PDA

View Full Version : Turkey



Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 12:03 PM
How long do you they will go it alone against Bashar al-Assad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

BA.Barcolounger
10-11-2012, 12:08 PM
Fine by me. It's none of our business.

We've been propping up Turkey's military for 50 years.

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 12:26 PM
Fine by me. It's none of our business.

We've been propping up Turkey's military for 50 years.

I agree, I want no part of it either. But this is sure to broaden and is worth discussion. Its a shame we have such a recent negative history in Iraq, and don't have a stronger leg to stand on with regards to criticizing Russia's support of Bashar. . .

bob winter
10-11-2012, 12:30 PM
This could be very interesting. If it is just Turkey vs. Syria, that one thing and I expect Turkey would come out on top. But you have to consider Russia, Iran and the fact the Turkey is a member of NATO.

Kaa
10-11-2012, 12:30 PM
What do you mean, "go it alone"? Turkey isn't trying to overthrow al-Assad, it's trying to contain the Syrian civil war so that it doesn't spill over the border too much.

Kaa

Mrleft8
10-11-2012, 01:33 PM
I thought this was gonna be a thread about getting a head start on Thanksgiving dinner......

Nanoose
10-11-2012, 01:38 PM
Ya . . . I thought it was gonna be about the turkey weekend we just had and the turkey hangovers up here in Canuckistan! ;)

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 01:40 PM
I like turkey!

Especially on a club sandwich. ;)

Nanoose
10-11-2012, 01:45 PM
Ya! It's been leftovers week . . . always best until the gravy runs out . . .

BrianY
10-11-2012, 01:47 PM
It's all very well and fine to say that we should stay out of it, but we're obligated to assist Turkey via the NATO agreements. Like it or not, if Turkey does get itself into a war with Syria, we HAVE to be involved in some way. The only question will be where and how.

(well, I supposed we could blow off the whole NATO agreement thing, but that probably wouldn't be a very good idea....)

Wasn't it george Washington who warned us to beware of entangling alliances?

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 01:52 PM
(well, I supposed we could blow off the whole NATO agreement thing, but that probably wouldn't be a very good idea....)Who needs who more? <just for the sake of argument.>

Kaa
10-11-2012, 02:00 PM
It's all very well and fine to say that we should stay out of it, but we're obligated to assist Turkey via the NATO agreements. Like it or not, if Turkey does get itself into a war with Syria, we HAVE to be involved in some way. The only question will be where and how.

Oh, that's silly. First, that involves a fully-blown, declared war between Turkey and Syria, a highly unlikely thing. Second, we are obligated to come to Turkey's defence. I'm pretty sure that if Turkey decides to march its army to Damascus out of the desire to solve the problem quickly and surgically, other NATO members would have no duty to help Turkey in what's legally a war of aggression. Third, for us to get involved Turkey has to ask for aid to start with. Given the nationalistic/patriotic feelings in Turkey and given that al-Assad's army can't win over a ragtag band of rebels, I doubt that Turkey would have that many military problems. It would not ask for US assistance unless it gets heavily involved and then screws the pooch in some momentous fashion.

Anyway, don't lose sleep over this.

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 02:01 PM
I think the NATO agreement obligates us to help Turkey in its defense if they request it. My guess is that ordinary logistical support would cover our obligation for the moment.

I don't think Syria really wants to confront Turkey militarily.

Mrleft8
10-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Who needs who more? <just for the sake of argument.>
Um..... It's a lot easier to stage operations in places like Iraq, with permission from Turkey to use their air space...... But yeah.....
And there is that whole genocide thing that keeps popping up, and being largely ignored.... But yeah.... I see your point.... Without the USA, Turkey would be just another pretty place.....

BrianY
10-11-2012, 02:15 PM
I think the NATO agreement obligates us to help Turkey in its defense if they request it. My guess is that ordinary logistical support would cover our obligation for the moment.

I don't think Syria really wants to confront Turkey militarily.

Yes that's true. In any case, we WILL be involved - not militarily but certianly on a diplomatic level. We won't simply ignore the whole thing and it will be a real headache for whoever wins the election in November.

Tom Hunter
10-11-2012, 02:29 PM
The Turks are not alone, they have us, and a lot of Arab countries, and NATO.

The chance of war is very real. Turkey is letting others supply the Syrian rebels through its territory.

Syria cannot let the rebels build an enclave there, so they fight right up to the Turkish border. Sometimes they shoot over it and kill Turks, and they shot down a Turkish F4 recently. If they do enough damage either by accident or on purpose then Turkey is likely to start shooting back in a more substantial way.

It’s very possible there will be a war, even though neither side really wants one, and if there is we are likely to end up involved.

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Um..... It's a lot easier to stage operations in places like Iraq, with permission from Turkey to use their air space...... But yeah.....
And there is that whole genocide thing that keeps popping up, and being largely ignored.... But yeah.... I see your point.... Without the USA, Turkey would be just another pretty place.....

I was thinking about France and Libya last year. You might recall that after a very few days of limited involvement they ran out of missiles. WTF???
It also became clear during the very limited Libyan intervention that NATO countries cannot operate sustained operations without the U.S. from a logistics standpoint. They can't run an air war campaign without us. They can't refuel in the air. And they don't have the simple military air traffic control capabilities without us, and they can't reliably identify and systematically destroy strategic targets without us. Tactical targets maybe they can handle, but not strategic.

But seriously, they ran out of ******* missiles! That's inexcusable. . .

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 02:57 PM
At this point is Syria a paper tiger? I suspect that, at this point, any serious military clash between Syria and Turkey would result in a fairly quick dissolution of the Syrian military & government. Not unlike what happened with Libya. But maybe quicker.

B_B
10-11-2012, 02:58 PM
Fine by me. It's none of our business.

We've been propping up Turkey's military for 50 years.
If by 'propping up' you mean 'using unconscionably' then I agree.

The Cuban missile crisis was brought on in large part by the US putting medium range ballistic missiles in Turkey.

It's nice to know you guys were willing to sacrifice Turks when the Ruskies were coming for you, but now that the Ruskie supported Syrians are coming for the Turks you want to cut and run...with friends like you, eh?

Mrleft8
10-11-2012, 03:00 PM
IMHOP.... Running out of missiles would be perfectly excusable..... If everyone ran out of missiles because they were all filled with chocolate syrup, and whipped cream instead of deadly exploding stuff..... Sure, eat enough chocolate syrup and whipped cream, and you're just as dead as if you got blown to smithereens by an exploding piece of metal, but somehow I think the chocolate bit would be more fun......

BA.Barcolounger
10-11-2012, 03:00 PM
If by 'propping up' you mean 'using unconscionably' then I agree.

The Cuban missile crisis was brought on in large part by the US putting medium range ballistic missiles in Turkey.

It's nice to know you guys were willing to sacrifice Turks when the Ruskies were coming for you, but now that the Ruskie supported Syrians are coming for the Turks you want to cut and run...with friends like you, eh?

We have given Turkey a ****load of money.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 03:00 PM
If by 'propping up' you mean 'using unconscionably' then I agree.

The Cuban missile crisis was brought on in large part by the US putting medium range ballistic missiles in Turkey.
And the Cuban missile crisis ended when the U.S. promised the Soviets on the QT that we would remove those missiles.

seanz
10-11-2012, 03:58 PM
I was thinking about France and Libya last year. You might recall that after a very few days of limited involvement they ran out of missiles. WTF???
It also became clear during the very limited Libyan intervention that NATO countries cannot operate sustained operations without the U.S. from a logistics standpoint. They can't run an air war campaign without us. They can't refuel in the air. And they don't have the simple military air traffic control capabilities without us, and they can't reliably identify and systematically destroy strategic targets without us. Tactical targets maybe they can handle, but not strategic.

But seriously, they ran out of ******* missiles! That's inexcusable. . .

It's NATO, Paul, NATO. They were only ever there to serve as an early warning system for North America if the Warsaw Pact started having a fit.


