Merry Christmas from Uncle Pat

[JA]

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

The US is part of the United Nations you know...

Oh my god. Are you serious? I never knew that!

[JA]

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries. 

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

The empire demands blood and treasure and it’s convinced gullible idealistic patriots that it engages in foreign conflicts for noble, humanitarian purposes. So, any time they can convince people that an existing or potential conflict that aligns with our elites’ interests simultaneously endorses a humanitarian mission, you’ll have countless Americans falling over themselves to beat the war drums and champion the empire.

It’s all bullsh**t and our leadership couldn’t care less about humanitarianism (see: Yemen), but it makes for good propaganda, as you can tell.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries. 

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

“And the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’  And he said, ‘I do not know: am I my brother’s keeper?’” 

Also Fuzzy, I think you know me well enough to know I am not comparing you to Nazis/Nazi sympathizers/anything like that, but I do think this is pretty apropos to the thread in light of the argument that you are making:

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries. 

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

The empire demands blood and treasure and it’s convinced gullible idealistic patriots that it engages in foreign conflicts for noble, humanitarian purposes. So, any time they can convince people that an existing or potential conflict that aligns with our elites’ interests simultaneously endorses a humanitarian mission, you’ll have countless Americans falling over themselves to beat the war drums and champion the empire.

It’s all bullsh**t and our leadership couldn’t care less about humanitarianism (see: Yemen), but it makes for good propaganda, as you can tell.

I don’t think the U.S. government wants us in Syria for humanitarian reasons, but I want us to stay there 1) because our presence is still the only thing preventing not one but two genocides (something you seem not to care about in the slightest); 2) to prevent ISIS from regaining a foothold; and 3) to prevent Russian meddling in Syria from going unchallenged

[Badger]

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries. 

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

“And the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’  And he said, ‘I do not know: am I my brother’s keeper?’” 

Also Fuzzy, I think you know me well enough to know I am not comparing you to Nazis/Nazi sympathizers/anything like that, but I do think this is pretty apropos to the thread in light of the argument that you are making:

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries. 

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

The empire demands blood and treasure and it’s convinced gullible idealistic patriots that it engages in foreign conflicts for noble, humanitarian purposes. So, any time they can convince people that an existing or potential conflict that aligns with our elites’ interests simultaneously endorses a humanitarian mission, you’ll have countless Americans falling over themselves to beat the war drums and champion the empire.

It’s all bullsh**t and our leadership couldn’t care less about humanitarianism (see: Yemen), but it makes for good propaganda, as you can tell.

I don’t think the U.S. government wants us in Syria for humanitarian reasons, but I want us to stay there 1) because our presence is still the only thing preventing not one but two genocides (something you seem not to care about in the slightest); 2) to prevent ISIS from regaining a foothold; and 3) to prevent Russian meddling in Syria from going unchallenged

How dare you be such a grown-up about this! Since you be just screaming at in Treasure and comparing every single us intervention abroad to the second Iraq War and stop analysis there?

[Fuzzy Bear]

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries.  

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

“And the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’  And he said, ‘I do not know: am I my brother’s keeper?’”  

Also Fuzzy, I think you know me well enough to know I am not comparing you to Nazis/Nazi sympathizers/anything like that, but I do think this is pretty apropos to the thread in light of the argument that you are making:

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries.  

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

The empire demands blood and treasure and it’s convinced gullible idealistic patriots that it engages in foreign conflicts for noble, humanitarian purposes. So, any time they can convince people that an existing or potential conflict that aligns with our elites’ interests simultaneously endorses a humanitarian mission, you’ll have countless Americans falling over themselves to beat the war drums and champion the empire.

It’s all bullsh**t and our leadership couldn’t care less about humanitarianism (see: Yemen), but it makes for good propaganda, as you can tell.

I don’t think the U.S. government wants us in Syria for humanitarian reasons, but I want us to stay there 1) because our presence is still the only thing preventing not one but two genocides (something you seem not to care about in the slightest); 2) to prevent ISIS from regaining a foothold; and 3) to prevent Russian meddling in Syria from going unchallenged

How dare you be such a grown-up about this! Since you be just screaming at in Treasure and comparing every single us intervention abroad to the second Iraq War and stop analysis there?

