Time to Kick Turkey Out of NATO?

[W.G.Ewald]

@apple

Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan - PKK Official Site

BBC News - Profile: Who are the Peshmerga?

 

[Sylex21]

I didn't "suggest" an alliance or say that it was practical or even possible. My point was 1, that NATO is highly unnecessary now, and 2) is highly provocative. Then I used a "hypothetical" example to explain the psychological impact in reverse.

NATO should have died when the cold war did.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

as and when the US economy collapses, they will realize that their so called "friends " were never their friends to begin with ...... the only reason Japan , and the rest of the so called allies cooperate with the US is for their own protection in a unipolar world .... do you really believe that the Japanese like the Americans? the world has not forgotten Hiroshima & Nagasaki.... would it be possible that the Japanese have?. They will be the first ones to strike the US as and when they can!.
As of Turkey they are doing what is best for them, and I am sure a neutral country like India would have done the same. The Alquida and the ISIS are US creations to begin with, like the WMD's in Iraq, they know that if Turkey participates in the War, it wont be stopping it .....it will be adding fuel to the fire, its like an invitation to ISIS to rage war in their territory. Remember that the Muslim world regards the WOT as another "Western Crusade" and hate it in their hearts, its like a fire starving of air, if they(govt of Turkey) in any way participate in the war, the populous will explode and they will be fighting an American created War within and outside their territory.

If us economy collapses I am sure the world economy will not be doing much better.
When you talk about a 40 trillion dollar economy collapsing it is the same as the world ending.
USA's economy almost double all the Asian economies put together. Try to think
Before making silly statements.

 

[Prometheus]

If us economy collapses I am sure the world economy will not be doing much better.
When you talk about a 40 trillion dollar economy collapsing it is the same as the world ending.
USA's economy almost double all the Asian economies put together. Try to think
Before making silly statements.

there is nothing silly about..... all empires come to an end sooner or later, and believe me there are NO exceptions to that rule!. You sound silly by assuming it will last forever. RE: US economy, it will collapse sooner or later .... as its based on utter lies, and just backed by military might. Once the collapse occurs, it will be a domino effect!. The Greeks thought they will last for ever, the Romans too and so did the British believe that "the sun will NEVER set on the British empire", well time proved them wrong.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

there is nothing silly about..... all empires come to an end sooner or later, and believe me there are NO exceptions to that rule!. You sound silly by assuming it will last forever. RE: US economy, it will collapse sooner or later .... as its based on utter lies, and just backed by military might. Once the collapse occurs, it will be a domino effect!. The Greeks thought they will last for ever, the Romans too and so did the British believe that "the sun will NEVER set on the British empire", well time proved them wrong.

USA is not an empire. British,Mughal etc are empires. If USA collapses you may view it as a positive
But most of the world will not. Any technological or medical progress made in the world in last 50 years
We're from USA.

 

[Prometheus]

USA is not an empire. British,Mughal etc are empires. If USA collapses you may view it as a positive
But most of the world will not. Any technological or medical progress made in the world in last 50 years
We're from USA.

Well enforcing your policies on weaker Nations by showing off your military might..... sounds empierish to me!. Even the socalled British Empire had various Monarchies under them, but those Monarchies dare not challenge the British policies. As with everything else Empires have also evolved, they dont want to be called Empires .... they like to restrict that concept to Star wars . Also the Greeks, the Romans, the British all collapsed, did that affect the rest of the world? I think not.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Getting well away from Turkey's role in NATO.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I didn't "suggest" an alliance or say that it was practical or even possible. My point was 1, that NATO is highly unnecessary now, and 2) is highly provocative. Then I used a "hypothetical" example to explain the psychological impact in reverse.

NATO should have died when the cold war did.

Is the "cold war" not being resurrected?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Well enforcing your policies on weaker Nations by showing off your military might..... sounds empierish to me!. Even the socalled British Empire had various Monarchies under them, but those Monarchies dare not challenge the British policies. As with everything else Empires have also evolved, they dont want to be called Empires .... they like to restrict that concept to Star wars . Also the Greeks, the Romans, the British all collapsed, did that affect the rest of the world? I think not.

Some nations will find military solutions to protect their interests.

 

[parijataka]

'Islamic State is lesser evil for Turkey than Assad or Kurds'

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan is more concerned with the Kurdish problem in his own country and changing the Assad regime in Syria than with Islamic State militants, New Delhi based strategic studies professor Brahma Chellaney told RT.

