforward way of saying that despite what some philosophers have speculated throughout history, scientists find that humans are subject to species encoded behavior, i.e., instincts like all other animals and that human sexual behavior is greatly influenced by hormone levels from the very beginning of brain development. It can be true that you can be 'born gay' and also be true that there is no 'gay gene'. There is no reason those 2 conditions need be mutually exclusive.

And just because John and Tulpa haven't heard of something, doesn't exclude it from being widely known. Most people I know who have taken a psychology class in the last 20 years are aware of it.

[Robert]

There does seem to need to be some explanation for the fact that we procreate. We do know that animals have instincts: biologic programming for complex non-learned behavior, like the way bees demonstrate by gesture (oriented on a wall to gravity) the azimuth determined by polarization of sunlight to a food target from home, and on seeing others so gesturing translate that into that azimuth. Instincts have never been proven to exist in humans, but it would be practically impossible to prove their non-existence either. Since it is possible to produce complex behaviors by a combination of learning and neurologically programmed preferences (instinctive but not true instincts) — such as a liking for sweet tastes and a disliking of bitter ones, or a disliking of pain and a liking of orgasm — the existence of human instincts is still an open question. It may be that human procreation is entirely a product of the interplay of culture, experience, and simple preferences, true instincts having been lost long ago.

However, even if that last bit is so, that would leave scope for biologic determinants of some preferences. We know that the degree to which individuals can taste a certain foodstuff usually perceived as aversive (a broccoli component) varies genetically. It may well be that the amount of reinforcing or aversive feedback individuals get from the experience of certain actions leading up to or associated with sexual or social activities differs similarly.

But even if we find out a lot about these influences, it doesn't make sexual activity in any way special compared to political activity or one's liking or disliking of licorice or styles of music. It just happens that there's a lot of attention now to possible biology of male vs. female attraction, because of class consciousness thereon. We could develop class consciousness about attraction to mates of different height too. And the commercial value of a true aphrodisiac would be immense.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Whether they act on that desire is their choice and not something akin to race or sex that they can’t choose.

It is amazing what brain chemistry can do despite your desires. I got sick one time after eating pasta with marinara sauce. It was not the pasta that gave me food poisoning, it was tuna I had eaten the night before. Afterward, despite my conscious mind knowing that my illness had nothing to do with marinara, even the smell of it would make me gag. My brain chemistry was altered from that single incident (I was really really sick) to react to marinara like it was sewage. I was eventually able to extinguish the aversion, but it took years.

The point being that you don't get to choose your brain chemistry. If current theories are valid, your sexual proclivities are as much a part of you as your skin and your sexual organs.

[BLPoG]

(not defending Chuck's specific framing but responding to the general topic)

There are well-known physical and behavioral characteristics that are controlled/influenced by hormone levels during development. They change things by degree or probabilistically, though. It's not an on/off thing from a gene (and most complex characteristics aren't controlled by one gene, anyway).

If you search for information about development and neonatal testosterone levels you'll find plenty on the topic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there's no "gay gene", if there were Darwin would edit it out of the gene pool in a single generation.

There are plenty of "straight" genes, though, and sometimes they get messed up. Even that tends not to result in certain homosexuality, (Again, Darwin.) it just opens the door to environmental influences messing you up, where if you get the normal genes you're going to be straight, and that's pretty much that.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Yet liberals want to chemically castrate and poison kids as young as 8 in their stupor of transgender support.

This is absolutely true and I don't understand the absence of any any logic in support of these policies. Taking the liberal 'gender is fluid' stance at face value, wouldn't counseling children that there is nothing wrong with their bodies be the only viable position? Doesn't performing surgery on children run completely counter to the idea that there is nothing inherently wrong with a girl with a penis or a boy without one or someone with both? If gender doesn't matter, why mutilate a child's body?

Am I missing something here?

[John]

You are not missing anything. The problem is that transgenderism is insane and has no internal logic.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

It's a lot more work for a psychiatrist to convince a child and their Munchausen-by-proxy parents (who are really the primary drivers of this) that their bodies are just fine, than to just give in and prescribe meds and work with the kid's pediatrician to get hormone blockers.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

work with the kid’s pediatrician to get hormone blockers

This is the thing I find most astounding. It is directly in contravention of the Hippocratic oath for a pediatrician to promote the use of drugs and surgery to alter an otherwise fully functioning healthy body. The medical establishment should be outraged that it has even been suggested. Would any doctor be willing to perform surgery on a child with heightened sensitivity to sound who wanted their natural hearing permanently disabled?

