Trump hands over Syria to Turkey then threatens to "totally destroy & obliterate" her economy if... - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15042149
Rich wrote:Erdogan got played by The West, Israel and Saudi Arabia. But really all he needed to do was read my posts on PoFo. I said before the war, even started when removal of Assad was just an abstract possibility, that when it came to the crunch that Israel would veto the removal of Assad. A unitary majority rule Sunni Arab state in Syria, with any kind of legitimacy would be a nightmare for Israel in the long term. It could easily lead to the fall of Jordan to Sunni Arab radicals.

Well, it seems Erdogan should have listened to you. :)

Rich wrote:So understand this Erdogan has long given up on removing Assad, eradicating the de-facto PKK State in North Eastern Syria is his now his sole goal.

And the US should be fine with that. The PKK are commies.

Atlantis wrote:@Rich, Ergodan got played by Putin not by the West. Putin let him believe that he wouldn't oppose the Turkish invasion in order to get the Americans out of Syria. But now it looks like Putin will support Assad in retaking the whole of Syria, including Turkish-held territory.

Do you really think Russia wants to fight the Turks, while at the same time trying to sell them air defense systems? The Turkish army is the largest modern army in the area.

Beren wrote:The West can't play anyone anyway since Trump's president.

Why can't all these European powers do it themselves if they are so smart and powerful?

Beren wrote:Since Trump's president the West is like caught with its pants down.

There's nothing stopping the UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc. from sending troops into Syria. It's closer to you folks anyway. Why don't you lead it? Trump obviously doesn't care that much. I personally think France should be addressing it, since Syria was a former French mandate.

Drlee wrote:"Those" folks are going to go somewhere and the somewhere where they would rather go is Europe. If the EU fails it will, in all likelihood, be because of its absurd immigration policies. From day one of the EU the virtual open borders policy has placed the union in jeopardy. Certainly it is the overwhelming reason the UK (an extremely important player) has decided to leave. Yes I know that these refugees are "other" people but it does not matter. The countries of Europe are getting very tired of poorly controlled immigration and rightfully so.

Indeed. I don't think the people who consistently argue that diversity is a strength considered how they were turning their own project from a near success into an almost certain failure.

Drlee wrote:The US and the republican party's inability/unwillingness to control its president is the reason this is happening now.

The reality is that the mess in Syria started with Obama, and what's worse is that he went into Syria without any Congressional support. It is frankly quite bizarre that we have people advocating to maintain troops in Syria, but Congress won't create an authorization to use force there. What the hell ever happened to the Democrats and the War Powers Act?

Drlee wrote:I see no reason why Europe should feel compelled to clean up the mess we (Americans) caused.

They are suffering significantly from it--whether their elites realize it or not.

Beren wrote:Erdogan is a useful tool for Europe, but I don't see how Trump's move serves US interests in the region.

Saudi Arabia is having trouble fighting Yemen. That's a more important situation. Getting focused on ensuring Saudi Arabia remains stable is far more important than what's happening in post ISIS Syria.

Beren wrote:Even if he only cares about pulling out of Syria, he's doing it in an un-American way letting down and selling out utmost loyal and worthy allies for nothing

The reality is that there is no strategy for Syria. Obama's ideas were a pipe dream. Obama wanted to create a free Syrian army with no US fingerprints, and that got us Benghazi and the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII. It also got us US troops in Syria with no Congressional authorization. Trump ran on "knocking the hell out of ISIS" and bringing out troops home. He didn't run on building a new Syria with safe havens for the Kurds, etc.

Beren wrote:and he's explaining it with such a nonsense as they weren't there with them in Normandy

The Kurds are an ethnicity, and they are not a political monolith. The PKK is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Exactly what would we be doing for the Kurds? Creating an ethnic "safe space"? Meanwhile, we tell everyone who will listen that entho states are racist, bigoted, xenophobic, etc.? Drop Trump from the conversation for a second. If you could make policy and command Western forces, exactly what would you do?

Beren wrote:and Syria that becomes a battlefield again.

It's not exactly Shangri La right now...

Atlantis wrote:- Ethnic cleansing and the forced resettlement of Sunni Arabs in Kurdish territory by the occupier will not work and violates every international law imaginable.

Perhaps, but the presence of US forces violates international law too. That's probably why all the sanctimonious do-nothings in Europe won't commit their troops--that, and they'd actually have to pay for military forces for a change.

foxdemon wrote:Assad is Russia’s only real ally in the region and they want to keep their naval base to support their eastern med activities. Two is company, three is a crowd, as they say.