IMHOP.... Running out of missiles would be perfectly excusable..... If everyone ran out of missiles because they were all filled with chocolate syrup, and whipped cream instead of deadly exploding stuff..... Sure, eat enough chocolate syrup and whipped cream, and you're just as dead as if you got blown to smithereens by an exploding piece of metal, but somehow I think the chocolate bit would be more fun......

I agree.

WX
10-11-2012, 04:25 PM
I think the Turks are already getting intel assistance. Some made the comment about the Syrians not being able to beat a ragtag bunch of rebels. The US is having the same problem in Afghanistan but that is beside the point.
The Turks should get any support they request if it comes to war.

B_B
10-11-2012, 04:58 PM
...The Turks should get any support they request if it comes to war.
It is a sad day indeed when one's ally of half a century gets accosted and one just sits there, meh, who cares.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 05:01 PM
It is a sad day indeed when one's ally of half a century gets accosted and one just sits there, meh, who cares.

That sort of thinking resulted in WWI.

WX
10-11-2012, 05:37 PM
That sort of thinking resulted in WWI.

I think B_B is saying Turkey deserves support.

wardd
10-11-2012, 05:51 PM
the us military has a reputation for mounting and supplying large operations except when republicans are running the pentagon

B_B
10-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Originally Posted by B_B
It is a sad day indeed when one's ally of half a century gets accosted and one just sits there, meh, who cares.That sort of thinking resulted in WWI.
You really need to brush up on your history a touch.

TomF
10-11-2012, 06:44 PM
Seems to me there's demonstrably little use to a mutual defence pact if your allies don't prove to be very allied.

If Turkey asks, NATO is obliged to respond. With support of the kind that Turkey asks for, within limits. Otherwise the whole rationale for mutual defence agreements rather erodes.

seanz
10-11-2012, 07:04 PM
Seems to me there's demonstrably little use to a mutual defence pact if your allies don't prove to be very allied.

If Turkey asks, NATO is obliged to respond. With support of the kind that Turkey asks for, within limits. Otherwise the whole rationale for mutual defence agreements rather erodes.

If Turkey asks, honestly, "Hey NATO, help us wipe out Kurds in Syria", do you really think NATO will help?

Have you forgotten what happened at the start of the Iraq invasion? Turkey refused (rightly) to allow Coalition forces to use Turkey as a launchpad for the invasion and then proceeded to invade Iraq themselves to attack Kurdish positions? It's not all about Russia, you know......

WX
10-12-2012, 02:04 AM
Iraq wasn't a NATO operation.

seanz
10-12-2012, 02:13 AM
Iraq wasn't a NATO operation.

No, no it wasn't. Quite right.

purri
10-12-2012, 05:00 AM
In spades, the Turks have a distinct antipathy toward any notion of a transnational Kurd homeland, much less that for Armenians. Ataturk's policies are still a reality for the concept of prosecuting their concept of "nationhood".
If Turkey asks, honestly, "Hey NATO, help us wipe out Kurds in Syria", do you really think NATO will help?

Have you forgotten what happened at the start of the Iraq invasion? Turkey refused (rightly) to allow Coalition forces to use Turkey as a launchpad for the invasion and then proceeded to invade Iraq themselves to attack Kurdish positions? It's not all about Russia, you know......

Tom Hunter
10-12-2012, 08:48 AM
Turkey has already lost a jet, the pilots and a number of civilians who died under Syrian shelling of thier homes in Turkey.

That is certainly grounds for Turkey to activate the mutual defense pact, they have chosen not to.

The Turks are not gearing up to smash the Kurds in Syria so I would not worry about them asking for help with that.

The Syrian civil war is doing what many wars do, developing its own ugly momentum and taking people to places they don't really want to go.

@ Tom Montgomery I would like to think Syria's military is a house of cards, but the evidence is that its got good enough air defenses to shoot down F4s, plenty of fighters, helecopters and tanks and a large number of very dedicated soldiers. I don't think Syria is Iraq, they seem tougher. I would love to be wrong about that.