The conspiracy theorist in me is shouting right now.

Is it possible that the attacks on Turkey were staged to make intervention in Syria a more justifiable cause? Much of the burden for support will fall on the US, inevitably. A strong case would be required for any type of major foreign policy decision during the election cycle.


Regardless, I believe NATO should make efforts to stop the violence in Syria.

Turkey should not be a NATO member their actions during the Iraq war: denying land access, killing the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Everyone should stay the hell out of Syria and let them deal their mess in the fist place.

Turkey's move into NATO was a political maneuver.

But NATO is a military alliance... it seems like the result should have been 'expected.'

In all this, it's the Kurds who will be crushed. I expect we'll hear all manner of stories about "whose side they are on."

Originally posted by neo96
Turkey should not be a NATO member their actions during the Iraq war: denying land access, killing the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Everyone should stay the hell out of Syria and let them deal their mess in the fist place.

The Iraq war had nothing to do with NATO.

As for Turkey and Syria and the shootdown there is questions on where that plane was, and NATO has made mention of that.

The latest involved Syrian shelling into Turkey, so Turkey has a right to respond. Nato was consulted because Turkey is a NATO member and under the treaty Turkey's actions are valid. Depending on the circumstances is what determines NATO response.

If a country attacks Turkey, it does NOT automatically mean NATO will use their military to respond. NATO response is based on the needs of the country mn question and what thety ar requesting, whether its direct military assistance, indirect, financial, support, intelligence, etc etc etc.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq.... All nations that border Syria and all of those nationshave had Syrian spill over into their territory. Jordan recently had a military exchange with syrian government troops inside jordan.


As for assistance if you dont want NATO invovled fair enough... Then their should be no reason Russia, China and Iran should be supporting Syria then.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Turkey's move into NATO was a political maneuver.

But NATO is a military alliance... it seems like the result should have been 'expected.'

In all this, it's the Kurds who will be crushed. I expect we'll hear all manner of stories about "whose side they are on."

I find it, in general, hypocritical (no offense) for people to invoke the Kurdish issue. Where was the sense of concern over the Kurds when Hussein went after them? Or is it acceptable to only care when the issue can be used against the West / NATO / US?

What's the point of making it public, NATO trying to scare Siria is less expensive than real actions.

I would imagine that NATO have plans for any member country coming under attack!!

As for wether Turkey should be a member of NATO because of their stance during the Iraq war, well France shouldn't be either then?

I can't see the war spilling over into Turkey, although there maybe a repeat of stray missiles/rockets going over the border, but unless Syria declares war on Turkey then NATO will not intervene.

What we have to remember here is the fact that Russia has a treaty/pact with Syria. It's the only reason we have not seen a repeat of actions we saw in Libya. If it does kick off, this could well be the spark that ignites, dare I say it? WWIII?

Originally posted by neo96
True enough but Turkey is a member state who did not allow access, and put that alliance in jeopardy which tells me that "alliance" is only an alliance when it benefits Turkey.

No one is saying Turkey can not "act in their own interest" but that interest is only when that access is convient for Turkey.

Its not just Turkey... NATO, while an alliance, does not supercede the national interest of the country itself. Since Iraq did not directly attack the United States in north America, article IV and V are not going to apply. NATO is a defensive alliance and is restricted to direct attacks in North American and europe and only applies to NATO nations.

Turkey did not agree with Us actions against Iraq and should not be faulted for that position. If we look there were many European countries who did not agree with US actions in Iraq. We are still allies with them so why should it be any different for Turley?

People complain, incorrectly, that the US forces nations to acquiese to US demands. Turkey is a prime example of just how faulty that mindset is.

Originally posted by neo96
It most certainly is interventionism by the west is acceptable for anyone, but the kurds.

I saw no national interest being served in Libya, and I do not see any interest being served in Syria.

edit on 10-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

While ignoring the fact Libya was lead by the French and British? While ignoring the fact the US administration wanted nothing to do with Libya, which is why France and the UK were forced to elad the charge?

While my last part wass in response to MaxMars the question remains... Why were the Kurds not an issue when saddam attacked them but are now being used as a vice?

As for national interest in Syria where has the US intervened militarily? We sent 135 troops to Jordan to assist, hardly an invasion force. Yet people are silent when Jordan and Iraq beef up their borders... People are silent when Lebanon ignores cross border attacks into their territory.

As for Turkey supplying rebels and people finding it unfair they should think about that position the next time Hamas / Hezzbullah llaunch rockets into Israel.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Maxmars
Turkey's move into NATO was a political maneuver.

But NATO is a military alliance... it seems like the result should have been 'expected.'

In all this, it's the Kurds who will be crushed. I expect we'll hear all manner of stories about "whose side they are on."

I find it, in general, hypocritical (no offense) for people to invoke the Kurdish issue. Where was the sense of concern over the Kurds when Hussein went after them? Or is it acceptable to only care when the issue can be used against the West / NATO / US?

It would offend me if I had ever failed to care about the Kurdish aspect of this area. When Hussein went after the Kurds, one of our common information sources - the media - failed to care though... so the hypocrisy can be said to be theirs. In this area it appears it is the Kurds who lack the support of any government. They are, in effect, as 'displaced' as the Palestinians - despite the high-minded, silky-sounding words of the "world leaders."

Not invoking the Kurdish element of this regions is rather myopic... like not recognizing the sale of chemical weapons used by the Iraqis when they went after them (and Iran) with the acquiescent blessings of the West.... (Silence is consent.)

If we don't bring it up now... when do we bring it up? (all rhetorical and pejorative of course)

Originally posted by Maxmars
When Hussein went after the Kurds, one of our common information sources - the media - failed to care though... so the hypocrisy can be said to be theirs.

An excuse worthy of the Obama Administration....

Its always someone elses fault...

Originally posted by Maxmars
In this area it appears it is the Kurds who lack the support of any government. They are, in effect, as 'displaced' as the Palestinians - despite the high-minded, silky-sounding words of the "world leaders."

Which demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Arab nations who have direct contact with the Kurds.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Not invoking the Kurdish element of this regions is rather myopic... like not recognizing the sale of chemical weapons used by the Iraqis when they went after them (and Iran) with the acquiescent blessings of the West.... (Silence is consent.)

Which Syria just recently threatened Turley with.. again political expediency takes precedent over resolve on the issue. Syria is threatening to use the Kurds against Turkey.

Ironic that spending so much time killing them only to support them when its convient.. something the Us is tagged with while its ignored elsewhere.

Originally posted by Maxmars
If we don't bring it up now... when do we bring it up? (all rhetorical and pejorative of course)

It should be brought up firt thing in an effort to find common ground and resolve the issue instead of waiting for conflict and then to only use them as a pawn.

Since the argument is the US should get the hell out of other countries affairs, how is the US responsible for what happens to the Kurds? or the Palestinians? BY extension then how is their invocation now relevant?

opputunists everywhere

iv made up my mind that the turkish leader is a zionist

and i want to say to him...good luck with the kurds..as your next on their list

peace