[Ron]

My Niece's child cried for three day when she told her three year old he couldn't be an octopus. I'm not talking about halloween he really wanted to be an octopus. this is the problem with genderism kids say the darndest things and parent are taking them seriously or pushing them to be what they cant be for their own ego

[Jerryskids]

Give it time - they're doing wonders with prosthetic limbs and soon enough your niece will not only be able to take her child to a pediatric surgeon and demand his sexual organs be turned inside-out but that the surgeon amputate his arms and graft a half-dozen extra legs on the child. The gills and the ink sac might have to wait a little longer.

[mad.casual]

Are there other mental disorders we want protected under unrelated laws? If you want coverage under discrimination laws, petition congress. You have enough idiots on Hollywood to ramp up the pressure. Dont simply ask courts to reinterpret existing laws.

Jesse, you're being generous. Using the court to brow-beat your opposition *without regard to or even in spite of the text of the law* is how the whole idea work.

Now, even if SCOTUS decides in accordance with the letter of the law, they're an outdated institution staffed by a small collection of originalists chosen by bigots to stand athwart the masses.

Reality? Sensibility? Tractability? Fuck your patriarchy!

[John]

Josie Ensor has made her entire career calling the US war criminals for being involved in Syria. So, now the US pulls out of Syria and Ensor is condemning them for it.

For the record Ensor is a serious babe and I mean a remarkably hot woman. But, what a hack.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Increasingly, when Congress and state legislatures enact laws, they leave many of the details to administrative agencies...

Lobbyists or bureaucrats. Either way, it wasn't going to be lawmakers doing the actual work of details.

[JesseAz]

Baby jeffrey was honestly saying legislative delegation is not a thing in a thread last week. Was hilarious.

[Mike Laursen]

There will be a day when Congressional bills consist of nothing but a set of PowerPoint slides with bullet points and 36-point font.

[Tom Bombadil]

"The U.S. consent to a Turkish invasion in Syria."

"....many are describing as a Turkish invasion undertaken with U.S. consent."

'The U.S. military will neither support Turkey's moves nor act against them."

If the last statement is true, then "consent" is not the correct word to describe this situation.

[Jerryskids]

Wait for the other shoe to drop. Surely The Great Negotiator didn't just give away assent for Turkey to move into Syria for nothing, surely there's an arms sales agreement in there somewhere.

But at any rate, Trump pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria has been another Fantastic Accomplishment™ by our Fantastic President™.

[Don't look at me!]

The prime minister "imposed a near-total internet blackout" and a curfew that was lifted Saturday.
Headlines lifted from the future Harris presidency.

[John]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/rockets-gm-daryl-morey-issues-apology-for-controversial-tweet-about-hong-kong-will-not-be-disciplined-by-the-nba/

So the same league that pulled its all star game out of Charlotte because North Carolina objected to men showering with women in public locker rooms and schools, cannot tolerate one of its owners voicing support for the protesters in Hong Kong. You see the NBA is all about human rights and dignity that way.

And Steve Kerr, Lebron James, and the Lone Star Mouth Greg Popovich are oddly silent on this. They also care about human rights and freedom just so long as doing so allows them to support the Democratic Party and doesn't cost them any money. Brave they are, very brave.

[Sevo]

Steve Kerr is also a well known authority on guns since his dad got shot.
By that token, I'm an authority on cancer; dear old grandma died of it.

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), usually one of the biggest Trump sycophants in Congress, has called the move 'a disaster in the making.'"

I've been saying all along the Republican Party would be better — including on foreign policy — if the early 2000s neocons were still in charge. Maybe Graham is beginning to realize this.

#LibertariansForGraham
#(WhenHesOpposingDrumpfsForeignPolicy)

[JesseAz]

Where does gabbi stand on this?

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

Who's gabbi?

[JesseAz]

Cute nickname for tulsi gabbard

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

Ugh. The only nickname she deserves is Putin's favorite Democrat.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The man who tweeted this—and who still has business interests in Turkey—was the same man who just unilaterally made a US foreign policy decision to help Turkey's president while abandoning America's Kurdish allies, leaving them to a dire fate.

We could always pretend he's extricating the United States for good reason.

[Ken Shultz]

"In eight words: Trump is f**king over Kurdish allies in Syria," tweeted Daniel Drezner."

