User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Should Turkey be expelled from NATO?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    5,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128

    Default Should Turkey be expelled from NATO?

    Or the better question perhaps would have been: should they have ever been admitted in the first place.

    Its no doubt that the Turkey regime (which is an Islamist one, which is adored by the the people) is behind the ISIS.

    Today, Turkey is bombing Kurds, hoping for a mass slaughter beside under its watch on its borders of the Kurdish people:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...ource=Facebook

    Unfortunately the US are leveling their allies, hammering them yesterday with 21 different airstrikes:
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-24-hour-span/

    Probably in retaliation, a US citizen was shot to death in Riyadh, another two injured.

    Only good thing that came of ISIS is that it exposed the barbarity and inside feelings of some.

    Turkey is no longer considered a western ally, they are a dangerous country.

    Saudi Arabias regime doesnt represent its people.

    Its clearer then ever ISIS ideology comes from KSA and Qatar, who promote it at a state level around the world.

    So keep on telling the truth and apologizing, I think these 3 countries will be ticking time bombs.

    I dont think relations as we see today will be maintained much longer.

    100-years ago the Turks, who Erdogan admires today, slaughtered over 1,000,000 Christians.

    Today they seek to finish their work, inflicting slaughter upon the Kurds especially.

  2. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75

    Default

    It on as needed basis.

    the only reason they r in nato is gerography + cold war (obviously) and west saw a potential ally coz they are making them beg & crawl and roll over to join the EU. So long as in west's favor, they'll keep them on the leach.

    If they falter, which I suspect they are about to , well, no more la EU wala Nato incha'Allah!
    OneIsManyIsOne

  4. Thanks Semitic Duwa, proisrael-nonisraeli thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa, Kanaan liked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    5,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YOSS View Post
    It on as needed basis.

    the only reason they r in nato is gerography + cold war (obviously) and west saw a potential ally coz they are making them beg & crawl and roll over to join the EU. So long as in west's favor, they'll keep them on the leach.

    If they falter, which I suspect they are about to , well, no more la EU wala Nato incha'Allah!
    I felt the same way as you at least a couple years ago about Turkey, I think its safe to say now that they are in above their heels.

    Between ISIS and war with the Kurds, being even detested by many Arabs and Iranians, Turkey is going to be in for a long ride...

    It looks like the US took them under. No thanks to the spineless Europeans though!

  6. Likes YOSS liked this post
  7. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Almost impossible! Specially in these days when russia is re-activating military bases and becoming more agressive over there interests! Every allie counts! Europe are no match for Russia alone!
    Last edited by gutoazeredo; 15-10-2014 at 06:37 AM.
    Constructio Cognitio Omnia Vincit

  8. Thanks proisrael-nonisraeli thanked for this post
  9. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,011
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    114

    Default

    As it appears, Turkey was accepted by NATO for its strategic location linking West to East ; beside that , Turkey is not trusted by NATO due to its vague strategy in the region

  10. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Irrelevant
    Posts
    2,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    78

    Default

    Turkey should've been expelled from NATO in 1974 when the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, we're merely reaping what we sowed. None of this is really surprising quite frankly, Turkey never was a reliable ally to start with, any claim to the contrary is sheer madness.

  11. Thanks YOSS thanked for this post
    Likes YOSS, Kanaan liked this post
  12. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75

    Default

    In school, I learned they were Cedar burning barbarians.
    OneIsManyIsOne

  13. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Kanaan, Semitic Duwa liked this post
  14. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    22,186
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    350

    Default

    Understanding Turkey’s Take on the Islamic State


    Posted by: MARC PIERINIFRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2014
    In a week when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made a surprise anti-Western statement while generals from the anti–Islamic State coalition countries (including Turkey) met in the United States, many are puzzled by Turkey’s attitude in the fight against the terrorist group.
    Officially, Turkey is ready to take its “full share” in the coalition, subject to two conditions, which Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu reiterated in the country’s parliament on October 14. First, the coalition must agree on a plan for removing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; and second, allies must put in place a no-fly zone over Syria’s northern borders and a safe zone on the ground.
    Removing the Assad regime is not currently a Western priority. The Syrian president still enjoys the full support of Moscow and Tehran, which would make an agreement at the UN Security Council impossible. This raises the question of how Ankara could possibly promote an action bound to be immediately opposed by Russia and Iran, which incidentally provide 76 percent of Turkey’s gas needs.
    In addition, the notion that atrocities committed by the Islamic State are “conveniently” hiding those perpetrated by the Assad regime, as underlined by an adviser to the Turkish president, can hardly justify Western inaction toward the jihadists. The Islamic State is directly threatening hundreds of thousands of Syrian Kurds as well as Turkey and its Western European allies.Turkey’s second demand, a no-fly zone, is considered by Western military experts as yesterday’s good idea. It could have been a useful device in 2011 or 2012, when the Assad regime unleashed attacks on civilians in northern Syria, but it was not implemented. Meanwhile, as a result of the Assad regime’s atrocities and the recent Islamic State offensive, over 1.5 million Syrians have sought refuge in Turkey, according to government figures.
    By now, the Islamic State controls about 250 kilometers (155 miles) of Syria’s border with the Turkish provinces of Kilis, Gaziantep, and Şanlıurfa, while other terrorist organizations control a stretch of the frontier with the Turkish province of Hatay. This leaves two areas in great danger of facing an Islamic State ethnic-cleansing offensive, namely Syria’s predominantly Kurdish districts of Afrin and Qamishli. In the latter, the main city is disputed between the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and regime forces.


