Will Waging War in Syria Save Erdogan? (Rumor of War)

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Will Waging War in Syria Save Erdogan?

Turkey’s president appears to be betting on conflict to bolster his political prospects in 2023.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Waggles]

Erdogan wants meeting with Assad. US forces in Syria isolated. The Kurds betrayed by the U.S. ?​

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Erdogan wants meeting with Assad. US forces in Syria isolated. The Kurds betrayed by the U.S. ?​

Thanks for sharing.

 

[MedicBravo]

We should worry about our own country first.
We have more than enough problem.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

We should worry about our own country first.
We have more than enough problem.

We do have many problems.

I think we can multi-task with taking into account what you said by prioritizing what is happening here as the primary priority.

Not for the sake of being selfish, but for the sake of being a stronger nation. And the stronger we are
economically, militarily, diplomatically, etc, the better we can be in our other affairs.

 

[MedicBravo]

We do have many problems.

I think we can multi-task with taking into account what you said by prioritizing what is happening here as the primary priority.

Not for the sake of being selfish, but for the sake of being a stronger nation. And the stronger we are
economically, militarily, diplomatically, etc, the better we can be in our other affairs.

No.
We are so far in debt for example. Homeless (and veterans) on the street. Explain why even one cent should go outside of our country.
To ignore even one legal American is the sign of a bad leader. No?
Ok, take from YOUR family to give to these "poor countries" and see how they feel about it.
It's not selfish. God created a hierarchy in all things. No?
IDK what kind of family structure you have but take their needs away and give it to them. Better yet, give up your life and things and let them take it.
Your last statement makes no sense when spending for one's own nation is not a priority.
We are not the world police nor should we solve everyone else's problems.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

No.
We are so far in debt for example. Homeless (and veterans) on the street. Explain why even one cent should go outside of our country.
To ignore even one legal American is the sign of a bad leader. No?
Ok, take from YOUR family to give to these "poor countries" and see how they feel about it.
It's not selfish. God created a hierarchy in all things. No?
IDK what kind of family structure you have but take their needs away and give it to them. Better yet, give up your life and things and let them take it.
Your last statement makes no sense when spending for one's own nation is not a priority.
We are not the world police nor should we solve everyone else's problems.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote, or perhaps I communicated poorly. Either way, let me try again with less words.

I agree with you that our nation should be a priority.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Remember what Jesus said about judging?
People will often say, Jesus said don't judge, but what he really said was get you self right (the log out of you eye)
and then you will be able to judge righteously and clearly.

Borrowing from that different situation to apply the principle, what I am saying is that I agree with you that
we should make USA a priority for the purpose of getting our own nation right first before we spend so
much resources outside trying to fix other's problems. We should fix our own problems first. We agree on that.

My second part is that I don't believe in isolation-al-lism or staying totally out of other nations issues especially
when we have allies and interest.

So to answer you question, as to why a single cent should be cent outside of America, let me give
a few examples: World War II (to stop Hitler), Haiti Earth Quake ,humanitarian crisis, ... should I continue?

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Or are you proposing that we don't get involved in issues like we did with Hitler, or Humanitarian Crisis and just let people suffer?

Because if you support getting involved you do know that cost money and it is not free.

Or is your position limited involvement? Because all involvement cost money, even if we don't send troops or send money,

just allocating diplomats time to write letters etc, takes away from time that they could be doing other business, and time is money.

So if you say your position is limited involvement, that still is money, and you would be having to answer your own question

as to why are you spending a single cent. So if you stayed consistent to what you are saying you support no degree of involvement

at all. Which in the Hitler example I'm not sure is prudent because if you don't stop Hitler in Europe, you won' be able to stop Hitler

when he has capture all of Europe , Asia, and Africa. At that time you will be next and there will be no one to save you. Is that still your position

that you are sticking to?


But to your point, just thinking out loud, I look at the nation of Israel. God's people. I don't really remember

them getting involved in many other nation's conflicts. I know they invaded many nations, but......I don't recall them

going out and helping the gentile nations around them ( I could be wrong and please correct me if I am -- I like learning, seriously ).

 

[MedicBravo]

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote, or perhaps I communicated poorly. Either way, let me try again with less words.

I agree with you that our nation should be a priority.