If you look at Trump's rhetoric regarding "America first", it has often been in regards to foreign policy (rather than immigration or trade). If bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq was not in the best interests of the United States, then we shouldn't do those things.

The people of Iraq probably would have been better off if we had just minded our own business in 2003; regardless, I do not believe we can have a foreign policy as committed to peace as Trump's foreign policy has been and prioritize the interests of the Kurds (or anyone else) over the interests of the United States.

The best reason not to get entangled in foreign quagmires is because doing so is not in the best interests of the United States, and to whatever extent Trump means this when he says, "America first", he's absolutely right.

If Trump continues to pursue his "America first" foreign policy in his second term the way he has in his first, he'll be the most peaceful president we've had since before Ronald Reagan.

[John]

I like the Kurds as much as anyone. But, we do not owe the Kurds staying in Syria forever.

The other thing is that Kurdistan includes huge sections of Iraq and the Kurds are not a single political group. Some Kurds are wonderful allies and very pro Western. Some are bat shit crazy Muslims of the worst order. Turkey isn't going to invade Iraq. Kurds will still have a safe haven and virtual sovereignty behind the green line in Northern Iraq. So, this is hardly the end of the Kurds.

The people saying it is seem to just want the US involved in every conflict for its own sake and regardless of how it advances US interests.

[Ken Shultz]

"The people saying it is seem to just want the US involved in every conflict for its own sake and regardless of how it advances US interests."

Not only that, but from ENB wrote above:

"But even some non-interventionists . . . have been critical of the Trump administration's actions here, saying the sudden withdrawal fails to give Kurdish and other forces in Syria enough time to prepare to push back against Turkey"

That the voices in the media who accuse Trump of abandoning our allies when he tries to pull out of somewhere are often the same voices that condemn our military misadventures is telling.

I can appreciate those who criticize Trump's foreign policy, but I get so tired of seeing people condemn a foreign policy--because it's Trump's foreign policy. It's the same thing with trade policy. So much of the criticism of Trump's trade policy by the Democrats and their sympathizers in the media is about Trump rather than his trade policy. These people are not pro-free trade, and they are not criticizing policy because they disagree with it so much as they'll criticize anything and everything Trump does because he's the one doing it.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Because it has nothing to do with policy or principles and everything to do with limiting their power and influence. At least the mask has come off of Reason revealing them for the "ends justify the means" progressives that they are.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Any reports on whether the Syrian Kurds having been supplying the PKK in Turkey? Because I'd have to think that is against our expressed wishes/demands. While I sympathize with the Turkish Kurds, from what I have read Turkey treats them like shit to put it mildly, but if they are doing that then they don't have much room to complain about USA pulling out of the region. You can't expect the USA to protect you when you enflame a conflict with one our strategic partners.

[John]

They absolutely have been doing that. I think Erdogan is a straight up enemy of the US and the West in general. But, Erdogan being an asshole doesn't mean he can't have a point sometimes. The Kurds have been running a straight up terrorism campaign in Turkey for decades. Even if you are like me and love the Kurds and hate Erdogan, it is pretty hard to say the Turks are not justified and going after the Kurds who are funding terrorism and a separatist campaign within Turkey.

[Ken Shultz]

Especially if we're talking about Syria.

If we were abandoning the Kurdish part of Iraq to the Turks, that would be one thing. But who said the United States was in charge of who controls northern Syria? When did that become our baby?

If there is a Turkish force in Syria to counter Iranian influence in the region, that's better than what we had before from a strategic perspective. One of the good reasons to oppose removing Saddam Hussein from power in both 1991 and 2003 was that Iraq served as a counterweight to Iranian hegemony in the region.

Having removed that counterweight (Iran probably has at least as much influence in Iraq as we do), seeing Turkey step up as a counterweight is probably a good thing from an American strategic perspective.

[Cronut]

There you have it. This isn't about Syria or the Kurds. This is entirely about Iran. US- Turkey relations have been degrading, and Turkey-Iran-Russia relations have been improving. The US needs Turkey to continue to be a strategic partner in the region, and protecting Syrian Kurds is counterproductive to that goal. If we need to go to war with Iran, we need Turkey to cooperate. Unfortunately, that means trading the Kurds, but Trump's goal is and always has been the best interest of the US, and keeping Turkey happy is currently more valuable to the US than the Syrian Kurds.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Unfortunately, that means trading the Kurds

At least you acknowledge that it is unfortunate. I have a good friend who survived the purges of the Hmong in the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Vietnam. He suffered total hearing loss from a bomb blast while both his parents were shot and thrown down the village well.

