If we got by deathnumbers, then the US Engagement in lybia, the recent iraq Isis Intervention and syria has lessened the death numbers which we could exspect there by a good margin.
So tell me why that is bad.
I agree that EU and US should not interfere in other countries.But like said before it is too late for that.
People in turkey see ISIS as a result of ıraq war. And we see syria as a US&west vs russia&iran.In syria's case US or russia didn't start it but they picked sides and sell weapons to their sided.In the end people of syria killed each other.
Wars in both syria and ıraq cause huge hatred toward US and EU,this is how ISIS got so many followers in the first place and wars also weakened the countries and their forces.That's why ISIS got so many places under it's control.
Shionoro,you said that merkel's popularity up to erdoğan right,same applies to erdoğan.You see some of europes actions can be quite humiliating,like Austria's "turkey allows sexual abuse to under 15 years old children" or pkk camping in the belgium during davutoğlu's visit there(which that was truly a mess,2 or 3 days before pkk killed 50 people with a bomb in ankara and most of them were students,so you can see how hard for us to see EU as our "ally or friend").
Which each of these actions erdoğan getting more popular and loved by more...after coup attempt,EU started to criticize erdoğan's actions but they got out of hand imo and people started to ask "what is this about ?".I swear all of those criticize make erdoğan a walking vote collector.
Why am I saying this ? Because whenever US and EU decided to "help" one side in east countries,it backfires them,no one welcomes them.Even the opposition people side with other faction that fight against US and EU.
BEcause of the modalities it happened it. The Intervention had no real rebuild plan for lybia, which is why islamists got a hiding place there and which is why a lot of the weapons from Gaddafi got exported to other african countries by ex militias.
The mistake was not going in, it was how it happened. Obama relied on France and britain doing more of that work, because they wanted that Mission, but it did not happen.
What happened is still better than the alternativ, tho.
That is not true. The US started bombing when Isis was already in power and had beaten iraqi armies in very decisive battles and took big cities.
What actually makes you think ISIS got more powerful due to the US? The US started interfering when Isis was marching straight to Kobane, a town at the turkish border. Then and only then the US started issuing airstrikes in accordance with the kurdish, and those were largely succesful and the kurdish took a lot of terrirtory back from then.
Where did that instill chaos or Terror? It did the opposite , it supported Forces of an ordering effect.
Deciding not to interfere in other countries business anymore could be a good start.
Most of the world actually. Inquire about the most hated country in the world. USA usually comes in top 2 in every list. USA is not seen in a positive way, surely not in China, Russia. Don't think in UK either.(Best ally of US, lmao)
Maybe, not creating problems like this anymore could be a good solution.
well, that's not a good start because well, we're already in the current countries that have issues. We need to find a way to solve the current problems, not avoid future ones.
Well, I'm sure UK sees US in a positive way, just not Bush or most of the citizens. I forgot how popular Obama is, but Trump's popularity has actually hurt how UK sees US.
What we can infer is that US, EU, and UN are all bad, whether the country or organization.
I mean, compared to whom? Is Obama liked less than Bush was?
Is there new support for the Kremlin as an alternative? I mean, you live in a country that is no longer in the EU, so who do the UK look favorably upon?
Based on few people, Obama is far more popular than Bush, and many UKers think Americans are stupid for going against Obama on some things like Affordable Care Act.
Then and only then the US started issuing airstrikes in accordance with the kurdish, and those were largely succesful and the kurdish took a lot of terrirtory back from then.
Where did that instill chaos or Terror? It did the opposite , it supported Forces of an ordering effect.
Looooool I'm sorry to need to disagree with Lord Zimmy here but no negativity towards the US? I mean, in the UK and Ireland the US is still idolised (likely due to the "special relationships"), but aside from that Of have to say that a fair chunk of the world has had the lustre of America worn off ever since 2000
Looooool I'm sorry to need to disagree with Lord Zimmy here but no negativity towards the US? I mean, in the UK and Ireland the US is still idolised (likely due to the "special relationships")
I know it's an issue more complex than even terrorism itself, but do you feel like the Kurds have a right to a sovereign land of their own? If not, why?
