4 ms·
1. Criticism is not blocking. 2. It's a military invasion. The precedent of Operation Olive Branch indicates that calling this an "effort to stabilize" is an a
by primroot 7y ago
1. Criticism is not blocking.
2. It's a military invasion. The precedent of Operation Olive Branch indicates that calling this an "effort to stabilize" is an abuse of semantics.
3. Do you have any source indicating that Kurdish control is contributing to the displacement of people?
4. More about "efforts to stabilize": "Criticism of Turkish alleged support for Jihadists, including ISIL, and of targeting Kurds" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Related_criticism_of_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syr...
- igammarays 7y ago> 2. It's a military invasion. The precedent of Operation Olive Branch indicates that calling this an "effort to stabilize" is an abuse of semantics. Then what was America doing there?
- primroot 7y agoI don't see your point. If I say a military invasion is not semantically equivalent to an "effort to stabilize," I leave open the possibility that some invasions do have a stabilizing effect, but that is never something evident but something that has to be argued for. I don't feel like digressing into drawing Venn Diagrams.
- igammarays 7y agoFair enough, but I would argue that a military operation conducted by a neighbouring country dealing with the fallout of war (Turkey) is more justified and possibly stabilizing than any American or Russian incursion. Turkey has more of an incentive to "stabilize" its direct borders than America has in that region. What is America's interest in that region anyway?
- InitialLastName 7y ago> What is America's interest in that region anyway? It starts with an O and rhymes with way some old timey new yorkers say "girl"