When our allies commit atrocities...?

A nation has its allies and its enemies.

Let's take the US for example.

We are allies with many nations, that is to say, we ally ourselves with the establishment of that nation.

But what do we do when two of our allies are in disagreement with another?

Who do we support?

And as far as neutrality goes, it can also pose problems.

The Germans felt an immense betrayal when former chancellor Gerhard Schroder joined the Russians and allied himself with Vladimir Putin.

What do we do?

Do we say "How dare you Schroder? How dare you join that tyrant?"

Or do we just mind our business?

Our Saudi friends hate the Yemeni.

We supply them with arms. But why?

Because of a contract we have with them.

Lastly, who do we side with when two of our allies hate each other?

We are allies with the Turks and the Kurds and yet the former want to destroy the latter so that they do not pose as a threat.

Who do we side with?

Having Turkey as an ally has much more benefits than allying with Kurds who barely has an established country.

4 Answers

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    The World Order is much more complicated since the collapse of the 'Evil Empire', the Soviet Union.

    Since then the American moral authority has diminished due to abuses of NSA wiretapping embraced by Democrats as well as private abuse of eminent domain embraced by Republicans.

    The US is still the 'best game in town'. It is just now much more difficult to make the case, and siding with the House of Saud and Erdogan's resurgent Ottoman Empire doesn't help.

    What do Americans do? Our President needs to create clarity: our vision of the future versus theirs. Fair trade and democratic global prosperity versus trade cartels and totalitarian fiefdoms.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    these are the issues of what they call realpolitik. people who, hopefully, have moral scruples nonetheless still have to operate in the real world, in which such dilemmas are obviously common. a lot of people, maybe most people, don't think about this much. maybe they assume the "good guys," just naturally always win. you know, like in the movies, and that nobody ever has to seriously choose between doing things not in line with their moral scruples, and say, letting those they are responsible for and presumably care about, suffer or die. personally I think it's very much to be hoped that those who manage to get themselves into positions of power are better acquainted with these kinds of issues, and are prepared to deal with them as best they can, in addition to having at least some morals. but I think it's obvious there's no real way to guarantee that, not in a democracy or in any other kind of government

  • Joe C
    Lv 5
    3 years ago

    It’s an almost impossible question. I want to say “a pox on both your houses”, and withdraw. But that is not the way of a world leader. And we claim to be The World Leader. If we had a true Dept. of State, I would expect a diplomatic mission forcing the PKK and the Turks to sit down with one another, and not wait for the shooting to start. But it seems a lot of people wanted to drain the swamp, and now there are very few people at State that can negotiate an international treaty successfully. I think a lot more people will die before it gets better. Now that is Sad.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    The Kurds have had many more atrocities done to them than they do to anyone else. The right thing to do is let them have their own country on the land they've been living on for hundreds if not thousands of years. That may not be the popular thing to do with their neighboring countries, but at some point, and it may be for the first time ever, you have to try to do the right thing, rather than the most lucrative thing.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.