Minor logical error there but I'm sure we can overlook that right?
But while I still see, from my perspective, that people from the British Isles seem to view America in a good way, and there may be groups all over the world that do, I think that more and more are starting to see it for what it really is. A country that's been ruled by Capitalist "Democrats" for a few hundred years. And if they weren't being run by them, it was being run by a bunch of hicks. Its pretty fucked up to see a country where you're afraid that your neighbour night shoot you, or some nut may shoot down your best friends at school, and nothing is done due to the damn thick headed rule that let's people KILL each other.
Also, if people are having to decide to choose what they see as the lesser of two evils for president, then they've got something wrong with their democracy
Rant over. Sorry if I went overboard but despite my age I'm fairly passionate about this subject
I agree that EU and US should not interfere in other countries.But like said before it is too late for that.
People in turkey see ISIS as a result of ıraq war. And we see syria as a US&west vs russia&iran.In syria's case US or russia didn't start it but they picked sides and sell weapons to their sided.In the end people of syria killed each other.
Wars in both syria and ıraq cause huge hatred toward US and EU,this is how ISIS got so many followers in the first place and wars also weakened the countries and their forces.That's why ISIS got so many places under it's control.
I really do not agree with that if we talk about the ongoing war in iraq. Syria is no US against Russia case per se. It is an Iran vs SA case. The Forces of US and Russia do not fight each other. They fight different Groups of rebels. Russia and assad fight nonisis syrian rebels while the US fights Isis, and the US focusses mostly on iraq while russia focusses on syria.
This is not a Proxy war by russia and the US.
I also dont think that it has caused hatred in People who didnt hate the US or EU before. Everything the US does is answered with hatred by some People, those are lost causes anyway. In this war, all the US did was supporting local Groups which fought Isis. Yes, there were efforts at first to arm moderate rebels against assad which turned out to be mistakes, but the effect of the US on both countries has been a stabilizing one in the latest struggle.
I think it is very simplified to think that everything the US does in the middle east causes hatred. There were a lot of People very happy about beeing freed by the kurdish, and this has been made possible by the US.
With the US, it is like with Israel: IN that Region, People hate the US regardless of what it does in many cases. But this cannot be a reason to not take actually effective interventions.
Shionoro,you said that merkel's popularity up to erdoğan right,same applies to erdoğan.You see some of europes actions can be quite humiliating,like Austria's "turkey allows sexual abuse to under 15 years old children" or pkk camping in the belgium during davutoğlu's visit there(which that was truly a mess,2 or 3 days before pkk killed 50 people with a bomb in ankara and most of them were students,so you can see how hard for us to see EU as our "ally or friend").
Which each of these actions erdoğan getting more popular and loved by more...after coup attempt,EU started to criticize erdoğan's actions but they got out of hand imo and people started to ask "what is this about ?".I swear all of those criticize make erdoğan a walking vote collector.
Why am I saying this ? Because whenever US and EU decided to "help" one side in east countries,it backfires them,no one welcomes them.Even the opposition people side with other faction that fight against US and EU.
But i think this is rather a counterexample. The Thing with child abuse was a comment by the swedish foreign ministry and a newticker in vienna. While it is an issue if a highranking foreign politician says such a Thing, having an exaggerated newsflash ina liveticker is far from outragious.
Both countries, Austria and Turkey, are clearly searching for reasons to be upset here because it is useful to the politicians in Charge (Christian kern benefits greatly from 'Standing up' to erdogan. He does the Thing many want Merkel to do and gets voter's sympath for it in Austria).
The Thing is, media will always find things to be upset about. There are no qualms about even lying here to get upset.
Merkel is actually dependend on what erdogan does, she can however shrug off things he only says but does not follow up upon.
But i dont think erdogan is reliant on foreigners insulting Turkey. He controls enough media to make a fuss out of something simply by taking it out of context if he wants to. There are so many populists playing that game.
If it wasnt like that, i got a question: Why does the US and EU get hate for syria, lybia and the new iraq war when Turkey was involved in all of those conflicts?