No.
I'm clarifying. I'm not saying we become an isolationist country.
Given the numerous problems we have we can not help others when our own are victims.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

No.
I'm clarifying. I'm not saying we become an isolationist country.
Given the numerous problems we have we can not help others when our own are victims.

So if I hear you correctly, "we can not (perhaps you mean- should not) help others when our own are victims"?

So a prerequisite to helping others is to not have our own be victims.

So if I adopt your perspective, that would lead me to believe that when we get to a point where are owns are not victims,
then you would be in support of helping others, is that correct?

Meaning, if by miraculous chance you woke up one day and said, wow, this country is awesome, we have barely any victims
over here, things are great. Then with that condition met, you would be in favor of taking money, troops, etc, to help others.
Is this correct? Of course a far fetch hypothetical, but just examining your perspective.

 

[MedicBravo]

So if I hear you correctly, "we can not (perhaps you mean- should not) help others when our own are victims"?

So a prerequisite to helping others is to not have our own be victims.

So if I adopt your perspective, that would lead me to believe that when we get to a point where are owns are not victims,
then you would be in support of helping others, is that correct?

Meaning, if by miraculous chance you woke up one day and said, wow, this country is awesome, we have barely any victims
over here, things are great. Then with that condition met, you would be in favor of taking money, troops, etc, to help others.
Is this correct? Of course a far fetch hypothetical, but just examining your perspective.

1. Given no country is perfect nor free of problems including homelessness, sick, hungry, etc. then explain how one person's welfare should be ignored for another country. You do not improve the well-being of one group in need by taking from it and giving it to another.
2. The "others" here would be all legal Americans. Our debt, homeless, sick, needy, infrastructure problems with Medicine being one that is high damaged.
3. We'll never get to that point until He comes back and even then it will be some time until His reign starts. There are no and will be no utopias.
4. I don't deal in fantasy nor "What if" b/c this "fix" isn't going to happen. They have no valid standing.

In other words, if your house is broke you've no businesses telling someone else what to do or taking away from others for their "benefit".

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

In other words, if your house is broke you've no businesses telling someone else what to do or taking away from others for their "benefit".

Thanks for the reply, I'll focus on your last sentence.

You stated "you have no business telling someone" -- so what about the situations where you are not telling someone
but they are requesting help?


Second question, you talk about taking away from our own house to benefit others, do you believe that
some have excess and are able to give in abundance and still have much left over? We are talking about
nations of course, but let me give an analogy using people. Yes Jeff Bezos could have lost lots of money
with bad business deals but he has so much money that he can give some away and it not really impact him.

Do you see the USA in a similar situation? Where we could give money for example away and it not impact
our quality of life much at all?

From a social science and systematic perspective I would say that your perspective on things seems to
indicate that you see a direct correlation between money and results. I don't. Money helps, but there is
a point of diminishing returns and other factors that are more important, such as the management
of the funds, and all problems are not money problems.

For example, the problem with drug abuse or poverty. That is not simply a money problem. Yes,
having money will help build more drug clinics or food pantries, but we have lots of those
in the USA, the problem sometimes is the information is not shared between agencies
or the problem can be people choosing to make bad decisions with addictions.

For example take the B-2 bomber, which is nearly $1 Billion dollars, or the F-35 Figther which is over $200 million.
If we had one less B-2 in our air force and one less F-35 Fighter jet, do you think our quality of life
would decrease or our protection in the military be at risk? If the $1billion went to another country I think
we would still be find because we have excess, surplus in this country.

When you start seeing the full picture, you realize that it is not a one to one ratio between
money and results, it just really isn't.

Let me share another example. Let's say you have two friends who can't get a girlfriend and you
want to spend money to help them get a girlfriend. You spend $100 on one friend to get him a dating
coach, and another you spend $10,000 on to get the best dating coach, a physical trainer, a new car,
etc, etc ,etc. Will the one that you spend more money on necessarily do better with getting a girlfriend?
Not necessarily, while the money helps, there are other factors at play.

Another example, lets assume you like president Bob and think president John is terrible.
Now imagine President Bob puts $50 trillion towards the USA government budget, but
president John puts $75 trillion towards the budget. Will the country be better just because
John who is a terrible president puts more money towards it? Of course not, if has terrible policies
for the economy, immigration, etc, etc the money will just be getting wasted.