All of our interventions in the Middle East SHOULD be compared to the Iraq War.  An honest comparison to that conflict is the first step in an HONEST assessment of whether or not the conflict is legitimate.

I would also point out that Cain, a murderer, asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?".  You will note that God did NOT directly answer Cain's rhetorical question.  That God would prohibit Cain from committing murder and that Cain transgressed by doing so did not make Cain responsible for all aspects of Abel's life; it only made Cain responsible for not bringing harm on Abel.

My younger adult son has fought in Afghanistan.  He's lost his hearing in one ear.  He's become addicted to Red Bull, in part because of the necessary hours he kept over there.  He's seek unspeakable sights.  He frequently talks with others in his unit who struggle with PTSD.  A childhood teammate of his high school baseball team has already hung himself after returning home from Iraq.  That's just him and his circle; there are thousands of others with thousands of circles of pain from what went on over there.

I am not unmindful of the plight of the Kurds.  Their plight is similar to the pre-State of Israel Jews; they were a people who had endured persecution and some dispersement that had a valid claim to a piece of the World's Turf.  They have allied with us knowing that their chances in getting what they want and need through, while better than an alliance with the others, wasn't that great.  In a more perfect world, there would be an independent Kurdistan, and the Turks would be told to pound salt, but that's not the World we live in.

Is that what you propose; to keep our troops in the Middle East to fight for an independent Kurdistan?  Really, nothing else will solve the Kurdish Question; not even a partitioned Iraq with a Kurdish state with decent autonomy.  We have been conned/cajoled/bribed/blackmailed into involvements where the plan was to show up as some sort of Intimidation Exercise where our presence was supposed to scare the opposition into surrender, but it doesn't work anymore because the World is convinced (and rightly so) that the American People have no stomach for war.  All the American people see is the shedding of blood for no real viable purpose.

So I'm not going to slam the door on the idea and pretend the Kurds don't exist and their persecution never happened.  But I'm also not going to advocate continuing being at war in a conflict where victory is not defined.  We're not going to accomplish anything like victory here.  We don't have the national will, and we don't have the kind of objective that is clearly in the American interest.

There are lots of people that want us involved for selfish interests.  There are others who want us involved just to do the opposite of what Trump wants.  And there are those who love the underdog, which the Kurds are.  I like underdogs too, but how moral is to boost an underdog for a fight they can't possibly win?  That's a question that deserves an answer BEFORE the blood is spilled.

So I won't say "Never!".  But I don't see Badger picking up a weapon and standing a post, and I don't know that he has kids that will be doing that, either.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries.  

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

“And the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’  And he said, ‘I do not know: am I my brother’s keeper?’”  

Also Fuzzy, I think you know me well enough to know I am not comparing you to Nazis/Nazi sympathizers/anything like that, but I do think this is pretty apropos to the thread in light of the argument that you are making:

FB world: “Trump pulled out of Syria because he’s a man of the people fighting a great populist war against the evil establishment.”
The real world: Trump pulled out of Syria as a favor for Erdogan in exchange for them dropping the Khashoggi murder

I really don't care why.  I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria.  It's not our fight, and never was.

Leaving the Kurds to be wiped out in a genocide because “it’s not our fight” seems pretty diametrically opposed to the idea that we are all our brothers’ keeper (in addition to being terrible foreign policy).

As for the OP excerpt, as usual, Buchanan has no idea what he’s talking about; leaving Syria is a terrible idea even by Trump’s standards.  The likely genocides against both the Kurds and the members of Assad’s ethnic group (Alawites IIRC) if we leave now are reason enough to stay, plus ISIS could easily gain a strong foothold if we leave and that is definitely our fight by almost any objective measure.

The United Nations should attend to these matters, not the US.

Leaving it to the UN is a de facto death sentence for the Allawites and the Kurds (the latter of whom have been among out most stalwart allies in the region).  I’m sure the UN would handle it the same way they “handled” Rwanda: Look away awkwardly while innocent people are butchered like hogs.  I know that America can’t stop every genocide, but that’s no excuse for allowing the ones we can prevent.