Turkey still has not a bad Standing in the arab world, and the countries which have bad relationships with Turkey have other motives for it (or example egypt not liking erdogan's ties to the muslim Brothers).
THe media coverage and public Image is not dependend on what a Country does, but how influential narrative creators want it to be seen.
There is an unjust war going on supported by the US and UK. But it is not in lybia, nor is it in iraq, and most People dont even know about it, because it is not in News coverage and other influential Players dont care about it.
I am talking about the yemen war. UK and US help Saudi arabia a ACTUALLY bombing down civillians without care, which is disgraceful. BUt noone talks about that war, where the US and Uk do much more questionable things than in syria or iraq. Also, noone ever talked about how Saudi arabia uses a more extreme settler politics than Israel ever did to driveshia out of ist south and even out of yemen. BEcause noone knows about it, because influential NGO and so on dont cover it.
What i want to say is that public Image has nothing much to do with what a Country does and the US will be hated whether it interferes or not.
Thus, the question of interferance should be thought about in Terms of effectiveness.
Do the coalition airstrikes in iraq and syria hinder ISIS from expanding and thus help stabilizing Forces to take cities back? Yes they do, while causing less colateral deaths than letting Isis run free. And this is why they are a good Thing.
Taking down governments for questionable reasons, creating chaos by the caused power vacuum, add fuel to the flame by supporting opposing sides to then directly intervene with drones is a good Thing now.
Not really. It does appear as if the region would be better off without the US intervention.
Taking down governments for questionable reasons, creating chaos by the caused power vacuum, add fuel to the flame by supporting opposing sides to then directly intervene with drones is a good Thing now.
Not really. It does appear as if the region would be better off without the US intervention.
Which government except Saddam did the US take down under questionable reasons lately?
Where did the US create a power vacuum after iraq war?
Where did it fuel a flame after the iraq war?
Ugh. There is plenty of evidence that Arab spring had high US governance as in money flowing to the 'moderate protesters', leading to armed revolutions Lybia, Sudan and Syria among others. Followed by 2011 the US led military NATO intervention in Lybia.
Overthrown governments in Tunesia, Yemen and Egypt.
Arming several different partly opposing parties, that all does not fuel a flame, or Anti-Americanism?
I know it's an issue more complex than even terrorism itself, but do you feel like the Kurds have a right to a sovereign land of their own? If not, why?
As you said it is far complex...
You mean in any area ? or in turkey ?
I can only answer turkey part,which no they do not.During the war of independence,Atatürk and Turkey council formed a map that depends on the density of the Turkish population which it is current turkey.And they didn't ignore kurds and talked with them too and as a result kurds agreed that there will be no trouble with turks and turkey.They didn't want sovereign land,they didn't claim rights on turkey.And none of these happened under turks pressure,first turkey council has many kurds members too.
So no,they can't just claim rights on turkey after 50 years passed and everything was settled.If they want to be part of turkey,they can and they got the same rights as turks and any other ethnic groups that lives in turkey.
Right now PKK claims east part of turkey,saying that kurds are majority in there but there is turk population as much as kurds there.Kurds are %18-20 of the total population.What about the rest ? how can %18 people claim rights on half of the country ? and even if they were as much as turk population,does that give them right to divide country apart ? Number of people that killed by pkk reached whole new level,they killed citizens more than soldiers and they are saying that we will contunie because these places are our rights.They talk like turks came and destroyed their countries and keep killing them but there is not even a single country that they established in the history,I mean they do not even have a written history,only resources belongs to turks and arabs.
Their only claim is "we lived here for centuries and we are majority in here".
Btw majority of kurds votes for erdoğan in here(%7 of 20 votes for hdp ,rest mostly vote for erdoğan) and I am most definetly not racist,I have lot of kurd friends.
I really do not agree with that if we talk about the ongoing war in iraq. Syria is no US against Russia case per se. It is an Iran vs SA case. The Forces of US and Russia do not fight each other. They fight different Groups of rebels. Russia and assad fight nonisis syrian rebels while the US fights Isis, and the US focusses mostly on iraq while russia focusses on syria.
This is not a Proxy war by russia and the US.