Leaving allies in an inferior position really sucks, but reality is that the support never improved the situation enough to make a difference. They should not have expected it would be permanent.

[JesseAz]

"the Trump administration's changes to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program"

Reason authors will be hardest hit. The argument against Trump is he cant overturn an executive memo, not even and order, from a previous president. Not a precedent the USSC wants to set.

[Rich]

whether gender identity is covered by laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation

Well, what was "the intent of Congress"? Ima say "no".

[John]

It wasn't the intent on Congress and in no way is consistent with the plain meaning of the words in the statute as they have been understood since the invention of the language. To say that they cover gender identity is to say that courts can change the law to read whatever they want it to read at their discretion. Somehow the principled libertarians who write at reason can't seem to see a problem with that.

[mad.casual]

To say that they cover gender identity is to say that courts can change the law to read whatever they want it to read at their discretion.

Yeah, this is the part that aggravates me the most about it. If this is decided in favor of the CRA covering gender identity, they're effectively removing the need to even invent a term like 'penaltax'. Just look at the bill in a certain light and it can mean whatever you want it to mean. It doesn't even have to make sense. But giving the Nazgul that power because <0.1% of the population feels bad about themselves would be a civil and cultural win for libertarians for some reason.

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

More bad economic news.

Charles Koch current net worth: $59.3 billion

It's impossible to overstate the economic ruin caused by Drumpf's tariffs and immigration restrictions. Our billionaire benefactor's net worth is stagnating below $60 billion, which is a totally unacceptable figure.

#DrumpfRecession
#VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

People under 35 don’t remember the bizarre, saccharine jingoism of the First Gulf War in the early 1990s.

I remember not ever getting a Stormin' Norman card. Loot boxes are the worst.

[John]

The problem with the First Gulf War was that like all the wars the Neocons launched, the US went to war without being honest about or willing to take the measures necessary to win it. There was no just throwing Saddam out of Kuwait. Sure, we could and did do that easy enough. But doing that just left Saddam in power as an implacable enemy who was never going to give in or quit being an enemy and a threat to the region.

Much is made about George H.W. Bush's decision not to push onto Baghdad in January of 1991. As we found out in 2003, he was right to understand that doing that was going to involve a long term occupation and enormous expense. What is not understood is the mistake Bush made by not understanding the implications of that conclusion. That is, if you are unwilling to go to Baghdad and destroy Saddam's regime once and for all, then you are unwilling to do what is necessary to win the war Bush was about to start over Kuwait. And if you are unwilling to do what was necessary to win, and Bush wasn't, then you shouldn't launch the war in the first place.

Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait but in doing so involved the US in a 10 year low intensity war with Iraq that culminated with his son having the choice of either admitting defeat and allowing Saddam back into the international community and to become the threat to stability the first Gulf War was launched to prevent or invading and occupying Iraq, an option George H.W. Bush had wisely concluded was not worth the cost of doing.

In retrospect, the First Gulf War was a mistake. And I say this as someone who at the time supported it. Who cares if Saddam controls so much of the oil supply? What is he going to do with it if not sell it to the West? Drink it? And as bad as Saddam was, it is very hard to make the case that the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti royal families are not just as bad. So again, who cares who rules there?

[Sevo]

"...Who cares if Saddam controls so much of the oil supply? What is he going to do with it if not sell it to the West?..."

After the '73 'adjustment' in oil prices, there was panic among the dull knives (J-school grads) about the Saudis 'owning all the money in the world!!!!!'
Well, they did what anyone with money does; the spent it.

(BTW, I use 'adjustment' non-ironically: Nixon had just closed the gold window, and the Saudis merely changed the price to match the devalued dollar's value in gold)

[John]

The other thing is that Bush had no way of knowing that the future held the fracking revolution that would make the US energy independent from Middle Eastern oil. Had the country known that was coming, there is no way it would have supported going to war over Kuwait.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

If fracking had developed properly back in the late 70s and early 80s when it was seen as the next big thing, I doubt anyone would have given a squirt of piss for what happened in the Middle East in August of 1990. I think it's fairly safe to say that things would look far different there than they are now, and our military might not have so many readiness issues.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I think the answer lies in the fact that when you have an imperial foreign policy (and while we're not an "empire" in the traditional sense, we do use our military to enforce geo-political and economic policies that maintain our influence around the world), you're inevitably going to stick your nose in places where it otherwise doesn't belong, if by not doing so you cause certain degrees of harm to people back home.