RT: What's it going to take for Ankara to do something to appease the Kurdish protesters, before the riots spin out of control?

Brahma Chellaney: Turkey is facing a bottom challenge largely because of the President Erdogan's role in the rise of Islamic State. President Erdogan has played a crucial role in the efforts of the US and others to topple President Assad. He was the one who invited the CIA to come and actually train the Syrian rebels. Now he's facing the blowback, and that blowback is going to be quite severe. In fact it's going to get Turkey down the same road that Pakistan has traveled. So we are going to see the "Pakistanization" of Turkey in the coming years, and the Kurdish issue is one dimension in the larger picture.

RT: Some pro-Kurdish protesters have resorted to violence. How's this going down with their supporters at home and abroad?

BC: The Kurds have long been repressed in Turkey. They're not a small minority but a large minority, they dominate southeastern Turkey, the areas bordering with Syria. So they can be a major headache for the Turkish government, especially if the Kurdish insurgency were to revive in Turkey. The Turkish government, I think, handled these protests very prudently. If it tries to use too much force against these Kurdish protesters, the backlash could be quite severe and could trigger a revived Kurdish insurgency.

RT: Would a Turkish ground offensive against Islamic State be able to achieve a quick victory or is Ankara's army more likely to get bogged down?

BC: Let's be clear on one thing, for President Erdogan, the Islamic State is a lesser evil than President Assad and the Kurds. So he is even not sending his ground forces to battle the Islamic State. After all, his policies have contributed to the rise of Islamic State. He will not put his army against the Islamic State. That is the reason why Turkish tanks are just watching silently as IS terrorists continue to attack this town of Kobani from all sides.

RT: Turkey has reiterated its strong stance against the Syrian government, while Damascus says Ankara is acting as an aggressor. Is regime change in Syria still at the top of the agenda for Turkey?

BC: In fact, President Erdogan is telling Washington that if the US wants the Turkish military to intervene in Syria, it has to be on the specific promise by Washington that regime change in Damascus is part of the larger American game plan. And the Americans at the moment are reluctant to give that promise, and that is the reason why President Erdogan is not pressing his forces into action, even in Kobani, which is the city under siege by the Islamic militants.

RT: Islamic State forces are fighting hard to take Kobani. Why's the city so vital to them?

BC: It's strategic because it's located on the access route which connects Turkey right across northern Syria to Iraq, but I think even more than the strategic importance of Kobani, is its symbolic value. This is the only city in northern Syria where some pictures of what is happening are available to the outside world, because it's located right on the border with Turkey and therefore, international journalists can actually report some action from Turkish territory. But in other places in northern Syria where fighting is still raging, where the Islamic State terrorists are on the attack, we have no international pictures for our audiences. And because Kobani is an ongoing story that the media is covering from Kurdish territory, it has acquired great importance symbolically.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Indian professor interviewed by Russian Times about what Turkey should do about Islamic State.

That's one talking head too far in my book.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

NATO - Member countries

 

[parijataka]

Indian professor interviewed by Russian Times about what Turkey should do about Islamic State.

That's one talking head too far in my book.

Well, an outsiders view might be fairer and less clouded IMO !

USA has always had a ambiguous view about Islamic fundamentalists which includes their bosom pals Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, all geo political games played with the supreme confidence of being ensconced thousands of miles away from the conflicts !

With all the games being played in the Middle East it is Europe that will pay the price with refugees streaming across bringing with them all their feuds and medieval cultures.

 

[pmaitra]

Well, an outsiders view might be fairer and less clouded IMO !

USA has always had a ambiguous view about Islamic fundamentalists which includes their bosom pals Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, all geo political games played with the supreme confidence of being ensconced thousands of miles away from the conflicts !

With all the games being played in the Middle East it is Europe that will pay the price with refugees streaming across bringing with them all their feuds and medieval cultures.

Brahma Chellaney talks sense. People like Timothy Snyder (he can't even spell his name right ) and Ben Judah talk gibberish, and do it with panache.

Thanks for sharing a very insightful article.

The British Brainwashing Corporation does a suave job of packaging rubbish in a very presentable manner. Their quality of presentation is par excellence, if we can ignore their subject matter.

 

[Sylex21]

Is the "cold war" not being resurrected?

No the cold war is not being ressurected. The situation is a small local situation caused by pushing NATO further east and threatening Russia's only warm water port, a danger so critical they had to act on Crimea.

1) Russia is not the USSR and there is no Warsaw pact, hence there is no need for NATO any longer. Russia is in no position to challenge the USA in matters the USA actually cares about with more than token interest.
2) NATO is a drain on the USA and its best interests as well. The USA takes the burden of handling Europe's security at cost to American tax payers and military resources, which is a task Europe could easily do itself.
-"According to NATO guidelines, member countries should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence. Only four countries spent that much in 2013: Estonia, Greece, the USA and the UK."
-Why should America bear the burden while Europe gets to enjoy some of the most insane socialist benefits and economic perks in all the world. Let them deal with their own problems, there is no great Russia threat, the USSR isn't there to sweep across Germany and France etc...
-NATO allies basically mooch of the USA, every time NATO goes into Action the USA and Britain do nearly all of the work.
3) NATO ups the risk of entangling alliances leading to a 3rd World War. How is committing to defending "Estonia" in America's benefit. What collective security does Estonia offer back with its undoubtedly "impressive" (sarcasm for Indians reading) military.

A new cold war IS brewing in the Pacific and it will involve China, there can only be one top dog. Being an American I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how the USA does NOT tolerate even potential threats/challenges. Europe is not going to build world class naval fleets and follow the USA into the Pacific, so why should American resources be drained doing the work Europe could easily afford to do if they wanted to.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

No the cold war is not being ressurected. The situation is a small local situation caused by pushing NATO further east and threatening Russia's only warm water port, a danger so critical they had to act on Crimea.

1) Russia is not the USSR and there is no Warsaw pact, hence there is no need for NATO any longer. Russia is in no position to challenge the USA in matters the USA actually cares about with more than token interest.
2) NATO is a drain on the USA and its best interests as well. The USA takes the burden of handling Europe's security at cost to American tax payers and military resources, which is a task Europe could easily do itself.
-"According to NATO guidelines, member countries should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence. Only four countries spent that much in 2013: Estonia, Greece, the USA and the UK."
-Why should America bear the burden while Europe gets to enjoy some of the most insane socialist benefits and economic perks in all the world. Let them deal with their own problems, there is no great Russia threat, the USSR isn't there to sweep across Germany and France etc...
-NATO allies basically mooch of the USA, every time NATO goes into Action the USA and Britain do nearly all of the work.
3) NATO ups the risk of entangling alliances leading to a 3rd World War. How is committing to defending "Estonia" in America's benefit. What collective security does Estonia offer back with its undoubtedly "impressive" (sarcasm for Indians reading) military.

A new cold war IS brewing in the Pacific and it will involve China, there can only be one top dog. Being an American I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how the USA does NOT tolerate even potential threats/challenges. Europe is not going to build world class naval fleets and follow the USA into the Pacific, so why should American resources be drained doing the work Europe could easily afford to do if they wanted to.

The "situation" involves Russian aggression in the Baltics. Russian was always the linchpin of the Warsaw Pact. If NATO disappeared, Russian aggression would increase exponentially. Your implication about US policy in the Pacific does not square with what we hear from Obama, Kerry, et al.

 

[Sylex21]

The "situation" involves Russian aggression in the Baltics. Russian was always the linchpin of the Warsaw Pact. If NATO disappeared, Russian aggression would increase exponentially. Your implication about US policy in the Pacific does not square with what we hear from Obama, Kerry, et al.

Russia is an over hyped threat. My point was, there was a reason for Crimea and that Russia would not try to expand generally. My follow up was, even if they wanted to Europe can handle it without the USA.

Not sure what you mean by "doesn't square with", seems to follow right behind everything I've read from the administration / American geopolitical experts such as Starfor and the Brookings institute etc..., care to elaborate?

 

[Zebra]

Erdogan Says US Airdrops to Kobane 'Wrong' | Defense News | defensenews.com

Oct. 22, 2014 - 03:24PM |
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

ISTANBUL — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday criticized as "wrong" the airdrops of ammunition and weapons by US planes to Kurdish fighters battling jihadists in the Syrian town of Kobane....

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Russia is an over hyped threat. My point was, there was a reason for Crimea and that Russia would not try to expand generally. My follow up was, even if they wanted to Europe can handle it without the USA.

Not sure what you mean by "doesn't square with", seems to follow right behind everything I've read from the administration / American geopolitical experts such as Starfor and the Brookings institute etc..., care to elaborate?

I'll look for another thread for that subject (US Pacific policy).