Kurds make deal with Assad for protection from Turkey

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
NEW Stance:

The Turkish being attack by official Syrian forces might (and should, according to the rules) trigger a "alliance case", meaning that the NATO's forces have to help Turkey fighting Syria's official forces.

No war?
Nope.
Lots of war.

Do some research my friend.

Article 5 is a "defensive" clause. It can only be invoked should Turkey be attacked, within it's recognized sovereign borders.

The instant they took an offensive action into Syria, that was off the table.

Dbl

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
NEW Stance:

The Turkish being attack by official Syrian forces might (and should, according to the rules) trigger a "alliance case", meaning that the NATO's forces have to help Turkey fighting Syria's official forces.

No war?
Nope.
Lots of war.

Do some research my friend.

Article 5 is a "defensive" clause. It can only be invoked should Turkey be attacked, within it's recognized sovereign borders.

The instant they took an offensive action into Syria, that was off the table.

And this is were you are wrong - they did not attack Syria. But get attacked by Syrian's forces.

An attack "into" another country while not attacking the official forces of said country is left out of the mentioned article.

Nitpicking, I know.

It's all a scam and a done deal.................. Everyone in the region nd worldwide knows Syria was FAR better under Assads rule than it is today. Turkey are just following orders to move in which forces kurds to allow Assad full control of the north, Turk pulls out, terror ends in Syria's north, everybody happy including Vlad, Iran, Trump, bar the French

a reply to: ManFromEurope

You can't go into another country, period. This is not going to invoke the defensive clause.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
NEW Stance:

The Turkish being attack by official Syrian forces might (and should, according to the rules) trigger a "alliance case", meaning that the NATO's forces have to help Turkey fighting Syria's official forces.

No war?
Nope.
Lots of war.

Do some research my friend.

Article 5 is a "defensive" clause. It can only be invoked should Turkey be attacked, within it's recognized sovereign borders.

The instant they took an offensive action into Syria, that was off the table.

And this is were you are wrong - they did not attack Syria. But get attacked by Syrian's forces.

An attack "into" another country while not attacking the official forces of said country is left out of the mentioned article.

Nitpicking, I know.

Not nitpicking, just wrong.

In any case, I don't, for one second, beleive the other NATO "big boys", such as the Brits, France or Germany are going to send troops in to defend Turkey, after condemning their actions as paramount to genocide.

It does concern me that Turkey will end up turning to Russia, but I think that eventuality is a foregone conclusion anyway.

I'm all for heavy economic santions, but unless we can get the UN security counsil on board (unlikely with Russia having veto power), I question how effective they would be.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: LookingAtMars

This has the potential to blow up into something far worse than the intended operation if that report is true.

Do you really think that Turkey wants war with Russia any more than the USA?

This is great news, and is precisely what Col MacGregor said would happen on Tucker Carlson.

Russia is Syria's ally, so they should be the ones to work with Syria with this problem.

And I already suggested maybe this was a tactic by Trump to actually get Turkey booted from NATO, so we weren't forced to call them our ally any more.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I see Fox has the Turks shelling a journalist convoy 9 dead...

Should be interesting to see the responses.

Linky please?

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

And this is precisely why Trump was Right to get us out of there.

Now, I wonder where we will pull out of next...

originally posted by: RAY1990
Just a damn shame about the last 8 years. US policy on Syria was a complete waste of time, life and resources.

I agree - Obama has a lot to answer for, and it is starting to look like he just might pay a price for some of it.

a reply to: Mach2

Turkey already started to turn to Russia after we stopped the F35 sales, but where they miscalculated is Syria since the Kurds agreed to a deal with Asaad they need to back down or run the risk of being totally isolated.
ETA: miscalculated because Syria has been a long time ally of Russia where Turkey is fairly new to the table in that group.

a reply to: tanstaafl

fox news

Fresh airstrikes from Turkey reportedly targeted civilians and a group of foreign reporters in the Syrian border town of Ras al-Ayn, according to monitoring groups and Syrian Kurdish officials.

May have been a misreport but in such a crazy situation its to be expected.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

How dare the Govt of Syria assert its sovereignty over its own territories and borders........ Who do they think they are? Don't they know National Sovereignty is so outdated in the Age of Globalism.

Such Neanderthals.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: projectvxn

I think small forces (as were deployed in Syria) serve our interests and those of our allies.

Forever? Yes, probably so.

That is the warmonger attitude that has gotten us to where we are now.

I prefer Jefferson's sentiment in his inaugural address:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: LookingAtMars

This has the potential to blow up into something far worse than the intended operation if that report is true.

Do you really think that Turkey wants war with Russia any more than the USA?

This is great news, and is precisely what Col MacGregor said would happen on Tucker Carlson.

Russia is Syria's ally, so they should be the ones to work with Syria with this problem.

And I already suggested maybe this was a tactic by Trump to actually get Turkey booted from NATO, so we weren't forced to call them our ally any more.

I saw that interview too. I thought it made complete sense at the time, and so far, has played out exactly as he said.

a reply to: RAY1990

Just a damn shame about the last 8 years. US policy on Syria was a complete waste of time, life and resources.

The Policy of the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Seriously.

Democrats need to own it..........

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Steve Piechenizck predicted that the Kurds will join Assad and Russia to push back the Turks long before the headline They don't need Americans. THey got this handle. Russia, Assad, Kurds also don't like ISIS. AMerica should have never been involved. We can also hit them with sanctions and that is a double whamy they will not win in their aggression.

a reply to: ambassado12

This could have been the plan all along. The US let Erdogan bite off more than he can chew. We will hit Turkey with sanctions next. Then kick them out of NATO.

Could end up hurting Turkey so bad the Kurds will be able to claim some land for themselves, with Russia and Syria's help. Erdogan may even end up being overthrown.

Looks like ABC News is using video from a firing range and passing it off as Turkey attacking.

I'm not surprised.

Tweet

originally posted by: RAY1990
Or are you just talking war crimes and the likes?

An admittedly difficult question.

If they really are ISIS fighters - Jihadists - then imo they have declared themseleves Outlaws, and should be summarily executed. But how/who makes that decision?