If Saddam had been smart and assured the world community that the Iraqis would continue to keep the oil pumping, he or his sons would probably still be parked in Kuwait today.

[John]

And what was the main driver of that imperial policy such as it was? The desire to keep the world stable and secure for international trade. That fact is something that anti interventionist Libertarians are loath to face.

[Atlas_Shrugged]

In retrospect, the First Gulf War was a mistake. And I say this as someone who at the time supported it. Who cares if Saddam controls so much of the oil supply?

John, I think you are very mistaken about this. Why do I say that? Well for starters, the mandate was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, and nothing more than that. We did not have fracking back then, and the US was entirely dependent on middle east oil. Saddam would've broken our economy (and Europe's).

Where I do think you are on to something. Bush the Younger should have left Saddam in power. My observation is American interests are served when we have a 'big bad dictator man' in charge of these countries. More stability, less warfare. Seems counterintuitive, but look at Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and what happened when 'big bad dictator man' was removed: chaos, instability and US involvement. No thanks.

I am glad we are leaving Syria. But frankly, I would kill every Daesh asshole we have imprisoned. Just kill them.

[John]

You are right that the mandate was to just kick them out of Kuwait. And you are also right that invading and occupying would have been very difficult to do given the nature of the actual mandate.

Where I disagree with you is that the conclusion to be made from that is not to invade Kuwait and hope for the best but that we don't have a mandate to win the war and therefore should not enter it.

[Atlas_Shrugged]

John, the war was won when Iraq was ejected from Kuwait. Once Bush the Elder made Persian Gulf I a UN-sponsored war, it changed the rules of the game, somewhat. The US could not just say, "Hey, we are kicking Iraqi ass so good, we might as well go ahead and invade it to knock off Saddam".

A good exchange of views.

[Rufus The Monocled]

It even reached up here. A guy I hung out with at a private prep school (yes, I was naughty) wore an 'Operation Desert Storm' cap all the time. He was hilarious. It offended the Arab exchange students and he just told them to eat shit as he chewed on a toothpick. In fact, he didn't look that different from Dale Gribble.

[Pod]

Federal judge rules Trump must turn over 8 years of tax returns in state criminal hush money investigation.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

He should just ask Maddow, she has the copies.

[Don't look at me!]

Prepare to be disappointed.

[Pod]

And the 2nd circuit granted a stay.

[Sevo]

Are the walls closing in pod?

[Ken Shultz]

Continuing in the vein of foreign policy, it appears that China is abandoning its support of Iran.

"China Pulls Out of Giant Iranian Gas Project"
Exit follows broader Chinese pullback from Islamic Republic amid U.S. pressure"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-pulls-out-of-giant-iranian-gas-project-11570372087?

The Trump administration targeted a number of companies with sanctions for assisting the Iranians, but that's not the only reason China is pulling back from Iran--and may not be the primary reason at all.

When Iran threatens oil shipping out of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, plenty of that oil is bound for China. Sticking it to the Americans and their allies is all fun and games--until the Iranians start threatening Chinese interests.

It should be noted, too, that when the sanctions against Iran went into effect against Iran for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it was at the behest of both Iran and Russia on the UN Security Council. They don't want to see a nuclear armed Iran any more than we do.

Once again, Trump's leadership on a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear ambitions has been pretty amazing. Despite all provocations from Iran, including an attack on our allies in Saudi Arabia, Trump's response has been far more peaceful . . .

Meanwhile, for the sanctions to go away, all Iran needs to do is to come back into compliance with the NPT--just like they were before. Meanwhile, anyone who believes that Iran's missile and nuclear programs are purely peaceful still needs to explain why they're willing to suffer so much pain for so long for just a peaceful program.

[John]

I find it hard to believe that the people behind JCPOA could be as stupid as they appear and were not just taking bribes from Iran or various parties who were going to get rich by trading with Iran once the sanctions were lifted. I don't see how anyone, even people working for Obama were so stupid they thought it would work.

[Ken Shultz]

Take a look at some other things Obama did, though.

The refugees that the Australians were keeping on Manus island and Nauru were so bad, the Red Cross had to stop bringing children there--because the children were being systematically raped by other refugees--which is one of the reasons why the people of Australia were supportive of the Australian government refusing to bring those asylum seekers to Australia and release them into the general population.

Obama agreed to bring them all to the U.S. The only reason that deal was rescinded was because Trump surprisingly won election and shut the deal down before it could be implemented. Why did Obama want to bring that mass of child raping men to the United States?

It's because the best interests of the United States were not his primary concern. Being a progressive is about using the coersive power of the government to force the unwilling to make sacrifices for others. That's what ObamaCare was about--forcing people to sacrifice their quality of care so that he could expand Medicaid. That's what Obama signing onto the Paris Accords was about--trying to make Americans sacrifice their standard of living for the benefit of people living in the Third World who need power. That was what Obama's refugee policy was about . . .

And that's what Obama's deal with the Iranians was about, too. The reason it seems like it must have been corrupt to you is because you're a patriotic American who assumes that government policy should reflect the best interests of the USA. That's part of who you are as an American. I suspect this is also what fed the Brither movement--Obama did not share the assumption that U.S. policy should reflect the best interests of the USA.

In Obama's mind, "America first" is selfish and probably racist. What makes you think your interests are more important than the interests of suffering people in Iran?

The Iran deal was consistent with Obama's other policies. It seems insane to us--until you realize that his top priority was not our interests. Corruption sometimes makes more sense than the truth, but the truth is that Obama cared as much or more about the downtrodden elsewhere in the world than he did about the USA. And the contempt he engendered in the left for their fellow Americans in the Midwest is one legacy of that.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Barry's policies were meant to reward his peers both in the US and outside it, many (mosr) unelected bureaucrats. He had no interest in being an American president and every interest in harnessing the resources of the country under his anational peers. Once you see it in that light it makes perfect sense.

[Juice]

back into compliance with the NPT-just like they were before

Before what?

[Ken Shultz]

Before they started enriching uranium in secret in 2003--in direct violation of the NPT.

"After public allegations about Iran's previously undeclared nuclear activities, the IAEA launched an investigation that concluded in November 2003 that Iran had systematically failed to meet its obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement to report those activities to the IAEA, although it also reported no evidence of links to a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA Board of Governors delayed a formal finding of non-compliance until September 2005, and reported that non-compliance to the UN Security Council in February 2006. After the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the United Nations Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#2002%E2%80%932013

That's what happened, when, and why.

[Fist of Etiquette]

In eight words: Trump is f**king over Kurdish allies in Syria...

He is so over them.

[AlmightyJB]

Kurds are Flounder.

https://youtu.be/JTF2j0OWUi8

[Sevo]

Reality is a bitch, watermelons:

"Big Tech's eco-pledges aren't slowing its pursuit of Big Oil"
[...]
"When Microsoft held an all-staff meeting in September, an employee asked CEO Satya Nadella if it was ethical for the company to be selling its cloud computing services to fossil fuel companies, according to two other Microsoft employees who described the exchange on condition they not be named. Such partnerships, the worker told Nadella, were accelerating the oil companies' greenhouse gas emissions."
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-10-big-tech-eco-pledges-pursuit-oil.html

I hope Nadella told the twit she'd be happy to accept his/her offer of equally profitable business instead.

[Don't look at me!]

Cloud computing accelerates greenhouse gas emissions?

[Rufus The Monocled]

Quite the (accurate in my view) series of Tweets on foreign policy. So crazy he has to be impeached!

"Donald J. Trump
‏ @realDonaldTrump
The United States was supposed to be in Syria for 30 days, that was many years ago. We stayed and got deeper and deeper into battle with no aim in sight. When I arrived in Washington, ISIS was running rampant in the area. We quickly defeated 100% of the ISIS Caliphate,.....
4:40 AM - 7 Oct 2019

Donald J. Trump
‏....including capturing thousands of ISIS fighters, mostly from Europe. But Europe did not want them back, they said you keep them USA! I said “NO, we did you a great favor and now you want us to hold them in U.S. prisons at tremendous cost. They are yours for trials.” They.....

Donald J. Trump
‏.....again said “NO,” thinking, as usual, that the U.S. is always the “sucker,” on NATO, on Trade, on everything. The Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so. They have been fighting Turkey for decades. I held off this fight for....

Donald J. Trump
‏More
....almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. WE WILL FIGHT WHERE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT, AND ONLY FIGHT TO WIN. Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to.....