So money is required but it is only one of the components in the framework of other factors, and there
comes a point of diminishing returns with money.

Do you play any sports? Look at it as like food. As an athlete you need a certain amount of food
for energy, if you don't have a certain amount you won't perform well, but after getting a certain
level of energy, just eating more protein shakes or energy bars won't necessarily make you better,
there will come a point where you have to rely on your training and technique, etc, etc.

Thus with government, I would say money is only about 25% of the picture, the right
policy, institution, and systems is about 35%, and the right leadership is about 40%.

So you are focusing on the 25% thinking that you can't help others because it will result in a worst outcome
for the country, and I'm telling you know, the other 75% (leadership and policy) is where the bulk of the impact
will come from, and there is only so much that 25% (money) can do to force change.

 

[MedicBravo]

Thanks for the reply, I'll focus on your last sentence.

You stated "you have no business telling someone" -- so what about the situations where you are not telling someone
but they are requesting help?


Second question, you talk about taking away from our own house to benefit others, do you believe that
some have excess and are able to give in abundance and still have much left over? We are talking about
nations of course, but let me give an analogy using people. Yes Jeff Bezos could have lost lots of money
with bad business deals but he has so much money that he can give some away and it not really impact him.

Do you see the USA in a similar situation? Where we could give money for example away and it not impact
our quality of life much at all?

From a social science and systematic perspective I would say that your perspective on things seems to
indicate that you see a direct correlation between money and results. I don't. Money helps, but there is
a point of diminishing returns and other factors that are more important, such as the management
of the funds, and all problems are not money problems.

For example, the problem with drug abuse or poverty. That is not simply a money problem. Yes,
having money will help build more drug clinics or food pantries, but we have lots of those
in the USA, the problem sometimes is the information is not shared between agencies
or the problem can be people choosing to make bad decisions with addictions.

For example take the B-2 bomber, which is nearly $1 Billion dollars, or the F-35 Figther which is over $200 million.
If we had one less B-2 in our air force and one less F-35 Fighter jet, do you think our quality of life
would decrease or our protection in the military be at risk? If the $1billion went to another country I think
we would still be find because we have excess, surplus in this country.

When you start seeing the full picture, you realize that it is not a one to one ratio between
money and results, it just really isn't.

Let me share another example. Let's say you have two friends who can't get a girlfriend and you
want to spend money to help them get a girlfriend. You spend $100 on one friend to get him a dating
coach, and another you spend $10,000 on to get the best dating coach, a physical trainer, a new car,
etc, etc ,etc. Will the one that you spend more money on necessarily do better with getting a girlfriend?
Not necessarily, while the money helps, there are other factors at play.

Another example, lets assume you like president Bob and think president John is terrible.
Now imagine President Bob puts $50 trillion towards the USA government budget, but
president John puts $75 trillion towards the budget. Will the country be better just because
John who is a terrible president puts more money towards it? Of course not, if has terrible policies
for the economy, immigration, etc, etc the money will just be getting wasted.

So money is required but it is only one of the components in the framework of other factors, and there
comes a point of diminishing returns with money.

Do you play any sports? Look at it as like food. As an athlete you need a certain amount of food
for energy, if you don't have a certain amount you won't perform well, but after getting a certain
level of energy, just eating more protein shakes or energy bars won't necessarily make you better,
there will come a point where you have to rely on your training and technique, etc, etc.

Thus with government, I would say money is only about 25% of the picture, the right
policy, institution, and systems is about 35%, and the right leadership is about 40%.

So you are focusing on the 25% thinking that you can't help others because it will result in a worst outcome
for the country, and I'm telling you know, the other 75% (leadership and policy) is where the bulk of the impact
will come from, and there is only so much that 25% (money) can do to force change.

A quick glance I can already tell you're going to bring up too many off-topic issues.
By "you" I mean any good leader or one in charge of providing any service or good IN country.
Yes, again, IN country. We do NOT have excess. We have a LOT of debt. We have a lot of our own problem which are not getting better.
The hierarchy in anything starts with the source. Here, God, self, spouse, kids, and so on. When you get to the local, state, and federal level you get the infrastructure which is a priority. Fiat money is largely worthless but infrastructure, food, clean water, shelter, etc. are tangible needs for every person.
"From a social science and systematic perspective I would say that your perspective on things seems to
indicate that you see a direct correlation between money and results." - Yes. Money runs the world.
Defense is also a necessity. Without adequate military then you should remind yourself we have a lot more enemies than you think and would take any opportunity to hit us. (9-11, Muslims, Burn Loot Murder, etc.)
I'm not going to discuss the numerous issues. You bring up Bezos and yet "claim" he has to use his wealth to fix the world. People WHINE about Musk not doing the same thing. If I was one of those rich people, I would ensure America came first in all things.
You seem to focus on the rest of the world while turning a blind eye our citizens here. Any country that does as you suggest is doomed to fail.
Note: Ukraine isn't innocent b/c it was attacked. It's full of Nazis who run the country, most world leader launder their money through it, and that "president" is a homo that dresses up in women's clothing. Soros and a host of evil (Leftist) people support Ukraine.
All that money that Pedo Joe sent could have EASILY been sent to every legal American with surplus left over.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

A quick glance I can already tell you're going to bring up too many off-topic issues.
By "you" I mean any good leader or one in charge of providing any service or good IN country.
Yes, again, IN country. We do NOT have excess. We have a LOT of debt. We have a lot of our own problem which are not getting better.
The hierarchy in anything starts with the source. Here, God, self, spouse, kids, and so on. When you get to the local, state, and federal level you get the infrastructure which is a priority. Fiat money is largely worthless but infrastructure, food, clean water, shelter, etc. are tangible needs for every person.
"From a social science and systematic perspective I would say that your perspective on things seems to
indicate that you see a direct correlation between money and results." - Yes. Money runs the world.
Defense is also a necessity. Without adequate military then you should remind yourself we have a lot more enemies than you think and would take any opportunity to hit us. (9-11, Muslims, Burn Loot Murder, etc.)
I'm not going to discuss the numerous issues. You bring up Bezos and yet "claim" he has to use his wealth to fix the world. People WHINE about Musk not doing the same thing. If I was one of those rich people, I would ensure America came first in all things.
You seem to focus on the rest of the world while turning a blind eye our citizens here. Any country that does as you suggest is doomed to fail.
Note: Ukraine isn't innocent b/c it was attacked. It's full of Nazis who run the country, most world leader launder their money through it, and that "president" is a homo that dresses up in women's clothing. Soros and a host of evil (Leftist) people support Ukraine.
All that money that Pedo Joe sent could have EASILY been sent to every legal American with surplus left over.

Thanks for the reply.

You bring up a good point which strongly counters one of my proposed points.
I stated that we have excess and you technically corrected me by stating that we have debt.

That is true, we do have a large debt of trillions, you are correct in the net being debt. Although
the borrowed money that we are spending we are not managing well.
Although the practical day to day aspect of the average America who has internet, phones, cars or access to public transportation,
shows that we have much. But I won't argue that point, I'll give you the check on being technically right,
that we don't have excess because we have debt (technically speaking).


You bring up Ukriane, thanks for sharing your position on that. I'm not speaking of Ukraine but the general principle of involvement,
so I won't go off topic and reply to that aspect, but I welcome your continued passionate replies.

You also stated that "Defense is also a necessity." I'm not sure if you got my point. Let me try again as I'm not doing
the best in communicating my thoughts to you. I'll own that.
So I mentioned that a B-2 cost nearly or more than $1 billion dollars, then I asked the question, I stated
"would we be less safe if we had one less B-2 bomber?" The point I wanted to communicate is that
no we would not be less safe. So it is a straw man argument to state "Defense is also a necessity", because
it seems to communicate that I'm saying defense is not. Which is not what I'm saying. Of course defense is needed.
The nation of Israel had armies to defend themselves, we all know this. What I'm saying is that we have more
than enough defense weapons.

Look at Afghanistan and the millions of dollars of equipment that we left when we withdrew. Millions and millions
of dollars of equipment. DO you think that if we have put another billion into the equipment that we had over
there it was have made a difference in the outcome after 20 years in that region? Which echos my point,
that it comes down to leadership and policy, not just money. We lost in the middle east because of the various
inconsistency in the policies and administrations changed and leadership which likely didn't gain the trust of the people
on the ground. So when we left the soldiers turned and renewed their alliance to the taliban who they trusted
and had a relationship with. Money can't buy you people's trust, respect, or a relationship, there is more to
great diplomatic policy then just money.

