Turkey's President Erdogan vows to launch ground invasion of northern Syria

a reply to: putnam6

Short and sweet.

Turkey should be thrown out of NATO and the U.S. should honour their commitment to the Kurds.

a reply to: putnam6

Suggest we get away from 'how we feel' and discuss facts.

1. Turkey is a sovereign power. Membership in international organizations does not preclude Turkey from initiating wars.

2. If the USA confronts Turkey over operations in Syria, it wouldn't be the first time NATO powers have been at odds with each other. Think Cyprus.

3. For NATO to assist Turkey in their invasion of Syria, Article 5 would have to be invoked and confirmed by all member nations of NATO. That isn't going to happen.

4. Turkey has leverage at the moment due to their assistance to Ukraine and having a say on whether Sweden and Finland can join NATO.

Cheers

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: putnam6

To be brutally honest, I care not for the Kurds or Syria. The Kurds were only advantageous as a proxy against Iran, which I see dwindling in importance.

Have at it Turkey, as long as you maintain your NATO commitments.

Here we have it,the same poster(read 77th brigade private)who was banging the drum in the thread above this one for drones to be sent to Ukraine.
Read that thread if you want a glimpse into the 77th Brigade propaganda war,the fake caring for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
You have shown your true colours here,what next? call me a Kurdish troll?
I notice you are the latest person to join since February spouting the Ukraine angels,Russia demons mantra.
#youfoolnoone.

Spam removed.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

5. Turkey controlls access of NATO warships to the black sea from the Mediterranean through the Turkish Straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles)

6. Black sea grain deal - Turkish Straits again but with cargo ships

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: putnam6

Suggest we get away from 'how we feel' and discuss facts.

1. Turkey is a sovereign power. Membership in international organizations does not preclude Turkey from initiating wars.

2. If the USA confronts Turkey over operations in Syria, it wouldn't be the first time NATO powers have been at odds with each other. Think Cyprus.

3. For NATO to assist Turkey in their invasion of Syria, Article 5 would have to be invoked and confirmed by all member nations of NATO. That isn't going to happen.

4. Turkey has leverage at the moment due to their assistance to Ukraine and having a say on whether Sweden and Finland can join NATO.

Cheers

Yup and I can't see the Kurds, UK or France allowing a formal NATO force/agreement after the US evactuated Syria in 2019 and abandonned them on the battlefield with no notice so Turkey could commit another mini-genocide against the Kurds and release 1000s of ISIS prisoners who re-armed with the billions in weapons the US left behind.

There should be a DMZ/peacekeeping force like the Turkey-Cyprus situation and creation of Kurdistan as appology for the US abusing them for decades and regain them as allies.

a reply to: putnam6

The inevitable outcome of Trump abandoning the Kurds is twofold. First, the Kurds would face the wrath of Turkey, and historical hatred would continue unchecked. Second, a partner in an often fragile and unstable Middle East was deserted. A potential security anchor in Northern Iraq and the potential to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey was lost.

Also, this isn't a NATO issue, although Turkey buying Russian weapon systems opens up questions concerning that country's NATO membership. But that is a discussion for another time.

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: putnam6

To be brutally honest, I care not for the Kurds or Syria. The Kurds were only advantageous as a proxy against Iran, which I see dwindling in importance.

Have at it Turkey, as long as you maintain your NATO commitments.

Wow !! You’re an absolute hypocrite.. let’s invade Syria and
Say Russia shouldn’t invade Ukraine.. you’re pathetic.

a reply to: putnam6

Me, I’m a passivist; I say every country should just hire the best negotiators and negotiate the mess out of everyone. Thou shall not kill, unless I guess you are a world leader. Then that seems to be fine.

Shesssh... something tells me I got drug into the wrong time line, and need to get re-assigned. I am sure my timeline had this sort of thing figured out a long time ago.

I think an important question to ask is whose side is Turkey on...? Does its Invasion into Syria hurt or help Russia?

I think an important question to ask is whose side is Turkey on...? Does its Invasion into Syria hurt or help Russia?

originally posted by: Overseeall

To be brutally honest, I care not for the Kurds or Syria. The Kurds were only advantageous as a proxy against Iran, which I see dwindling in importance.

Have at it Turkey, as long as you maintain your NATO commitments.

The Kurds are actually the good guys in all this. I have no clue how Turkey ever made it into NATO in the first place. An interesting fact is back after WWII when the Brits and French split up that whole area into the countries we see today they were actually trying to give the Kurds they own country too, but there was zero centralized leadership to work with so they just kind of added them to Iraq and Syria.

originally posted by: StarsInDust
a reply to: putnam6

Me, I’m a passivist; I say every country should just hire the best negotiators and negotiate the mess out of everyone. Thou shall not kill, unless I guess you are a world leader. Then that seems to be fine.

Shesssh... something tells me I got drug into the wrong time line, and need to get re-assigned. I am sure my timeline had this sort of thing figured out a long time ago.

Yea not gonna lie I definitely believe in fewer times you should have to go and die for your country now than I did when I was much younger. FWIW Ukraine being invaded by Russia isn't one of them.

What's the saying

Not my monkey

Not my circus

This is still a Europe problem and considering how most non-Americans have pissed and moaned for decades about Uncle Sam being World's Policeman. For now, they need to settle this themselves, the billions that have been and will continue to be sent is enough

originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: putnam6

The inevitable outcome of Trump abandoning the Kurds is twofold. First, the Kurds would face the wrath of Turkey, and historical hatred would continue unchecked. Second, a partner in an often fragile and unstable Middle East was deserted. A potential security anchor in Northern Iraq and the potential to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey was lost.

Also, this isn't a NATO issue, although Turkey buying Russian weapon systems opens up questions concerning that country's NATO membership. But that is a discussion for another time.

Thanks for your insight I don't know enough about it except I've heard stories from guys I knew as kids in the 80s and other stories. Iraq would have been much worse without the Kurds.

So for it to be NATO the belligerent needs to only be Russia?

Of course, I remember those 3 guys saying it was or wasn't NATO whenever it suited their fancies.

So evidently if Turkey continues, the Kurds guarding the ISIS prisoners can not guarantee the security of the prison. All because of one terrorist attack not associated with those Kurdish forces

www.bbc.com...

Local forces in north-east Syria have told the BBC that they may be forced to abandon camps holding Islamic State (IS) group detainees.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said they no longer have the capacity to guard the compounds if Turkey launched a fresh ground operation there.

Turkey has attacked hundreds of targets in the region in retaliation for a bombing in Istanbul.

At least six people were killed and dozens more were wounded in the blast.

Turkey has blamed the bombing on Kurdish separatists based in northern Syria.

The SDF - a mostly Kurdish militia alliance backed by the US - has denied any involvement in the attack, and has accused Turkey of using it as a pretext to justify a long-planned cross-border offensive.

On Wednesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the strikes were "only the beginning" and that he was determined to secure Turkey's border with Syria by establishing a "security corridor".

Turkey will launch Syria ground operation - Erdogan
But the head of the SDF, General Mazloum Abdi, has told the BBC that a ground operation would result in a resurgence of the IS terror group.

"It would lead to a second civil war in Syria and our counter-terrorism operations against IS would stop," he said. "As part of the international coalition, we fought and defeated IS, and what Turkey is doing will undermine all of it."

a reply to: putnam6

Article 5 was directed at the Soviet Union and didn't automatically apply to NATO member countries involved in other conflicts. For instance, during the Falklands War, NATO members didn't invoke Article 5 in support of the United Kingdom. However, Article 5 was trigged in the wake of 9-11.

So Turkey's crackdown against the Kurds falls beyond the scope of the NATO Alliance. Frankly, Turkey's geostrategic importance and Trump's foolish actions wrote out a free pass for Turkey.

originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: putnam6

Article 5 was directed at the Soviet Union and didn't automatically apply to NATO member countries involved in other conflicts. For instance, during the Falklands War, NATO members didn't invoke Article 5 in support of the United Kingdom. However, Article 5 was trigged in the wake of 9-11.

So Turkey's crackdown against the Kurds falls beyond the scope of the NATO Alliance. Frankly, Turkey's geostrategic importance and Trump's foolish actions wrote out a free pass for Turkey.

Thanks, I recall the Stink with ZTrump when he did this too, it was definitely a misstep in my estimation.


I was pretty sure Article 5 was just about the Soviet Union but it brings up another point did they actually update and say Russia instead of the defunct Soviet Union in the NATO treaties? I'm sure it's just a formality but...

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: putnam6

Article 5 was directed at the Soviet Union and didn't automatically apply to NATO member countries involved in other conflicts. For instance, during the Falklands War, NATO members didn't invoke Article 5 in support of the United Kingdom. However, Article 5 was trigged in the wake of 9-11.

So Turkey's crackdown against the Kurds falls beyond the scope of the NATO Alliance. Frankly, Turkey's geostrategic importance and Trump's foolish actions wrote out a free pass for Turkey.

Thanks, I recall the Stink with ZTrump when he did this too, it was definitely a misstep in my estimation.


I was pretty sure Article 5 was just about the Soviet Union but it brings up another point did they actually update and say Russia instead of the defunct Soviet Union in the NATO treaties? I'm sure it's just a formality but...

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Just going to leave this here.


Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories. Syria’s natural resources include phosphate: iron, chrome and manganese ores; marble; gypsum; asphalt; and salt.

So there are reasons to invade if you are a super power.... I mean those are bad people and should pay.