This x 10.

There always seems to be a reason to keep our troops in other countries.  

I am not a fan of what's happening, but exactly when are we actually going to withdraw our troops from fights that are not our fights?

The empire demands blood and treasure and it’s convinced gullible idealistic patriots that it engages in foreign conflicts for noble, humanitarian purposes. So, any time they can convince people that an existing or potential conflict that aligns with our elites’ interests simultaneously endorses a humanitarian mission, you’ll have countless Americans falling over themselves to beat the war drums and champion the empire.

It’s all bullsh**t and our leadership couldn’t care less about humanitarianism (see: Yemen), but it makes for good propaganda, as you can tell.

I don’t think the U.S. government wants us in Syria for humanitarian reasons, but I want us to stay there 1) because our presence is still the only thing preventing not one but two genocides (something you seem not to care about in the slightest); 2) to prevent ISIS from regaining a foothold; and 3) to prevent Russian meddling in Syria from going unchallenged

How dare you be such a grown-up about this! Since you be just screaming at in Treasure and comparing every single us intervention abroad to the second Iraq War and stop analysis there?

All of our interventions in the Middle East SHOULD be compared to the Iraq War.  An honest comparison to that conflict is the first step in an HONEST assessment of whether or not the conflict is legitimate.

I would also point out that Cain, a murderer, asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?".  You will note that God did NOT directly answer Cain's rhetorical question.  That God would prohibit Cain from committing murder and that Cain transgressed by doing so did not make Cain responsible for all aspects of Abel's life; it only made Cain responsible for not bringing harm on Abel.

My younger adult son has fought in Afghanistan.  He's lost his hearing in one ear.  He's become addicted to Red Bull, in part because of the necessary hours he kept over there.  He's seek unspeakable sights.  He frequently talks with others in his unit who struggle with PTSD.  A childhood teammate of his high school baseball team has already hung himself after returning home from Iraq.  That's just him and his circle; there are thousands of others with thousands of circles of pain from what went on over there.

I am not unmindful of the plight of the Kurds.  Their plight is similar to the pre-State of Israel Jews; they were a people who had endured persecution and some dispersement that had a valid claim to a piece of the World's Turf.  They have allied with us knowing that their chances in getting what they want and need through, while better than an alliance with the others, wasn't that great.  In a more perfect world, there would be an independent Kurdistan, and the Turks would be told to pound salt, but that's not the World we live in.

Is that what you propose; to keep our troops in the Middle East to fight for an independent Kurdistan?  Really, nothing else will solve the Kurdish Question; not even a partitioned Iraq with a Kurdish state with decent autonomy.  We have been conned/cajoled/bribed/blackmailed into involvements where the plan was to show up as some sort of Intimidation Exercise where our presence was supposed to scare the opposition into surrender, but it doesn't work anymore because the World is convinced (and rightly so) that the American People have no stomach for war.  All the American people see is the shedding of blood for no real viable purpose.

So I'm not going to slam the door on the idea and pretend the Kurds don't exist and their persecution never happened.  But I'm also not going to advocate continuing being at war in a conflict where victory is not defined.  We're not going to accomplish anything like victory here.  We don't have the national will, and we don't have the kind of objective that is clearly in the American interest.

There are lots of people that want us involved for selfish interests.  There are others who want us involved just to do the opposite of what Trump wants.  And there are those who love the underdog, which the Kurds are.  I like underdogs too, but how moral is to boost an underdog for a fight they can't possibly win?  That's a question that deserves an answer BEFORE the blood is spilled.

So I won't say "Never!".  But I don't see Badger picking up a weapon and standing a post, and I don't know that he has kids that will be doing that, either.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to make sure a mass genocide of the Kurds doesn’t occur given the situational context.  Preventing genocide where possible (particularly when the group in question has been among our most stalwart allies) is a good enough reason to stay in Syria on its own.  If we leave these people to be wiped of the face of the earth, their blood will be on our hands as much as those of the Turks.  We can’t save everyone, but right now in Syria we can save the Kurds while also serving American national security interests.  That means we have a moral responsibility to be our brother’s keeper and prevent this mass slaughter until Syria stabilizes to the point that it isn’t an ISIS stronghold waiting to happen and until we have a President who won’t stand by while innocent civilians are buried in mass graves for the “crime” of being Kurdish.  The fact is that either we stay or the Kurds are going to be wiped out.  I agree, it’s not ideal, but few serious moral choices come consequence free.  The question then becomes whether one is content to sit back and watch the carnage knowing their country could’ve prevented it as easily as you or I might swat a fly.  IOW, I don’t say “stay until there is an independent Kurdistan,” I say “stay until the situation stabilizes enough that our leaving doesn’t ensure a genocide will occur against the Kurds.”

Of course, even setting that aside, you still haven’t addressed the fact that ISIS is going to re-establish a strong foothold in Syria if we leave.  I really want to know how defeating ISIS isn’t America’s fight.  What is defeating ISIS if not an American national security interest?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What happens in Syria matters little to American interests.  It's already long been Russia's client state. 

Our concern about ISIS was to keep them out of America.  What they do over there is not our fight.  How is it our fight with ISIS when other nations have more stake in the fight?

Truthfully, the fight against ISIS is Russia's fight.  They're the ones vested in Syria.  Look who's fighting ISIS the hardest:  Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Assad Regime.  Look who's NOT fighting ISIS:  Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. 

I would be amenable to allow significant numbers of Kurdish refugees come to America, and under favorable terms.  But to camp troops for years in Syria to fight a faction trying to control a country we have no stake in?  I doubt that.  Indeed, let Russia fight ISIS; ISIS hates Russia so let them neutralize each other.

[Karpatsky]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

Where does the foreign intervention stop?

At what point do we NOT intervene?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

Where does the foreign intervention stop?

At what point do we NOT intervene?

1) I’d argue history has proven Jefferson wrong on that issue and 2) Rightly or wrongly, we already intervened in Syria and now that we’re already there and our continued presence is the only thing preventing a genocide, we have a moral responsibility to stay.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

Where does the foreign intervention stop?

At what point do we NOT intervene?

1) I’d argue history has proven Jefferson wrong on that issue and 2) Rightly or wrongly, we already intervened in Syria and now that we’re already there and our continued presence is the only thing preventing a genocide, we have a moral responsibility to stay.

Assuming that I buy into the highlighted portion (which I'm open to considering, given that we have already intervened there), where does it stop?

In addition, if this is true, than isn't the entire Iraq War defensible?  After all, Saddam Hussein had CHILDREN in prisons.  This was an atrocity, and a verified one; were we not justified to remove him from power to liberate those children?

If you're right, you, me, and the bulk of Atlas owe an apology to Dick Cheney George W. Bush, the Vice President who ordered all of that.  It also begs the question of whether America IS the "Genocide Police" of the World.  Perhaps we are, and/or perhaps we should be, but there are implications to that as well.

[Karpatsky]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

Where does the foreign intervention stop?

At what point do we NOT intervene?

1) I’d argue history has proven Jefferson wrong on that issue and 2) Rightly or wrongly, we already intervened in Syria and now that we’re already there and our continued presence is the only thing preventing a genocide, we have a moral responsibility to stay.

Assuming that I buy into the highlighted portion (which I'm open to considering, given that we have already intervened there), where does it stop?

In addition, if this is true, than isn't the entire Iraq War defensible?  After all, Saddam Hussein had CHILDREN in prisons.  This was an atrocity, and a verified one; were we not justified to remove him from power to liberate those children?

If you're right, you, me, and the bulk of Atlas owe an apology to Dick Cheney George W. Bush, the Vice President who ordered all of that.  It also begs the question of whether America IS the "Genocide Police" of the World.  Perhaps we are, and/or perhaps we should be, but there are implications to that as well.

It is not possible to fulfill either part of Jefferson's quote without being willing to reach out to help others - in other words, the problem is with his 18th century definition of 'our', because it is the nature of autocracy to expand wherever it can. When Jefferson lived and for almost a near century afterwards, the United States did not have to play 'world police' because Britain took up that burden of preventing an autocratic state from gaining world power. Immediately when Britain's strength began to fade, the United States saw negative consequences in the form of disruption of trade, and Wilson (wisely) brought the United States out of its blinders to face the real world. But his successors , thinking like Jefferson, put them back on and in so doing allowed the Second World War to happen, resulting in severe costs for America.

It's easy to criticize interventionism in hindsight, but only because it is impossible to know what costs might have been necessary to right the potential consequences of inaction in (say) Greece, Turkey, or Korea. 'Failures' in intervention (which are impossible to positively identify because we can't know the consequences of not intervening) in my subjective view are usually the result of bad leadership choosing the wrong timing or the wrong side. Iraq was an evident threat to the world order in 1991, and the first Gulf War was unquestionably the correct thing to do both from a geopolitical and a moral standpoint. The problem with the Second Gulf War is that the second Bush administration decided too late that they wanted to 'finish the job' and so completely fabricated a reason to go back in, which did not hold up to scrutiny anywhere and so did not provide it with the moral legitimacy it needed to succeed.

To answer your last question, while I think there is a moral obligation to go in 'everywhere', we have to recognize just as in other areas that there are material constraints to our ability to help others. You and I don't have the money or the time to individually right the moral wrongs of our world, but we try to maximize our impact of good on the world through prudent charity and volunteering. The United States and the Western World must do the same on the world stage, which depends on principled and effective leadership. Buchanan's stance here is like to say - 'it's impossible to feed all the starving children in the world, so why waste money trying to feed even one?'

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

Where does the foreign intervention stop?

At what point do we NOT intervene?

1) I’d argue history has proven Jefferson wrong on that issue and 2) Rightly or wrongly, we already intervened in Syria and now that we’re already there and our continued presence is the only thing preventing a genocide, we have a moral responsibility to stay.

Assuming that I buy into the highlighted portion (which I'm open to considering, given that we have already intervened there), where does it stop?

In addition, if this is true, than isn't the entire Iraq War defensible?  After all, Saddam Hussein had CHILDREN in prisons.  This was an atrocity, and a verified one; were we not justified to remove him from power to liberate those children?

If you're right, you, me, and the bulk of Atlas owe an apology to Dick Cheney George W. Bush, the Vice President who ordered all of that.  It also begs the question of whether America IS the "Genocide Police" of the World.  Perhaps we are, and/or perhaps we should be, but there are implications to that as well.

1) That (humanitarian concerns) wasn’t why we invaded Iraq and the government still lied to the American people to generate support for a war being fought on false pretenses so I don’t see why I’d owe anyone in the Bush administration an apology, but I consider Saddam’s removal a silver-lining to that whole mess; 2) I opposed sending troops to Syria, but now that we are there, we do have a responsibility to stay for as long as it takes the situation to stabilize enough that there won’t be a genocide when we leave; 3) you can’t save everyone, but there’s no excuse for not preventing Turkey from wiping out the Kurds since not only can we easily prevent it, but staying in Syria is also in America’s strategic interest as it allows us to continue fighting ISIS (a group which needs to be eradicated much the way Al-Qaeda was).  If we leave Syria, the blood of the Kurdish people will be on our hands and the international community will rightly revile us as an irresponsible, untrustworthy, and selfish nation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The world is a smaller place than it used to be, and much more interconnected. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum feel free to criticize the 'liberal world order' but don't hesitate to take advantage of its boons in the form of a higher standard of living. People underestimate the value of it because Western policy in recent years has (wisely) been to attempt to nip potential threats to it in the bud rather than waiting for a real crisis, which admittedly has in recent years led to overreactions and poor decisions. But it is not possible anymore, as it was in the past, for America to hide behind its oceans without severe economic consequences in the long run.

But beyond the economic argument, don't you all think it is time to stop pretending that our moral obligation to each other as people ends at a arbitrary border or ocean? What is the moral difference between the Kurds (or the Ukrainians, or Estonians) as opposed to Floridians or Hawaiians that make the freedom of the latter worth my and my kin's blood but not the former? Believe it or not, my hometown is closer to Tallinn than it is to Pearl Harbor, and my great-grandfather, who died for the latter, was born closer to Kurdistan than to what would become his. Nationalist isolationism is a weak enough moral code on its own, and only more so in a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Pragmatic restraints are necessary at times, but to believe that those born beyond a border do not deserve even a moral consideration is ignorant at best and inhuman at worst.

