@FHX Beaver Hate what?

@Nathan James 123 Hope not hate! Hope NOT HATE you fuckin' NAZI

I hope for many things!

I hope you get run over by patriot prayer nazi's

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/566324895466913802/632976506897039378/epitome_of_usa.jpg

Love how the log is going through the bears ass

Wonder how they got those Coordinates <:thunk:462282216467333140> <:thunk:462282216467333140> <:thunk:462282216467333140>

http://dlvr.it/RG67PP

Oh dear, I wonder why Turkey is doing this

Could it be this: "Turkey began its incursion into Syria, with the Trump Administration’s blessing" ?

are you being sarcastic or are you implying that trump wanted erdogan to kill americans? i have to ask because there are so many retarded opinions on this conflict that it's impossible to tell when someone is being sarcastic as opposed to merely stupid.

He's serious

He believes that our presence in Northern Syria was the only thing keeping Turkey from bombing the Kurds

As evidenced by the bombs

They probably will bomb Kurds. Erdogan is a shithead who has cleansed the officer corps of anyone who is not similarly a shithead.

The real question is, why do Americans have to act as meatshields for Kurds?

One of the greatest foreign policy blunders of the Obama administration was not assassinating Erdogan. The guy is a complete arse. Yet the central point remains: why the fuck are we even there?

What vital strategic importance does Northern Syria have to the United States? Before the Syrian civil war started we gave exactly ZERO SHITS about the region. Why do we have to care now?

The Russians have had air bases and naval bases in Syria for longer than anyone in this server was alive, and nobody cared. The region has no strategic importance to us.

So again, why do we get the dubious honor of being meatshields for the Kurds?

The correct response to this Turkish aggression is not to go to war with Turkey, but to kick them out of NATO.

They're a liability to the alliance.

People are brainwashed into utilitarianism, so they believe it's the ethical choice to protect lives that are in every way unrelated to one's own nation, even if that comes at a net cost, and even if it means playing global police.

It's very easy to buy into the lie that utilitarianism is somehow morally superior to all other ideas.

Such people, if they're not radically utilitarian, typically arguethat "even if we can't save all people in the world, at least we should save some people", which on a surface level holds up, but when you mention that you have to sacrifice some lives in order to save others, then their position falls apart.

hows this one: "who fucking asked us to be the world police?!"

The Americans of the past made that choice

that line of "we'll be greeted as liberators" should have been the first warning sign of severe delusions of grandeur

I think if there's a net benefit to one's own nation, then playing world police can be justified as long as the cost doesn't involve the sacrifice of one's own people.

That would then be a mutually beneficial relationship

yes, and historically that's proved accurate between two or three discreet entities

not up to fucking eleven or twelve or above

I mean, the world population has grown to an absurd amount

entirely too many seperate interests that align for entirely too short a timespan

Maybe, that's a debate that I think is reasonable to have

the signatories of NATO had aligned interests when they had a singular threat to ally against

that threat is dead

It's just that the killer argument shouldn't be "we're bringing a net positive change", because that's a massive oversimplification and relies on moral presumptions that not everyone shares, or has to share

we need an anti china coalition

if we do, it must be explicitly trade and logistics aligned

no more of this inexorable fucking border humping

US ships of war have no business being in the Black Sea