What were Obama's stated objectives in Syria? Certainly not to leave the Syrian people with something better than they had before. Stopping Assad wasn't even on the public agenda until further into US involvement, so the "Assad was killing his own people" argument doesn't wash either. What did Obama do right?
Iirc he wanted to do a proper regime change but Congress wouldn't back him, remember how the red lines, that all of a sudden weren't red lines. so don't necessarily think he did this right at all, We were talking about trump, and how his withdrawal is problematic for the group's in Syria that want a secular government. But I get it, you think Obama is worse then trump, and all intervention is bad. I didn't necessarily think everything obama did was good, or even just ok, but pretending trump is much better because he left our allies facing the Russians and turkey is just plain wrong.
I don't think Trump should have left the Kurds hanging out to dry, but at the same time it was only during the Trump administration that Assad's forces were targeted. Obama ramped up drone strikes, but then under Trump any transparency was rescinded so we don't really know the extent of them during his tenure except that they increased compared to the end of the Obama administration. Trump was also reckless and antagonistic toward Iran, especially considering their role in defeating ISIS. So, like you say, it isn't black and white. It's very easy to become biased along party lines, but Obama objectively caused more death, destruction and misery in the world than Trump did, even if that was largely due to Trump's incompetence and ignorance. I wouldn't say either of them were a force for good in the world.
I'd agree in terms of military deaths, but it's hard to compare like for like, considering how fluid the world stage is. And your also missing out the deaths caused by no action. In terms of overall deaths, trumps got a lot of blood on his hands via his incompetence, In his covid response. 587000 deaths overall in the US, although obviously not all those are attributable.
Oh yeah, I was specifically talking about civilian death and suffering outside the US. No doubt Trump was a disaster domestically, hence him joining the short list of 1 term presidents. There is also the matter of climate change that I haven't addressed, but in the long run I'm not sure he will personally have much of an effect beyond general GOP science denial.
Sometimes when people mention trump in the context we're discussing, it's like all the things other administrations did just vanished. A lot of people don't even know obama killed American Citizens in a drone strike, or that we did a major push in Afghanistan under him during his first term. Nevermind bush, or clinton, or bush, or even biden, an architext of laws that created all the problems we have today who is the current sitting president. I wonder how the survivors under "General" Varus felt? You also sound more like you're describing Russia or China than the Us or UK military?
Certainly from reading the media the UK armed forces seem to be well trained. , but poorly equipped , the early sa80 was pretty unreliable and the “snatch” land rovers were woefully inadequate for the kind of roles they faced in Afghan.
Exactly what I was getting at bassai. Also just finished reading "The Longest kill" by Craig Harrison where, suffering from ptsd, he was basically booted out of his regiment without so much as a please or thank you. Obviously the UK and US military aren't the worst in the world. And obviously I'm not explaining myself very well.
no idea how you turned that around on me and too lazy to get into it and argue the toss. I simply told it how it sounded to me at the time. if i got you wrong or read what you wrote wrong, then please do accept my apologies for that. And no I did not say "the regular armed forces do have a death wish". Or words to that effect. It's not something I believe, so i don't know why i would say it I'm frankly flabergasted you really think so. but yea, you're just worming your way out, i get it bro. So I'll allow it, for the sake of good will
Apology accepted. I think you may of misread my initial post, and perhaps I misunderstood yours so we've ended up debating points that either of us didn't make. I'm glad you agree with me though, I'll allow it for the sake of good will!
i havent responded to this thread because i was so mad at this post. I see you've been more compassionate in your analysis of reason people join the military but i feel like you really need to be more compassionate to people? Ero was going through a tough time, not everyone is a rational actor all the time and everyone is constantly growing. its why ideas like "libertarianism" have limits. the only constructive way to get people to see your POV is to meet them with grace regardless of how abhorrent you see their views. also as a side note, switching the war in afghanistan to iraq war was like the ingsoc swtiching from eurasia to eastasia in 1984. theres a lot of geopolitical analysis and evidence for the idea that the syrian civil war is an extension of the instability created in iraq, evidenced by all the baathist coming out of the woodwork when isis took hold of areas in iraq and isis's use of leftover coalition military equipment. Also reducing the movement in rojava to a struggle of kurdish autonomy alone is very reductive of the idea of federalisation they are trying to push and the realisation the formerly kurdish workers party in syria came to: all the other minorities are similarly oppressed (like the yazidi) and by forming a rainbow coalitio of sorts, they can ensure that each minority protects every other minority as oppression of one would signal the possibility the oppression of all. but gramted that like the baathists, many in rojava are pulling out potraits or Ocalan. I always wonder if thats why Marcos and the Zapatistas wear ski masks? no cults of personality.
