Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Turkey navy to escort aid ships to Palestinians in Gaza

page: 17
55
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by Xcathdra

I would not put it past Greece, if hostilities break out between Turkey and Israel, to get involved on the side of Israel.


If they do they will be kicked out of NATO, its not worth it for them.

At best, this means they wont get involved, not that they would have had much effect anyway.


If we were still at the height of the cold war, and the Soviet Union was still around, I would agree wtih you. Since we are way beyond that time, circumstances change. NATO was formed to deter / defend against and attacks by the East Block. Since there is no longer an East Block, exactly what purpose does NATO, in its current form, actually do?

If Greece or Turkey were removed from NATO, its not like they would be facing invasion from Russia. Also, Turkey seems to be a lot more cozy to Iran (which is their perogative). If Turkey were booted they will just move on.

Also, if Turkey and Greece are booted, then I would expect to see a war break out between the 2 to settle their differences once and for all.

The politics and shifting dynamics are getting more and more complex. We are heading for war and I think its going to start over something we least expect.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
historically speaking, Israel seems to fare well when outnumbered.


The vice versa is also true. IDF outnumbered Hezbollah by 6-to-1 ratio during 2006 Lebanon War, and IDF fared poorly against Hezbollah. And Hezbollah still have 40,000 rockets pointed at Israel, and Israel is doing nothing about it.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
. Im guessing Turkey will provoke Israel, and Israel will respond - not by nuking them, but simply a military scuffle.
.

Of the 90 B61 nuclear bombs(NATO inventory) stored at Incirlik AB (Turkey), 50 are assigned to USAF, and 40 are assigned to Turkish Air Force. Things are not as simple as one thinks ....



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by palg1
Are you serious? Is Israel tough enough?
Take a look at your history books. The last 50 years of mid-east history should suffice.

Modern Middle East history actually started in 1914, start of WW I. The wars Israel fought in (1973 Yom Kippur, 1967 Six-days, ... etc) are like little skirmishes compare to the much bigger battles the Turks fought against the Brits and French during 1914-1917. The Turks actually defeated the Brits in the Gallipoli Campaign, where both sides suffered 200,000 casualties each. However, the Brits did captured Palestine from the Turks in 9 month long bloody battle resulting in the deaths of 25,000 Turks and 18,000 Brits. If the Brits did not captured Palestine from the Turks, there would be no Israel today.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are right about that. I haven't been into that subject since my exam last year and tbh i didn't felt like remembering it all..
(Got a pocket book somewhere with all the international rules and laws)

A pre emptive strike is also considered as a self defence act under certain conditions if i remembered correct..



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by coolieno99

Originally posted by dontreally
historically speaking, Israel seems to fare well when outnumbered.


The vice versa is also true. IDF outnumbered Hezbollah by 6-to-1 ratio during 2006 Lebanon War, and IDF fared poorly against Hezbollah. And Hezbollah still have 40,000 rockets pointed at Israel, and Israel is doing nothing about it.


I think the reason for doing poorly has more to do with the tactics of the "enemy" and the inflexability of Israel.

The United States was born from, essentially, terrorism. Our ancestors told the crown to screw off, and when war occured, we didnt honor the expectations on the battlefield (namely we used hit and run techniques instead of standing ground and firing till done and we also targeted officers / command staff, which was also a no no since at the time you needed the leadership to "control the men" so to speak).

Vietnam is a perfect exaample of the 180. Ho Chi mihn used guerilla tactics against the allied forces to good sucess. When they launched the tet offensive against the South / allies, the media reported it as a loss because there were like 50 small towns over run and recaptured by the North / VC.

What was not widely reported was those captured villages didnt remain captured for long, and on the open battlefield the North / VC had their butts handed to them, at which point they went back to geurilla tactics.

You can apply the same to Israel in Lebanon in 2006. Us in Iraq in 2003 as well as Afghanistan. Our militaries were built upon the doctrine of open confrontation with the expectation that the enemy would fight in a certain manner.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elexio
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are right about that. I haven't been into that subject since my exam last year and tbh i didn't felt like remembering it all..
(Got a pocket book somewhere with all the international rules and laws)

A pre emptive strike is also considered as a self defence act under certain conditions if i remembered correct..


You would be correct, to an extent, about preemptive attacks. The 6 day war was a pre-emptive arrack on Arab forces by Israel (and if people delve into the ins and outs you will see the Soviet Union triggered it by purposely giving bad intell to its Arab allies, whicih prompted them to activate / mass their militaries on the Israeli border, at which point Israel exercised a pre emptive attack.

Historians really cant seem to agree on who the agressor is, or even if the attack was lawful.

What people ignore about the UN though is the charter specifically states the UN cannot force a country into a position of not being bale to defend itself. The country alone is repsonsible for its actions, whether they are offensive / defensive.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I haven't had time to read the 17 pages (!) of replies, but I find it ironic that all of a sudden Turkey is judging Israel on the international legality of their actions.

AHEM! How about the illegal occupation of Cyprus since 1974 by Turkey? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...

Having said that, I don't agree with Israel's stance.
I believe that this simple saber-rattling by Turkey.
The US will step in and settle this little spat between it's two little servant-states.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Konstantinos because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join