I'll repeat my position, money helps and a certain minimal amount seems necessary, but after that point, the other
factors such as human leadership and appropriate policies provide greater yields on your return. (Do you disagree with this statement my friend?)

And you stated that "money runs the world" be careful and feel free to clarify because you don't want to (or maybe you do),
give off the vibe that you are carnal and worldly minded.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

I'll repeat my position, money helps and a certain minimal amount seems necessary, but after that point, the other
factors such as human leadership and appropriate policies provide greater yields on your return.

(Do you disagree with that statement above my friend? And if you disagree how would you reword it to state your position)

Is your position?

"Money runs the world and is more important than good leadership and good policies, and therefore should be guarded
at all cost and not shared?)

Is this your position @MedicBravo .

If not please state your position in one or two sentences comprehensively and concisely.

Thanks.

 

[MedicBravo]

@Jesus_is_LORD
Again, we do not have excess.
In food retail, I can tell you many staples are lower in supply and have been thus causing a sharp increase in cost. A mistake at work resulted in us getting surplus of one and since it is a perishable, then it was priced really low. If we'd kept it at current prices we'd have to destroy all past the Sell By Date.
I could list of numerous ways we do not have access but the topic is not addressing every problem.
Regarding military defense I don't know what the people higher up and contracts do but as a Medic I can assure you the costs for things needed to save a life are largely accurate. On that, we have several countries that are close to or do have the capability to hit us and hit us hard.
M.A.D. is largely why it hasn't (but probably will) happened yet.
Israel is not good comparison. America is huge in comparison. Britain, Russia, and China are large countries.
Yeah, Pedo Joe and the rest who decided to leave all that was stupid and moronic on a genetic level. It was done on purpose. In war, both sides profit and the costs include life on both sides. The love of money is the root of evil. This is another off-topic issue.
I can't keep up with the numerous organizations here that help people. It makes NO sense to send ANY money to people in "need" outside of it when our own are in need.
Per the last statement, it is 100% true. Don't make assumptions.
Nothing is free. At some point, time, money, and labor is involved. A certain group in America who is "in charge" has shown they are not only flawed but the enemy. That is another discussion but the statement is factual.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

@Jesus_is_LORD
Again, we do not have excess.
In food retail, I can tell you many staples are lower in supply and have been thus causing a sharp increase in cost. A mistake at work resulted in us getting surplus of one and since it is a perishable, then it was priced really low. If we'd kept it at current prices we'd have to destroy all past the Sell By Date.
I could list of numerous ways we do not have access but the topic is not addressing every problem.
Regarding military defense I don't know what the people higher up and contracts do but as a Medic I can assure you the costs for things needed to save a life are largely accurate. On that, we have several countries that are close to or do have the capability to hit us and hit us hard.
M.A.D. is largely why it hasn't (but probably will) happened yet.
Israel is not good comparison. America is huge in comparison. Britain, Russia, and China are large countries.
Yeah, Pedo Joe and the rest who decided to leave all that was stupid and moronic on a genetic level. It was done on purpose. In war, both sides profit and the costs include life on both sides. The love of money is the root of evil. This is another off-topic issue.
I can't keep up with the numerous organizations here that help people. It makes NO sense to send ANY money to people in "need" outside of it when our own are in need.
Per the last statement, it is 100% true. Don't make assumptions.
Nothing is free. At some point, time, money, and labor is involved. A certain group in America who is "in charge" has shown they are not only flawed but the enemy. That is another discussion but the statement is factual.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and thanks for your service as a medic, I bet you have some stories you could tell.

 

[MedicBravo]

Thanks for sharing your perspective and thanks for your service as a medic, I bet you have some stories you could tell.

It's factually perspective.
What kind of person and Christian would I be if I lied especially regarding something as essential as water and food?
If we go back through some Bible reminders, things are going to get a LOT worse before they get better.
America used to be in a place where we were doing well and could offer help but we haven't been that way for at least15 years if not more.

 

[Waggles]

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah