NATO makes plans to back Turkey over Syria spillover

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Okay. Let's hope we never have to find out!!

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

To answer your question, Naval forums seem to indicate that the Black Sea fleet (or elements of anyway) are already in the Med heading to Tartus with a Marine detachment.

Turkish Navy, on the other hand, is a lot trickier to tie down. It is massive, it actually has more Frigates than the Royal Navy at the moment.

Interesting discussion.

WMD aside, I think the Turks would give Russia a good pasting.

Originally posted by chips
Interesting discussion.

WMD aside, I think the Turks would give Russia a good pasting.

And that is where the whole Turkey would take Russia out argument ends. WMD's!!!

No reason to make it official,it is already happening.
As in Libya,NATO was/is already illegally involved in the conflict within Syria.

Originally posted by all2human
No reason to make it official,it is already happening.
As in Libya,NATO was/is already illegally involved in the conflict within Syria.

edit on 10-10-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)

So is Russia and Iran in Syria then....

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Really? You may want to rethink that.

According to that, Russia would wipe out Turkey fairly easy!

reply to post by Xcathdra


I don't see Syrian/Russian or Iranian commanders in Turkey,assisting,training,funding and organizing fighters to overthrow the Turkish govt.Yes there are Russians in Syria,and Iranian's under there defence pact , Syria is under attack from a military force proven to be foreign,they have every legal right to defend themselves,nothing in Turkey is even remotely similar..

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

Zionist?

He is from an Islamic party and has actually presided over a severe chilling in Israeli - Turkish relations. If he is a "Zionist", he is the best damn actor in the world..

imprisoning the countries generals - wasnt that enough..no...ok

isreal provoked turkey:
*flotilla
*arming and supporting kurds - the current terrorists if turkey
*and during the iraq war

not to mention countless snide remarks

but yet he manages to pick a fight with assad during a sensitive time

zionist......

anyway..this is the sort of fights israel is hooking up

turkey vs syria
and
iran vs saudi arabia

now fall into line, pawn

Although I am against military intervention of the sort we saw in Iraq, I am in favour in this circumstance, and I would have been in favour in the Libyan scenario as well. I believe that there is a humanitarian situation that is extreme, ongoing, and should have been ended pretty much the moment it was begun.

Diplomacy is all very well, but only as long as it serves justice and freedom. When it does not, or when it is prevented from doing so, the consequences are that the only recourse left, is impotently watching a massacre (unacceptable) or getting fist deep in the issue, and tearing a hole in the guts of the oppressor. This is one such scenario.

For those who are overly concerned that this might stiffen the resolve of UN member states regarding the Iran situation, well... these situations are utterly different. For a start, the scenario in Syria right now is that every day someone dies because of the dictatorial warmachine that currently marches through its lands, headed by Assad. That represents an immediate humanitarian crisis, which international aid organisations are being prevented from assisting with, and this should not be overlooked as a concern for Syrians alone. People remember thier saviors, but they remember those who watched them suffer and did nothing far, far longer.

Where Iran is concerned, no one has any hard evidence that they are planning, building, or even thinking of planning or building a nuclear device, and even if they had one, it would be burned out of the air, shot down, or blown up on the ground by the US, UK, Israel, or some other nation that didnt fancy a nuclear threat. We have anti nuke tech, we do not have anti fascism technology yet, and that is why Syria is a) the most pressing humanitarian concern right now, and b) why the Iran situation has nothing to do with it.

The only reason I even mention Iran in this, is because as I stated, sometimes people think that being ok with an intervention in one nation, for one reason, makes interventions in other nations for other reasons ok too. It doesnt. They have nothing to do with one another, and indications to the otherwise are being made either in ignorance, or in willful deceit.

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I don't see Syrian/Russian or Iranian commanders in Turkey,assisting,training,funding and organizing fighters to overthrow the Turkish govt.Yes there are Russians in Syria,and Iranian's under there defence pact , Syria is under attack from a military force proven to be foreign,they have every legal right to defend themselves,nothing in Turkey is even remotely similar..

edit on 10-10-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Thats because they are all in Lebanon / Gaza / West bank training Hamas and Hezzbullah, while also training and funding fighters to destroy Israel.

The US and its allies can only control the process and the outcome in Syria by a greater level intervention. Iran and Turkey have chosen the factions that they want to see come to power. Its time to put and to the Syrian Civil War and ensure who ever comes to power is favourable to the Western World. Air strikes should be enough to tip balance and end the conflict. A stabilization force consisting of ground troops would be needed to prevent the country from falling into anarchy after the Assad regime falls.

Certainly there won't be any ground troops put in . Syria sometime after Xmas will become like Libya is now at present a thousand fold.Either the US and its allies makes a real effort to control the process and outcome or face a eventual Russian/Iranian puppet government in Iran. The same thing applies to any military action that is taken against Iran. Its not enough just to take out Nuclear Program. The Iranian regime would have to removed and care taken to ensure that what replaces isn't even worse.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You think the violence against Israel will stop at Syria?lol ,you believe the people of Syria and Libya will be better off with a diffferent ruler? Iraq,Afghanistan? well they simply are not,in fact they are one of the top human rights abusers,with more bloodshed,radicalism,and hatred towards Israel than ever.If you think these people want a starbucks and Mcdonalds on every corner your sadly mistaken.
Bombing and droning people into democracy and peace is completely asinine,as in Syria..the war against terrorism is an oxymoron all while they support them,Weve lost our freedoms and rights because of these Vampires i'm assuming your ok with that,the US and company have become what they were sent out to destroy..

NATO is simply taking the path of least resistance. They have read the tea-leaves and it is unavoidable that Turkey will be the seat of the new Caliphate so they are just getting ahead of it.

They're probably taking their marching orders from them right now in fact.

Restless NATO, always on mission.

I find the possibility of war between Turkey and Syria to be worrisome at the very least.If cooler heads do not prevail and a serious conflict occurs in the region, it could get out of control very quick.NATO members have collectively stated that they will defend Turkey if need be.Syria has the full backing of Iran and China has stated that it will come to the aid of Iran EVEN if it results in WW3.I can't say I know the official position of the Russians, but they have been trading with Syria and providing logistical support.This could be a worse-case scenario for all involved even if it remained a conventional war.Let us all hope that this is all just posturing.Because if any one side truly thinks it's in their country's best interest to break out with the war-drums a global conflict could very well be the outcome.

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.

"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

Your quiet wrong NATO/America/Britain do have military bases across the globe, while militarily speaking across Europe.

Western and Eastern Europe

Germany.
Britain
Spain
Ukraine
Georgie
Italy
Belgium
Bosnia
Croatia
Kosovo

NATO expansion

NATO Own Words

NATO HQ in Bosnia.
From 2010
Russia names NATO expansion as national threat

(Reuters) - President Dmitry Medvedev approved Friday a new military doctrine identifying NATO expansion as a national threat and reaffirming Russia's right to use nuclear weapons if the country's existence is threatened.

NATO Expansion Still Makes No Sense



Bosnia Has 60,000 NATO Forces

“We dont need an army, because we have NATO soldiers in BiH, we have Croatia and Serbia which have legal obligations to provide peace in BiH,

After the war, there were more than 60,000 NATO troops in BiH, but the numbers have been drawn down to the current level of about 1,200 NATO and EUFOR troops.

Maybe this will clear some things up for you.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


How does Europe equate to the globe?

NATO only has 1,200 troops left so im not sure why you feel the need to highlight 60,000.