Indeed. Putin has been able to play this hand well across three US presidencies now, and to a significant degree because of the Iraq War and trying to maintain a smaller military than needed to fight a two front war.

foxdemon wrote:Historically, various Turkish dynasties have made good use of religious fanatic warriors. Why would they change now?

Virtually everyone else is against it--even Putin.

Sivad wrote:I love how the liberals are attacking Trump for taking the country out of an unnecessary and immoral war. :knife:

An unnecessary war they started and didn't have Congressional authorization for and still don't...

Atlantis wrote:If they start to openly report about Turkish links with ISIS, that represents a significant change.

Trump's the wildcard. Keep in mind, Obama was trying to send arms to them too whilst hiding US fingerprints, which is why Benghazi blew up.

Atlantis wrote:Putin's greatest price is a geopolitical role in the ME. Since the time of the Czars, the Russians have dreamed about extending their influence into the ME. By a clever combination of limited but effective military missions and intelligent diplomacy, Putin has achieved more than any previous Russian leader.

Indeed he has. Putin boxed Saakashvili as leader of Georgia and humiliated Bush at the end of his presidency, while the US media was making fun of Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin. Obama taunted Romney the same way, and was caught hot mic saying he'd have more flexibility after the election. Putin utterly outclassed Obama. Ironically, Mikheil Saakashvili ended up fleeing to the Ukraine and was made governor of the Odessa Oblast by Poroshenko, but they turned on each other. He's now sidling up to Zelensky.

Atlantis wrote:Russia is still a military superpower.

That's a bit of a stretch. Russia is a regional hegemon, but not a global one. The Russian navy is sizable, but its readiness is a fraction of the US. They even sail with tugboats, because their ships breakdown so often. The purpose of seizing Crimea and trying to hold a base in Syria is designed to remedy their shortcomings.

Atlantis wrote:Turkey wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in a military conflict with Russia.

Turkey's army is more modern than Russia's, and bigger than the UKs. If fighting was localized to Syria, Turkey would have a significant advantage. If Turkey tried invading Russia, they'd get their ass kicked for sure, but the inverse is also true.

Atlantis wrote:Putin is going soft on Erdogan because easing Turkey out off Nato is even more important to him than helping Assad capture a few more villages.

Putin needs to accomplish that first if he wants to go to war with Turkey. The Russians would be most interested in controlling the Bosporus, not the Turkish hinterland. That is Putin's goal. If the Bosporus is not in NATO hands, Putin has a stronger position; although, it can be shut down militarily pretty easily.

Atlantis wrote:And if Trump can betray the Kurds, he can betray the Turks. Rather than handing a Syrian city to his Turkish Nato ally, he hands it to the Russians.

Yeah. Our NATO allies... Turkey is one of the few to maintain a sizable military. However, our ally Pakistan was noticeably unhelpful in our search for Osama bin Laden. We have a lot of "allies" who enjoy our assistance, but rarely return the favor.

foxdemon wrote:That doesn’t leave enough to beat the Turks, especially given the Russians will have to project power rather than operate on short logistics line as the Turks are.

Yea, but in all seriousness, Russia isn't going to go to war with Turkey.

foxdemon wrote:Turkey has a very strong military. Several hundred advanced jet fighters, they make their own air to air and cruise missiles. They have demonstrated an ability to jam Russian SAMs. They also have a large and determined ground force. Admittedly they aren’t as high tech as the Israelis, but then nor are the Russians.

Yeah, I think people dismiss Turkey's military at their peril.

noemon wrote:I am talking about the recent Turkish occupation of all the territorial waters of Cyprus and consequently their occupation of EU territory for which the EU is doing absolutely nothing at all. Erdogan has surrounded the entire island with warships and drills and only France out of the entire EU/west has sent warships there.

Indeed. That's why it's sometimes comical to listen to Guy Verhofstadt talk about building an empire but not building a military force capable of defending even its own territorial waters.

jimjam wrote:For his part, Mr. Erdogan claims nuclear ambitions of his own: Only a month ago, speaking to supporters, he said, he said he “cannot accept” rules that keep Turkey from possessing nuclear weapons of its own.

Another Obese Donald mess.

How is Erdogan's ambition Trump's fault?

Stormsmith wrote:makes me wonder how hard it's going to be getting land in Tasmania or Tierra del Fuego...

Just move 100 miles away from a major city or military base and you should be fine.
#15042153
@blackjack21 You are right. The Russians won’t fight the Turks. It is too costly and not worth their trouble. But my point is that people’s perceptions of Russian and Turkish hard power are not accurate. This balance of power does shape the decision making of all parties. Erdogan will be quite difficult to bring to heal because he knows there isn’t much hard military power that can be brought to bear to force him to stop.

Really, it is only America that could beat the Turks on their own ground.
#15042174
blackjack21 wrote:Why can't all these European powers do it themselves if they are so smart and powerful?

They're obviously not powerful enough. If the US is a lame duck, the West is a lame duck too. With Trump in the White House Putin holds all the trumps in Syria, with which Trump's fans seem absolutely fine.
#15042176
Beren wrote:They're obviously not powerful enough. If the US is a lame duck, the West is a lame duck too. With Trump in the White House Putin holds all the trumps in Syria, with which Trump's fans seem absolutely fine.

We're talking less than 5k troops, and some fighter plane cover against ISIS-level fighters. They're not powerful enough? That's a pretty scary assertion. That means Putin could invade and take Western Europe, and only UK and French nukes could stop it from happening. Is that how you really feel about it?
#15042177
Beren wrote:They're obviously not powerful enough. If the US is a lame duck, the West is a lame duck too. With Trump in the White House Putin holds all the trumps in Syria, with which Trump's fans seem absolutely fine.


Oh please, you 're accusing the US for the pathetic levels of weak in Europe. That's just :knife:
#15042179
blackjack21 wrote:We're talking less than 5k troops, and some fighter plane cover against ISIS-level fighters. They're not powerful enough? That's a pretty scary assertion. That means Putin could invade and take Western Europe, and only UK and French nukes could stop it from happening. Is that how you really feel about it?

It's not just a matter of troops, it's a matter of diplomatic, economic and financial influence and connections, intelligence and military preparedness, capabilities and efficiency as well. It's embarrassing indeed that Europe is still less assertive and self-confident than Russia alone.

noemon wrote:Oh please, you 're accusing the US for the pathetic levels of weak in Europe. That's just :knife:

I'm not blaming the US for Europe's weakness. Europe's just weak and if American assertiveness vanishes, then Western assertiveness fades away too.
#15042180
noemon wrote:Oh please, you 're accusing the US for the pathetic levels of weak in Europe. That's just :knife:


And he is right too, because the UK, serving as US Trojan horse, has for over 40 years vetoed all attempts at building independent European defense forces in the EU framework.

Moreover, since the end of the colonial age, European powers have fortunately been rather hampered in their imperialistic urges. It is neither realistic nor desirable for the EU to repeat the mistakes of US interventionism in the ME. The EU cannot be expected to clean up after the US mess either.

Nevertheless, the EU will still be a powerful economic bloc when Russia's fossil fuel economy goes bust or when Turkey's economy tanks. 19th century power games are not for the 21st century.

Sanctions stress makes Turkey's lira October's worst world currency

Finally, Putin's success relies less on Russia's military might than on the failure of US foreign policy and on smart diplomacy. Putin is talking to both sides, he is talking to Israel and Syria, he is talking to Iran and the Saudis, he is talking to Shias and Sunnis, he is talking to Turks and Kurds. That is very different from US foreign policy, which unilaterally sides with one side while making an eternal enemy of the other side.
#15042181
Atlantis wrote:And he is right too, because the UK, serving as US Trojan horse, has for over 40 years vetoed all attempts at building independent European defense forces in the EU framework.

This is a great excuse indeed, however, it was just too comfortable and tempting to let the Americans do the heavy lifting while building up a commercial superpower under their shield.

Image
#15042191
Atlantis wrote:And he is right too, because the UK, serving as US Trojan horse, has for over 40 years vetoed all attempts at building independent European defense forces in the EU framework.


Nothing stops EU members from building a European defense force outside the EU framework.

Besides, the lack of capability is the problem, not the lack of bureaucracy. The French have to withdraw too because they rely on US logistical support.
#15042214
Stormsmith wrote:PS jj is an independent

Yes I actually try to think for myself but ………….. on pofo I tend to distance myself from the rather excitable cadre of smug know it alls ….. hence I am immediately labeled something or other , usually a dirty dirty "liberal" and/or Democrat.

annatar1914 wrote:But I know what Authoritarian hypocrites and cowards Liberals (but the coddled and addled American Boomer Liberal representative of the type is the worst, actually, never met a war they didn't like as long as they weren't drafted into it to fight...) are in all times and places historically speaking, and I also know how the Islamists operate, quite well.


WOW! you are one lucky young man ….. you know a LOT.
#15042218
blackjack21 wrote:How is Erdogan's ambition Trump's fault?

You are the all time "out of context" champ.