Donald J. Trump

...figure the situation out, and what they want to do with the captured ISIS fighters in their “neighborhood.” They all hate ISIS, have been enemies for years. We are 7000 miles away and will crush ISIS again if they come anywhere near us!"

Rufus. Verified account: What's the problem?

[Rufus The Monocled]

In keeping with the 'everyone is full of shit' theme, I present:

"Nick Jack Pappas
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Donald Trump is sentencing our allies against ISIS, the Kurds, to death.

His Presidency is killing people.

If you ever wonder why Trump does what he does, ask how it benefits Russia.

Things become clearer after that."

I think Nick is morally broken and literally retarded.

[Don't look at me!]

Never heard of him.

[Rufus The Monocled]

Lol. He's just a commenter and exhibits the faux-intellectual-moral herd mentality of retards.

[Jerryskids]

"Increasingly, when Congress and state legislatures enact laws, they leave many of the details to administrative agencies," notes Michael Van Beek at The Hill.

Surprisingly, Mr. Van Beek was not born last night nor is this a repeat from 1959. Perhaps some day he may discover the definition of The Administrative State and realize that his is far from an original thought.

[Ryan (formally HTT)]

Is anyone at Reason openly embarrassed about your group performance last week concerning the Trump impeachment fan-fiction porn? You've got the sane, anti-war people of the right and left both condemning this as a huge nothingburger, but you clowns insisted that you follow the likes of WaPo and the NY Times fear-mongering narrative.

Ignore the right wingers. When Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, even Kyle fucking Kulinski are out there countering the narrative, and you aren't, it really is time to do some soul searching about what the actual fuck your purpose is.

Now those same people who you hopped on board with impeachment last week are mad that Trump isn't flexing our military might in Syria. Funny how that works, huh? Almost as if there's an establishment going after the president because he refuses to push US imperialism...

Nah, that's all a conspiracy. Don't believe your lying eyes. Keep clowning, clowns

[Rufus The Monocled]

Reason staff are invited to progressive cocktail parties to be pranked.

Hello.

Nick last week called Trump a 'simpleton'.

Yeh sure. Whatever.

[John]

When something is so ridiculous Matt Tiabi can figure out it is bullshit but you can't, you have a problem.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Taibbi is basically arguing that this is the intel community, working with the implicit and explicit approval of the Democratic party, to try and get Trump removed by whatever means they deem necessary.

As I pointed out a couple days ago, Schumer flat-out admitted that the CIA would try to make Trump's life miserable. At this point, given their track record, why should people take anything they have to say at face value?

[John]

Never again. And why shouldn't the country demand all of these organizations be destroyed? They have become a bigger threat to the country than the enemies from whom they are supposed to protect us.

[Jerryskids]

"Just signed 702 Bill to reauthorize foreign intelligence collection. This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election. I will always do the right thing for our country and put the safety of the American people first!"

You must have voted for Hillary.

[John]

No. That doesn't even follow. Just because Trump isn't going to destroy them doesn't mean I don't or that Hillary does. Moreover, even if Trump doesn't, voting is revealed preference not stated preference. You can only vote for one candidate and have to choose which things you think are more important than others.

[wootendw]

"U.S. Consents to a Turkish Invasion in Syria; Kurdish Forces Call It 'A Stab in the Back' "

Ridiculous for the author to slander Trump's decision by calling it 'consent' to a Turkish invasion.

And Syrian Kurds are Syrian citizens. They will have to turn to Assad for protection. Putin backs Assad and has been working with Erdogan to bring peace to Syria. Turkish troops will leave as soon as Syria and Russia are done with Idlib and ready to start the offensive in the NE. US troops are only there to prevent Syria from stabilizing.

[Don't look at me!]

The war will end when everyone kills each other. Just get out of the way.

[Rufus The Monocled]

If I remember right, that configuration is because Obama's policies essentially ceded influence in the region to Russia. How to untangle that? So Trump is merely extricating the country from that untenable position. America is not in a good spot there.

[John]

Russia ran wild when Obama was President. Yet, somehow Trump is the Russian agent.

[Ken Shultz]

A Scottish courts just told the anti-Brexit people in Parliament to kiss Boris Johnson's arse.

"Judge dismisses no-deal Brexit court move"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49959167

The bill they passed in Parliament would have required Johnson to ask the EU for an extension if there were no deal for leaving by October 19. The EU would, of course, be happy to delay Brexit until there were no Brexit anymore. That bill being struck down means that the UK is back on track to leave the EU come October 31st come hell or high water.