I am talking about intervention of US to ıraq.
Both russia and US have their own interest in syria and those interest conflicts.That's why I said there is US vs Russia
But i think this is rather a counterexample. The Thing with child abuse was a comment by the swedish foreign ministry and a newticker in vienna. While it is an issue if a highranking foreign politician says such a Thing, having an exaggerated newsflash ina liveticker is far from outragious.
Both countries, Austria and Turkey, are clearly searching for reasons to be upset here because it is useful to the politicians in Charge (Christian kern benefits greatly from 'Standing up' to erdogan. He does the Thing many want Merkel to do and gets voter's sympath for it in Austria).
The Thing is, media will always find things to be upset about. There are no qualms about even lying here to get upset.
Merkel is actually dependend on what erdogan does, she can however shrug off things he only says but does not follow up upon.
But i dont think erdogan is reliant on foreigners insulting Turkey. He controls enough media to make a fuss out of something simply by taking it out of context if he wants to. There are so many populists playing that game.
If it wasnt like that, i got a question: Why does the US and EU get hate for syria, lybia and the new iraq war when Turkey was involved in all of those conflicts?
Turkey still has not a bad Standing in the arab world, and the countries which have bad relationships with Turkey have other motives for it (or example egypt not liking erdogan's ties to the muslim Brothers).
THe media coverage and public Image is not dependend on what a Country does, but how influential narrative creators want it to be seen..
Simply because people doesn't trust US and EU
People thinks that if US and EU help then there has to be reason for them to come.And in a way that is true,usually US does not do something that won't benefits US.
But US doesn't just use airstrikes.US gives PKK and PYD a logistics support as well as weapons,making them stronger in the area,it is no secret that they are using these helps to fight against my country.
Btw majority of kurds votes for erdoğan in here(%7 of 20 votes for hdp ,rest mostly vote for erdoğan) and I am most definetly not racist,I have lot of kurd friends.
Well, I don't see where I was implying that you were racist. I was just asking what your view of it is. Obviously Kurds have their own party and have been brought to the table, so to speak. But from what I can see there is a large portion who want their own sovereign country.
@g01 you keep saying EU, but it's not an EU decision to bomb Syria (or to engage in whatever other conflict) - as shown by the different stands of Germany and France on that matter for example. The EU has barely what you would call an army. The EU itself got caught up into the whole mess because of the refugee crisis, but if anything, I feel like it is actually losing a lot from this conflict, both economically and in popularity.
But does the EU really have such a bad reputation in Turkey? What does the Turkish people think about entering the EU now? I mean, it's a debate that has been lasting for the past 30 years, both parties are not making it easy on the other, and it could be that the general opinion has changed - especially since Erdogan is questionning the interest of an EU membership and that he is so popular as you say.
well, that's not a good start because well, we're already in the current countries that have issues. We need to find a way to solve the current problems, not avoid future ones.
Hillary's foreign policy looks more aggressive than Obama's. She wants ground troops in some places in ME, i read. This might create some problems in the future.
Well, I'm sure UK sees US in a positive way, just not Bush or most of the citizens. I forgot how popular Obama is, but Trump's popularity has actually hurt how UK sees US.
Since when did Donald Trump start representing US?
Obama wanted Britain to stay in EU and he represents America as president more than Trump. Which didn't happen. I doubt America has anything to do with UK leaving EU.
New Ugh. There is plenty of evidence that Arab spring had high US governance as in money flowing to the 'moderate protesters', leading to armed revolutions Lybia, Sudan and Syria among others. Followed by 2011 the US led military NATO intervention in Lybia.
Overthrown governments in Tunesia, Yemen and Egypt.
Arming several different partly opposing parties, that all does not fuel a flame, or Anti-Americanism?
I am talking about the yemen war. UK and US help Saudi arabia a ACTUALLY bombing down civillians without care, which is disgraceful. BUt noone talks about that war, where the US and Uk do much more questionable things than in syria or iraq. Also, noone ever talked about how Saudi arabia uses a more extreme settler politics than Israel ever did to driveshia out of ist south and even out of yemen. BEcause noone knows about it, because influential NGO and so on dont cover it.