Obese Donald created a big fucking mess in the world's tinderbox and left 50 nukes in the backyard of a Mid East Macho Idiot who just happens to be lobbing shells towards American soldiers. I bit sloppy i'd say.

Has nothing to do with Erdogan's ambitions.

I think that you type so fast that your typing gets ahead of your skills of cognition or you are, like myself, just a ball buster :lol: .
#15042220
None of these cheap excuses explain why Europe(EU, France, Germany, Italy, the UK) chooses to be silent instead of vocal and pathetic instead of assertive against an Erdogan who is actively occupying EU territory. What does he have to do really before the once proud European nations draw a line in the sand? These same countries bombed Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yugoslavia to smithereens but they are now scared of Erdogan or allegedly they do not have the "capability" or "power" to do something because of the big bad US and the UK. These are pitiful excuses really that do not stand to reason. The reality is that there is just a lack of backbone and possibly a lack of agreement due to other historical reasons. Germany for example has always been pro-Turkish, has a long history of supporting Turkey against Greece, a history that is visible with Atlantis's earlier post quick to blame the Greek Cypriots for Northern Cyprus not joining the EU, totally ignoring the reality that the TRNC is merely a puppet Turkish pseudo-state with no intention of operating in partnership with the state of Cyprus. That pro-Turkish pathetic deal that the Cypriots rejected in a referendum, was a total submission to Turkey's demands and had already been trashed by the very same UN people tasked to formulate it. Erdogan and Turkey have been taking more and more rope since then and since the West sold both Ocalan and Greece to the Turks. Is any of you aware of the Ocalan story? Does any of you recall how Greece was being talked on the news and still is? The sell-out had begun since then. Now we are just observing the fruits of these sell-outs.
#15042244
Patrickov wrote:The previous POTUS, as well as the father-son pair before him, might be more "eligible" to take this blame than the current one.

I'll go with you here. I haven't really paid any attention to this corner of the Mid East Mess until Donald "went with his gut" and more people started killing each other. Which, in Donald's defense, is no big deal in the Mid East and happens sooner or later. But 50 loose nukes makes things all the more exciting.
#15042249
Well, I as a Turk read all the posts under this thread and have been trying to formulate a coherent and succinct text to address all the issues raised. I guess it's a task far beyond the limitations of my intellect and knowledge of English language.

Thus, let me pour my thoughts as it comes in. I may elaborate further based on your replies.

First of all, lets clarify what "Syrian Kurds" mean.

Check the following link, in which you will find a map showing ethnic identity of every settlement in self-acclaimed Rojava.

https://qgiscloud.com/AriyanNewzad/Ethn ... %2C4530510

Green dots indicate Kurdish settlements, lilac dots indicate Arabic, pink dots show mixed settlements.

At the onset of the Syrian civil war, when there was no Rojava, there were three geographically separate Kurdish cantons on where green dots concentrate on the map; Afrin in the west, Kobane in the middle, and Jazera in the East. There was a brief period of time that many local political parties appeared in these cantons, and PKK was one of the weakest among them.

That changed when large number of armed PKK militants quickly moved from Northern Iraq into Syria, violently subdue all other political factions and turn the region into their own North Korea.

You all know the rest of the story that how Russian involvement turned the scales in favor of Assad's regime against rebels as well as ISIS, How USA quickly formed an alliance with SDF (re-branded version of PKK), armed them to teeth, and, under US air force cover, made them quickly invade ISIS held territories on the east bank of Euphrates before Assad would.

First purpose of this introduction so far is to establish the fact that SDF controlled lands of Syria is predominantly Arabic, i.e Kurds constitute barely 1/4th to 1/3rd of the population in those lands.

Second is: SDF rules over those land with a mandate manufactured at gunpoint. Rejection of this mandate means intimidation, persecution, displacement and sometimes death.

And, do not think that rejection comes from Arabic majority alone. Many Syrian Kurds, quite likely majority of them, are not supporting SDF’s rule either. According to Turkish authorities, there are 3.6 million Syrian refuges (~15% of whole Syrian population) in Turkey. Among them, there are approximately 300k Kurdish Syrians (~15% of whole Syrian Kurdish population.)

In other words, SDF is as successful as Assad’s regime in pushing Syrian people out of Syria.

While these are the facts on the ground, we are offered multitude of photographs displaying young, cheerful Kurdish girls holding Kalashnikovs and how SDF represents a modern and secular alternative to Islamic extremism.

