NATO makes plans to back Turkey over Syria spillover

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Nothing is factual yet, which is why I mentioned that it's unconfirmed. I will make sure to provide any concrete updates in relation to to the situation.

As it stands the a lot of the information is contradictive but that should never be surprising


Actually for the moment we are of the same mindset about the plane and weapons going to Syria. I do remember some time back that several Iranian civilian airlines were doing the same thing, transporting weapons to Syria on civil aircraft.

Reuters - Exclusive: Western report - Iran ships arms, personnel to Syria via Iraq




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Yep "NATO had no involvement in Iraq"


UNITED NATIONS, New York — European countries have overcome their past differences with the United States over Iraq and all 26 NATO members are now providing training and equipment to Baghdad, according to the alliance's secretary general.
:

www.nytimes.com...


Think a few misunderstood my position here I think that the US should pull out of NATO and let those member states deal with their own issues.

For over 60 years they have outsourced their own national security time they grew up.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That was in 2005, not the 2003 invasion which you cited in your previous post about Turkey's NATO involvement and them denying access for Northern Iraq. You're shifting the goal posts.

And it is wholly arrogant of you, although not surprising, to imply that every other NATO member outsources it's defence to the US.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


NATO bases are used for the majority of operations across the globe.

Nato has been involved from the get go.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by stumason
 


NATO bases are used for the majority of operations across the globe.

Nato has been involved from the get go.



Not really and not to the extent your are portraying.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


"NATO" bases across the globe? The only NATO nations with a global presence are the UK and the US. France only rejoined the alliance after the Iraq War... Again, it's misleading of you and you've now shifted the goal posts of your argument to make them so wide as to be deliberately vague.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by neo96
 


"NATO" bases across the globe? The only NATO nations with a global presence are the UK and the US. France only rejoined the alliance after the Iraq War... Again, it's misleading of you and you've now shifted the goal posts of your argument to make them so wide as to be deliberately vague.


This is what I said:



NATO bases are used for the majority of operations across the globe.


Turkey was to be used to launch the 3rd ID in to Iraq during the Iraq war.

www.warfoto.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
NATO forces are in Afghanisatn, it is a NATO operation.

The Iraq war was not a NATO operation, although initially there were a number of NATO countries involved.

The U.S will never pull out of NATO, not whilst they have air bases in the majority of NATO countries. The other NATO countries (mainly European) would be happy for the U.S to pull out in order to develop a European version. I would not include the U.K in this.

Turkey were invited into NATO during the cold war. It was not only a political decision, it was also a military tactical decision. The USSR had fleets in the Black Sea and only exit out to the Med is through Turkish waters.

Turkey are the only Muslim state to be a member of NATO, it's important to have them as partners, for Geo Politics sake!!!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yeah, I know about the plans to launch the northern front, but as I said before, there was no NATO obligation for them to play ball. The plans were drawn up prior to the US's failure to get the second UNSC resolution authorising the invasion. Without the UN's permission, Turkey wanted no part of it...

I am at a loss as to what point you're trying to make now.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Yes, Afghan is a NATO operation now, but only from 2006 onwards when ISAF was formed. Prior to that, it was the "coalition" operating under the auspices of the UN Charter, Article 51 as the US had been "attacked" by agents operating from Afghanistan under the protection of the de-facto Government of said country..



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Turkey needs no help from NATO unless Russia gets involved. Turkey has the strongest military in the ME. That will be in the means of international talks. I don't see how Russia could intervene militarily. Just not logistically sound. Unless they attack Turkey directly across the Black sea. THEN we gots bunches of troubles.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I would be cautious of Turkey if I were Russia. Their Forces are much larger and equipped with Western weapons. I am quite sure Turkey is more than capable of holding off Russia, or even giving them a hiding to be honest. The Russians had some difficulty with Georgia initially, although they did learn some lessons from that spat, namely that their comms and logistics need overhauling.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Do you know the deployment of Turkish and Russian navies in the Black Sea? Not sarcastic. I just don't know.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I can endeavour to find out....

Off the top of my head though, I am rather confident the Turkish Navy outnumbers the Russian Black Sea fleet, which is actually more like a flotilla.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Turkey is the poster child of a semi succesful full democracy in the middle east. Of course nato will back them



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by intrepid
 


I would be cautious of Turkey if I were Russia. Their Forces are much larger and equipped with Western weapons. I am quite sure Turkey is more than capable of holding off Russia, or even giving them a hiding to be honest. The Russians had some difficulty with Georgia initially, although they did learn some lessons from that spat, namely that their comms and logistics need overhauling.


Stu, you never fail to amuse me!!

The Russians would squash Turkey if it were not a member of NATO. Turkey needed to be a member just as much as we needed it to be a member. They have some western weapons, but I think the Russians would surprise Turkey. Okay, they haven't put many of these weapons to the test in wars recently, but they would put them to the sword, I am sure.

Russia would not attack Turkey because of NATO and NATO alone!!!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Which could be moot anyway. The BS isn't that far across. Not like either would need a carrier to project air strikes. IF it got nasty troop ships though, nah, still don't see that. I don't think Putin is that stupid.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Russia and Turkey do not share land border. Turkish Navy is more then a match for Russian fleet in the area. So unless it would go nuclear, there is going to be no squashing - irrelevant of NATO or not NATO.
.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I don't have to re-think the fact that Russia would wipe Turkey off the face of the Earth, if it were not a member of NATO!!

Turkey was definitley on the Radar for the USSR, without a shadow of doubt. The U.S saw an opportunity to put bases near USSR holdings on the Black Sea and jumped at it.

The U.S allowed the invasion of North Cyprus by Turkey because of the Military Strategic importance!!!





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join