Long story short, the EU won't make a deal on how to mitigate for the UK leaving until they have no other choice, and asking for a delay while the UK begs for more concessions on the border with Ireland is a choice. I don't think there is much doubt but that the EU will come to some arrangement on Ireland once the UK leaves the EU, but they may need to actually leave the EU before the EU starts to negotiate with them in good faith.

Incidentally, I think the casting of this drama as between democracy and globalists is bullocks. Anyone who thinks that being locked into a regulatory framework in Brussels is an excellent example of capitalism needs to understand that one of the reasons the UK wants to leave is so that it can set their regulatory apparatus to "stun" rather than EU's preferred setting, which is "kill". Meanwhile, the EU may mean lower tariffs within its borders, but it's a trade barrier when seen from the outside.

It's entirely possible to be both pro-capitalism and pro-international trade, on the one hand, and anti-EU, on the other hand.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I'm shocked it was a Scottish court that did this. The Scots are the most neutered people in the entire UK and dread anything that breaks up the internationalist status quo.

[Ken Shultz]

The court may have had an eye toward Scottish independence in the aftermath of the UK leaving the EU.

Yeah, Scotland is to the UK as California is to the U.S. If Scotland left the UK, what was left of the UK would be far more conservative, on average, than it is now.

On the other hand, maybe the court in Scotland was just calling it fairly.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Imagine... if you and ten of your friends are in a Burger King.

[Jerryskids]

I've always assumed it's an argument between the national socialists and the international socialists. Sadly, the Brits are no less collectivists, nanny-staters and central planners than Brussels, but you do have to agree that the sheep should be free to elect their own shepherd.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

You mistake "globalists" for capitalists. They are just as keen on gonvernment intervention and distortion of markets as "nationalists" are, it jist results in different winners and losers. It is rightly seen as a struggle between something closer to self-rule vs. unelected supernational bodies. Simplifying that to "democracy" isn't that bad of an approximation.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

"Increasingly, when Congress and state legislatures enact laws, they leave many of the details to administrative agencies," notes Michael Van Beek, after waking up from his 75 year long nap.

[lobili]

I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin.com

[Dillinger]

wonder if the Kurds even know they're today's American Media prop

[Dillinger]

also, long live Ginger Baker. crazy motherfucker on skins.

[John]

Amazing musician and a total asshole. But damn could he play.

[Echospinner]

He was amazing.

RIP Ginger Baker.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we never should have been in Syria, period.

[Hank Phillips]

Good article. When an opium glut led to WWI, Daddy Warbucks America sold supplies to the belligerent peddlers. The mistake was to front them stuff. Australia, allied with GB, lost its youth at Gallipoli. Even after being dragged in to collect on loans, Uncle Sam scorned French and English bleating and never declared war on Turkey. It is good to see a foreign entanglement being resisted for a change.

[Curly4]

I don't disagree with Trump completely but before our troupes pull out the Kurds should be fully armed to defend themselves with whatever small arms they want. The Kurds has been on our side for a very long time so we should not leave them undefended.

[Ryan (formally HTT)]

The next time someone posts about mass migration I'll be posting this fine statistic from Sweden.

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1180816608694026245

[Echospinner]

1948.

Israel war of independence. Blockade. No legal arms sales from anyone. They bought on the black market and made on their own.

The Brits just pulled out. Five Arab armies came in.

The first CAR-T cells were developed in 1989 by Gideon Gross and Zelig at Weizmann Institute, Israel.

A revolution in cancer treatment.

The Kurdish people should not fall into the trap of perpetual victimhood . They deserve a nation. Nobody else can give them that.

[Lord Blastington]

Yeah, let's trust Turkey, it's not like they Unapologetically Committed a Genocide that puts NAZI Germany and the Soviet Union to shame, and denies it ever happen even to this day....

[buybuydandavis]

"The U.S. will pull back troops from northern Syria to make way for Turkey to take over,"

This #LibertarianMoment brought to you by Orange Man and the Deplorables who supported him, over the hysterical pants shitting opposition of @Reason.

You're welcome.

[Rob Misek]

Fake news.

Trump’s tweets were blacked out of the mainstream media because they were country to Israeli policies of aggression in the Middle East.

Trump tweeted,

“The United States does not endorse this attack and has made it clear to Turkey that this operation is a bad idea,” Trump said.“

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2019/10/09/trump-defends-syria-move-doesnt-want-us-troops-in-mideast.html