Well, I am old enough to remember the Rambo film beatifying Afghan freedom fighters struggling against evil Russian communists. And you all remember multitude of reports on how young, dynamic and reformist the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was. Those Afghan freedom fighters later performed the attacks of 9/11. And reformist crown prince since then manifests himself with beheading of Shias, crucifying apostates, raping and torturing female activists and killing, dismembering a Saudi journalist as well as dissolving his corpse in pieces in acid.

What I am trying to say is: don’t fool yourselves. Proper antithesis of Islamic extremism is nothing but democratic and secular constitution and civil code. And rule of law. No Hollywood movies, or high profile propaganda articles in newspapers or photographs showing cheerful young women can function as substitutes.

I have no whatsoever confidence in PKK militants (or whatever re-branded version of it) that they do not pose a threat against Turkey. No other country on earth can provide such a guarantee on their behalf either. Terrorists are terrorists regardless of you name them PKK, or SDF, or YPG, or PYD and they cannot be negotiated as long as they hold their guns towards us.

Our western allies may dislike the Turkish position on this matter, but it is their problem, not of ours.

Since France has the right of fighting terrorism in Mali, thousands of kilometers away from her own soil, in order to avoid fighting it in the streets of Marseilles, we Turks have all the rights to fight terrorism just outside our borders in order to avoid fighting it in our own cities and streets.

As for the threats of arms embargoes flying around and whatnot, I not only would not bother, but also will be happy about it. (I am still enjoying that we have been removed from the multi trillion dollar worth failure called f-35 project) Years ago, when Turkey was subjected to extensive arms embargo following the Cyprus war, it founded many defense companies. 4 of them are now in Top100 list of global defense industries.

Come what may, do or die. :P

And finally, as for the threats of removing Turkey from NATO. Very entertaining indeed.

Since Turkey is one of the barely two NATO countries having an army possessing the capacity and capability of “fighting” wars, I would not attach too much hope on such wild ideas, if I were you.

That said, let me humor you, and say it happens. What will you gain out of it except a high service medal from Putin.

Cheers,


BONUS: Few short videos for your entertainment, if you enjoy exposition of hypocrisy. 8)




#15042260
Vanasalus wrote:



What I am trying to say is: don’t fool yourselves. Proper antithesis of Islamic extremism is nothing but democratic and secular constitution and civil code. And rule of law. No Hollywood movies, or high profile propaganda articles in newspapers or photographs showing cheerful young women can function as substitutes.

I have no whatsoever confidence in PKK militants (or whatever re-branded version of it) that they do not pose a threat against Turkey. No other country on earth can provide such a guarantee on their behalf either. Terrorists are terrorists



Erdogan is an autocrat that severely degraded democracy in Turkey. Because things are not going well, in Turkey, he needs to distract his people.

Invading Syria plays well with his base. Turkey has revanchist claims with respect to the areas in Syria where Turkmen live. His base also shares his bigotry against Kurds. Since the Kurds no longer have American support, he will get to have some military victories, for a while.

So, over the short term, this is a big win for Erdogan. Over the long term, this could turn into a major loss. Slaughtering Kurdish civilians will create terrorism. If you want to end terrorism, you need to come to terms. You don't do that with guns, unless we're talking genocide or mass slaughter.

Even worse, Assad will want to respond to Turkey's attempt to annex part of Syria. They will have help. Turkey is in no shape to deal with an extended conflict, and Russia has already moved in it's forces to limit what Erdogan can do...

Lastly, this move has put most of the players in opposition to what Turkey is doing, Iran, the Saudi, Russia. forget the military implications for a moment, the economics of alienating the region could turn into a nightmare all by itself.

Nice spin, tho, better than what we usually see here.
#15042296
Vanasalus wrote:Terrorists are terrorists regardless of you name them PKK, or SDF, or YPG, or PYD and they cannot be negotiated as long as they hold their guns towards us.


Depends on their goals and grievances. Either way, feel free to secure your part of the border.

Vanasalus wrote:Since France has the right of fighting terrorism in Mali, thousands of kilometers away from her own soil, in order to avoid fighting it in the streets of Marseilles, we Turks have all the rights to fight terrorism just outside our borders in order to avoid fighting it in our own cities and streets.


France is in Mali at the invitation of the democratically elected government. Nobody has asked Turkey to get into Syria, in fact everybody opposes it.

The rest of your post is the nationalist Turkish propaganda you get to hear in your unfree media I guess.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 23

New Gallup International Survey in Syria Syri[…]

black21, you seem to be having a hard time connec[…]

The issue is money. Wrong! How much is spent on[…]

Good stuff! That would be a very long trip, that's[…]