This.

Where does the foreign intervention stop?

At what point do we NOT intervene?

1) I’d argue history has proven Jefferson wrong on that issue and 2) Rightly or wrongly, we already intervened in Syria and now that we’re already there and our continued presence is the only thing preventing a genocide, we have a moral responsibility to stay.

Assuming that I buy into the highlighted portion (which I'm open to considering, given that we have already intervened there), where does it stop?

In addition, if this is true, than isn't the entire Iraq War defensible?  After all, Saddam Hussein had CHILDREN in prisons.  This was an atrocity, and a verified one; were we not justified to remove him from power to liberate those children?

If you're right, you, me, and the bulk of Atlas owe an apology to Dick Cheney George W. Bush, the Vice President who ordered all of that.  It also begs the question of whether America IS the "Genocide Police" of the World.  Perhaps we are, and/or perhaps we should be, but there are implications to that as well.

1) That (humanitarian concerns) wasn’t why we invaded Iraq and the government still lied to the American people to generate support for a war being fought on false pretenses so I don’t see why I’d owe anyone in the Bush administration an apology, but I consider Saddam’s removal a silver-lining to that whole mess; 2) I opposed sending troops to Syria, but now that we are there, we do have a responsibility to stay for as long as it takes the situation to stabilize enough that there won’t be a genocide when we leave; 3) you can’t save everyone, but there’s no excuse for not preventing Turkey from wiping out the Kurds since not only can we easily prevent it, but staying in Syria is also in America’s strategic interest as it allows us to continue fighting ISIS (a group which needs to be eradicated much the way Al-Qaeda was).  If we leave Syria, the blood of the Kurdish people will be on our hands and the international community will rightly revile us as an irresponsible, untrustworthy, and selfish nation.

Are we talking about the same "international community" that routinely proposes and advances all sorts of "Zionism is Racism" resolutions at the UN.  Are we talking about the "international community" that has rammed through repeated Security Council resolutions condemning Israel that only failed because of America's veto?

At what point has the "international community" stood up to Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and other parties regarding the rights of the Kurds and the establishment of an independent (and secure) Kurdistan?

I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm more open minded on this than I was yesterday.  But references to the "international community" only get my defenses up.  

In Joseph F. Persico's CASEY, a biography of the late CIA Director, Persico tells of Casey's speech before the "Pumpkin Papers Irregulars", a group of movement conservatives who had an annual satire event every Halloween.  Casey was it's guest speaker one year, and used the occasion to give what turned out to be a rousing speech on how vulnerable we were in terms of intelligence.  He spoke about how our enemies always attempt to manipulate our goodness and virtue to serve THEIR evil motives and further THEIR evil intentions.  He talked about the Nye Committee complaining about defense contractor cost overruns in WWII; Alger Hiss (yes, the traitor, Alger Hiss) was counsel for that commitee.  He talked about our attempts to have a more open society and how often our enemies made FOIA requests.  He talked about how the Soviets launched a campaign to cause Carter to scrap the Neutron Bomb program after Carter had sold our allies on the proposition of a weapon that would kill people but not destroy buildings; such a weapon was controversial, but building it would have given us a strategic advantage against the Soviets; the Soviet campaign undid a done deal that was in the interest of America. (One can argue the merits of the Neutron Bomb, but if the motives of the Soviet Union have to be debated, then we really have been bamboozled.)

So I'm a bit indifferent to the "international community".  They are a diverse lot that are either (A) easily manipulated against us, or (B) work to actively manipulate public opinion in the US to side against their own best interests.  I see no evidence that THEY care about the Kurds as anything but a means by which we could be manipulated to serve ends other than our own.   I can be persuaded to do the right thing in the face of unanimous opposition.  The opposition of the "international community" is a less persuasive argument, and for good reason.