Saudi being a ally of the west gets away with a lot of disgraceful acts. Saudi is responsible for a lot of the conflicts in ME.
Saudi and Israel actually has more blood in their hands than our global villain Iran or North Korea.
Saudi being a ally of the west gets away with a lot of disgraceful acts. Saudi is responsible for a lot of the conflicts in ME.
Saudi and Israel actually has more blood in their hands than our global villain Iran or North Korea.
Anyways: Iran is just as bad as Saudi arabia and has the same amount of blood on ist Hands. Saudi arabia and Iran are both opposed Forces ighting for power ruthlessly.
ISrael is a different Thing entirely, because Israel does not participate in the arabic power struggle. Israel is only interested in itself, not in Expansion (not like there is much room for that, too).
The Israel palestine conflict is largely similar to the Turkey kurdish conflict. It is very complex´and taking sides is not leading to a solution.
HOwever, Israel never attacked another Country in the middle east without prio hostilities or Terror Groups operating in that Country, not directly nor indirectly. And by now it actually has neighbours which it has stable working conditions with (jordania and egypt). THe only times Israel attacks Targets in other regions is against hamas and Hisbollah, and while that can be questioned, it can hardly be questioned that those Groups attack israeli civillians.
This is a largely different Thing from funding Terror Groups in other countries or the shia death squads Iran uses in syria.
The comparison with North Korea might be not so bad, since North Korea also only concentrates on itself while sometimes threatening the south to get some Money to be silent again via human aid channels.
Israelis live in a Democracy tho, unlike North koreans.
Anyways: Iran is just as bad as Saudi arabia and has the same amount of blood on ist Hands. Saudi arabia and Iran are both opposed Forces ighting for power ruthlessly.
ISrael is a different Thing entirely, because Israel does not participate in the arabic power struggle. Israel is only interested in itself, not in Expansion (not like there is much room for that, too).
Israel has been active in the power struggles in Lebanon. And they are quite interested in expansion. Every settlement they've built is a violation of international law. But they gets away being an US ally.
THe only times Israel attacks Targets in other regions is against hamas and Hisbollah, and while that can be questioned, it can hardly be questioned that those Groups attack israeli civillians.
Iran did not openly attack other countries, but, like the Saudis, they have a lot of indirect influence, exspecially in syria. You cannot stand up to the Saudis without getting your power through, and thus shias killing sunnis in iraq and in syria are often linked to Iran (and not only recently), and that is something Israel does not do.
Israel has been active in the power struggles in Lebanon. And they are quite interested in expansion. Every settlement they've built is a violation of international law. But they gets away being an US ally.
That is not quite right. Israel withdrew from lebanon after their Mission was accomplished and without trying to install Israel friendly powers there. There Mission was focussed against Hisbollah rather strictly.
Furthermore: Without the west, Israel would be bigger than it is now. After Israel won ist war against the arab world, it was britain which threatened to intervene if Israel tries to expand further. It is really not like Israel always gets ist way.
ISrael is hopelessly outnumbered in the UN, with countries like Saudi arabia getting resolutions against Israel on the way. There are lots of european and US NGO active in Israel who sometimes are clearly anti israelix and even have hamas ties.
They are a NATO ally and thus get some benefits of those, but the idea of Israel being able to do anything is largely a myth.
ISrael has actually gone through a lot of effort to get into peaceful Relations with Jordan and egypt.
Is it tho? We were talking about how the US president should or should not Support Israel, so i think this is a Topic which can be discussed.
ISrael is not actively targetting civilians in the palestine territories. What would be israel's benefit of that? Thereis the hamas Shooting rockets from palestine civillian regions and then hiding in public. Basically, what you ask Israel to do is just letting that happen without taking any Counter measures.
There is no fighting back without hurting civillians if you fight an Opponent who employs Guerilla warfare.
And i am not a Defender of actually bad things Israel does, of ist Settlement policy or ist far right wing politicians or any crap like that. But there is also a lot of Propaganda arround. The simplification of Israel bombing the gaza Region without any reason is absolutely invalid.