    A safe zone on the ground in northern Syria would protect civilian populations in these two districts and avoid widespread massacres. But the idea would be meaningless in Islamic State–controlled territory unless the coalition launched an all-out ground offensive against the jihadists.
    This raises questions of consistency for Turkey: Is Ankara ready to protect Syrian Kurds across its border while at the same time claiming that the Syrian Kurds’ PYD is affiliated to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey brands a terrorist organization comparable with the Islamic State? And would a no-fly zone over parts of Syria not invite air strikes from the Assad regime?
    Today, the blunt fact is that political realities in the region are changing fast and offering new opportunities. The PYD, faced with extermination, has started amending its political course. If it goes beyond statements to the media, formally severs its ties with the Assad regime, and commits itself to staying away from PKK activities in Turkey, then the PYD could potentially become the best buffer force against the Islamic State—with Iraqi Kurdistan on the eastern side.
    Can Ankara come to terms with such a scenario in the light of the Islamic State’s fast military gains in Syria and Iraq?
    The latest question mark over Turkey’s position came with President Erdoğan’s speech at Marmara University on October 13, in which he denounced the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 that defines the current borders in the Levant: “Even now, they, modern Lawrences of Arabia, are fulfilling the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement . . . Each conflict in this region has been designed a century ago . . . It is our duty to stop this.” This is a line often toed by print media that support the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).
    International politics being shaped by perceptions, Western observers were struck by the close resemblance between the president’s statement and comments made by the Islamic State in June, when the group symbolically and triumphantly destroyed the Iraqi-Syrian border, part of the Sykes-Picot agreement.
    Hearing the president of a major NATO ally and EU applicant seemingly endorse the mantle of anti-imperialism has created noticeable waves in the alliance at the time when top NATO commanders gathered near Washington, DC, to discuss anti–Islamic State military operations.
    For many reasons, it remains difficult to establish the consistency of Turkey’s policy on the Islamic State and Syria. An anti-Assad operation is a no-go for Western partners and an invitation for more trouble for Turkey. A no-fly zone can only work in defense of Syrian Kurds or as part of a full-fledged ground offensive against theIslamic State. If undeterred, the jihadists will surely conduct further massacres against the Syrian Kurds, more of whom will flee to Turkey. And if the Syrian Kurds suffer more ethnic cleansing, Turkey stands to put its own Kurdish peace process in real jeopardy.
    It is fully understandable that memories of PKK terrorism on Turkish soil make Ankara extremely reluctant to entertain a deal with the PYD. This hesitation is rooted in the painful history of the PKK insurgency and the complex evolution of the Kurdish political movement in Syria.
    It is also understandable that Ankara’s “post-Sykes-Picot” depiction of contemporary regional politics is appealing to a large segment of Turkish voters, but it is a lot less comprehensible that this narrative becomes official policy.
    Given the momentous changes occurring in the region, should the past really be the determining factor in Turkey’s position? Or should Ankara take a fresh look at the Syrian Kurds as a potential ally, as it did with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq a few years ago? Such an alliance may help Turkey safeguard its own Kurdish peace process and fend off the Islamic State threat and the predictable chaos it would bring to the country.


    If Ankara were to make such a policy shift, the West should support it with political intermediation and offer massive backing for Turkey’s humanitarian efforts. Letting another wave of ethnic cleansing—and therefore another ideological victory for the Islamic State—occur on Turkey’s and Europe’s doorstep is simply not acceptable.

    Photo by Karl-Ludwig Poggemann, used under CC BY / Cropped from original

    http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=56959
    "No need to say more...I, for one, do not care one iota about being politically correct, I do call it as I see it without no fear, and those who get their feeling hurt by such truth I say to them:
    " GO CRY ME A RIVER" "-Beirutilibnani


    The Right To Do Something Does Not Mean It Is Right. (William Safire)

    Every piece of this is man's bullshit. They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining!'

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •