Trump hands over Syria to Turkey then threatens to "totally destroy & obliterate" her economy if... - Page 4 - 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

#15041186
Although overall I was very much right about supporting the 2003 removal of Saddam, favouring the majority (in Iraq, but minority in the world) Shia over the Sunni Arab supremacist terror regime of Saddam was undoubtedly the right thing to do. And the Iraqi governments role in saving Syrian Infidels from annihilation has utterly vindicated my overall position on Iraq.

However, I was wrong at the time, in early 2003, in placing too much emphasis on helping the Kurds. Seeking to help the Kurdish autonomy / independence movement is a fools errand. They have no coast, so any aid to them must be dependant on one of our fundamental enemies, Sunni Muslim Turkey, Shia Muslim Iran or Shia Muslim or Iraq, or on the Assad regime which is the client state of one of those fundamental enemies. Sunni Muslim Turks have been one of our fundamental enemies for nearly a thousand years, in this context Shia Muslim Iran has always been the lesser enemy. They are still an enemy though. They can never be our friend.

I have not made the same error of judgement over the Syrian Civil war and have been implacably imposed to all Western intervention. Any western support or troops on the ground with the Kurds has to go through Turkey. By the same logic I'm totally opposed to operations against the Taliban that depend on Pakistan. We should be carpet bombing Turkey And Pakistan not subsidising them and allying with them.

The Syrian Kurds should and could have looked to President Putin to be their protector, but instead chose to betray Putin, spit in his face for all the help he'd given and throw their lot in with the Zionists. It was cretinism, pure and utter cretinism. Did the Kurds think that the Zionists would show gratitude for defeating ISIS? Jewish supremacists are never strong on gratitude to Goy at the best of times, but Israel loved ISIS. It wasn't Israel that demanded that our leaders take on ISIS, no it was western public opinion.
#15041253
noemon wrote:First of all, impartially speaking, Kurds in general and Syrian Kurds most particular are not an existential threat to Turkey but the other way around. Turkey is an existential threat to them, the one invading them, killing them and in due time ethnic-cleanse them.



Turkey has not been an ally for about the past decade and has made it official by allying herself with Russia and buying Russian arms well knowing that it goes against the NATO Charter. Turkey is not an ally and does not wish to be ally conscientiously. I guess by "anybody" you mean anyone of the rogue dictators in some rogue state because noone in Europe would have done such a thing.



Trump has destroyed America's reputation and reliability and has empowered Turkey, Iran, Israel, Russia and China to waive international rules, laws and act on their own whims with impunity. He is a liability to global security.



This is a bucketload of nonsense. Noone is done with the conflict in Syria, and the situation in Syria was stable and favourable to the US as the US and its allies had secured their areas of control. It is this current policy of enabling Turkey to invade that has deteriorated the situation for both the US and Syria.



The few hundred US troops in Kurdish-held Syria are far more cheap and sustainable than the Russian presence in Syria. What are you talking about?



Turkey invading Syria is not a win for Assad, and I do not see why should anyone in the west care what is a win to Erdogan. The destruction of the Kurds is not a win for anyone especially in Europe and the west as they are our most reliable allies in the region.



Erdogan's posturing is only relevant to show the total lack of backbone by the EU and the US.




Putting sanctions on Turkey is the only realistic and correct option. Turkey has already gone to Russia and China and she is already attacking western interests in Syria and Cyprus. Pretending to keep Turkey as a "friend" while she is screaming out to the world in the most obvious way possible that she is your enemy is just more weakness on display that further emboldens all these aforementioned actors. Turkey has made her choice, it is high-time the rest of us make our own choices as well.


@noemon

I understand most of your concerns. A lot of them are rooted in idealism. Its not good to break international law but it just happens. The Kurd are definately an existential threat to Turkey because they threaten to take over some part of inherently Turkish territory. (Turkish view of it) Also they are causing violent acts and uprisings. Whatever we like it or not this is the case. Of course if you view it from the Kurdish side the story will be different. So Turkey has an inherent interest and NEED to defend its interests. So that is why i think the operation against the Kurds was inevitable irrelevant of Erdogan of being or not being in charge. If the general succeeded with the coup then they would be doing the same.

Yeah, American reputation will suffer a bit. But it doesn't mean it evaporates. In most a lot of cases in the middle east, American allies don't really have a choice besides allying itself to America. (Kurds are a prime example. Who else can they ally with? Assad? Iran? Iraq? Turkey? Israel?) So it does set up a bad precedent but most of the allies of US in the middle east need American support more than America needs theirs. So long term i don't see it being a problem. The situation was unfavourable for the US because it didn't serve any purpose anymore. USs main purpose is to topple Assad but the Kurds are not fighting Assad. ISIS is more or less destroyed. If Assad takes the whole territory then ISIS will not appear again anyways. ISIS problem is there underground but more or less under control.

Official explanation from Turkey is that they want to move the migrants from Turkey to those territories after the assault. I guess if that happens then it actually serves European interest. I doubt that it will happen though but it is not unrealistic because Turkey also has a need to do something with the immigrants if they are not going to Europe.

As for the sanctions. Its complicated. Yes we can punish Turkey to prevent such actions in the future. But long term what does it give us? 1 less ally.

@Atlantis

If Turkey keeps its official explanation and actually does what it says it will then it serves our interest. (Moves the refugees from Turkey to the Syrian border regions). So I am not 100% sure why stopping Erdogan is in our interest. We can stop Erdogan but it won't be good or bad for us if we do. If he keeps his side of the bargain of not letting refugees in Europe and moves them back to Syria that is a perfect outcome for us.
#15041259
JohnRawls wrote:So it does set up a bad precedent but most of the allies of US in the middle east need American support more than America needs theirs. So long term i don't see it being a problem. The situation was unfavourable for the US because it didn't serve any purpose anymore. USs main purpose is to topple Assad but the Kurds are not fighting Assad. ISIS is more or less destroyed. If Assad takes the whole territory then ISIS will not appear again anyways. ISIS problem is there underground but more or less under control.

"The Moor has done his duty; the Moor can go." - Friedrich Schiller
#15041261
I have to respectfully disagree this time John. I am not so sanguine about Turkey as an ally at all. In fact I am fairly convinced that they have jumped ship as it were and become a liability not only to the US but to NATO in general.

The argument was always that Turkey was "our man in the Middle East". That was probably true for quite some time. It was big enough to offer a stable base for operations in the region if it became necessary and its more or less secular leanings replaced Iran when the Shah fell to radical Islam.

Turkey has gone out of its way recently to court Putin and assert its independence. This independence is at odds with its NATO membership. This latest move, even if sanctioned by Trump (and almost nobody else in the US government) is directly contrary to the near and long term interests of the NATO alliance.

Putin loves this and this is how it will play out:

Turkey will eliminate the Kurds including Christians in the region. To the extent they are paying attention at all, some US evangelicals will be pissed about this. Reacting, the US will cut off aid to Turkey and even, perhaps, expel them from NATO. Putin will jump in and fill the void. Even nominal democracy will fall in Turkey and Putin will have two relatively powerful allies in the region.

As for our EU friends here, be prepared for another massive wave of refugees.

And why? Because Trump.

As for the Kurds being an existential threat to Turkey. I think not. As long as they were allied with the US they were harmless to Turkey. Once that alliance has been abrogated (and it is disgraceful that it was us who did it) they may be of some inconvenience. But no real threat.

Were I president (God between us and evil) I would impose major sanctions on Turkey for it naked aggression against the Kurds and remove Turkey from NATO. I would recall our ambassador and order all US forces out of the country at once. Maybe even a blockade of military equipment moving by sea into Turkey. But then I would not have allowed this adventure in the first place. Turkey would have been chastened long before this.
#15041265
Drlee wrote:I have to respectfully disagree this time John. I am not so sanguine about Turkey as an ally at all. In fact I am fairly convinced that they have jumped ship as it were and become a liability not only to the US but to NATO in general.

The argument was always that Turkey was "our man in the Middle East". That was probably true for quite some time. It was big enough to offer a stable base for operations in the region if it became necessary and its more or less secular leanings replaced Iran when the Shah fell to radical Islam.

Turkey has gone out of its way recently to court Putin and assert its independence. This independence is at odds with its NATO membership. This latest move, even if sanctioned by Trump (and almost nobody else in the US government) is directly contrary to the near and long term interests of the NATO alliance.

Putin loves this and this is how it will play out:

Turkey will eliminate the Kurds including Christians in the region. To the extent they are paying attention at all, some US evangelicals will be pissed about this. Reacting, the US will cut off aid to Turkey and even, perhaps, expel them from NATO. Putin will jump in and fill the void. Even nominal democracy will fall in Turkey and Putin will have two relatively powerful allies in the region.

As for our EU friends here, be prepared for another massive wave of refugees.

And why? Because Trump.

As for the Kurds being an existential threat to Turkey. I think not. As long as they were allied with the US they were harmless to Turkey. Once that alliance has been abrogated (and it is disgraceful that it was us who did it) they may be of some inconvenience. But no real threat.

Were I president (God between us and evil) I would impose major sanctions on Turkey for it naked aggression against the Kurds and remove Turkey from NATO. I would recall our ambassador and order all US forces out of the country at once. Maybe even a blockade of military equipment moving by sea into Turkey. But then I would not have allowed this adventure in the first place. Turkey would have been chastened long before this.


I get it what you all are saying and its fine disagreing with me. The main thing that EU needs to do in my opinion is to force Turkish hand to do what they are saying they are going to do. Take over the region for now and then move the refugees there. That ultimately should be the EUs objective. We shouldn't care how Erdogan is planning to do it.

Force his hand even if he tries to go back on his word. We should use this opportunity as a broker and force his hand if needed. Talk with the Americans and say that "Lets watch and see what he does. If he plans to occupy the territory and not move the refugees there then we both gonna smack him with sanctions". Rs will be really happy with this along with a lot of Democrats. Also call Putin and tell his sorry ass that we are going to review the Shteinmeigher formula for Donbas if he doesn't talk to Erdogan and help us with this. People are busy all around the place right now but it doesn't mean that there are no cards that we can play to make Turkies life horrible if it does something that we don't like. In a sense this lets the US save face and look like as if they are in charge of the situation. Putin is not going to sacrifice the Donbas situation in favour of Erdogans mission in northern Syria nor will be unhappy with his role as a mediator of sorts.
#15041266
JohnRawls wrote:I get it what you all are saying and its fine disagreing with me. The main thing that EU needs to do in my opinion is to force Turkish hand to do what they are saying they are going to do. Take over the region for now and then move the refugees there. That ultimately should be the EUs objective. We shouldn't care how Erdogan is planning to do it.

So not only are you going to turn a blind eye to Erdogan's ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, you are going to wag your finger at him and insist that he goes ahead and does it? Lol.
#15041267
Potemkin wrote:So not only are you going to turn a blind eye to Erdogan's ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, you are going to wag your finger at him and insist that he goes ahead and does it? Lol.


Yes. If he moves the refugees there then its one less headache for us. It helps Greece with the illegal immigration problem. If he doesn't do it then we should make it obvious that EU and US will fry his economy with sanctions along with Russia being neutral due to them not wanting to screw up with the Ukranian peace process which is under way right now.
#15041275
If we really want to help the Kurds it should be done through a simultaneous 4 front assault. The Western powers should liberate Thrace. The Syrians should retake Hatay while the Russians should occupy North Eastern Turkey and give it to the Armenians in compensation for the lands stolen by the Turks and Kurds, that would then allow a supply route through Armenia to a potential Kurdish State stretching from Erzincan to kermanshah.
#15041279
Rich wrote:If we really want to help the Kurds it should be done through a simultaneous 4 front assault. The Western powers should liberate Thrace. The Syrians should retake Hatay while the Russians should occupy North Eastern Turkey and give it to the Armenians in compensation for the lands stolen by the Turks and Kurds, that would then allow a supply route through Armenia to a potential Kurdish State stretching from Erzincan to kermanshah.


Yeah, uhhh about that almost WW3 scenario that you are describing. No! Why would anybody in their right mind fight Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria(?) at the same time.
#15041280
JohnRawls wrote:The Kurd are definately an existential threat to Turkey because they threaten to take over some part of inherently Turkish territory. (Turkish view of it) Also they are causing violent acts and uprisings. Whatever we like it or not this is the case. Of course if you view it from the Kurdish side the story will be different.


So, the very existence of the Kurdish people is the problem? That would lead to genocide as the only possible solution. The Turks and their jihadist proxies have already committed ethnic cleansing in Afrin. That's just one step short of genocide. Now they are implementing a policy of supplanting Kurds with Sunni Arabs in a much greater region.

The PKK is considered a terrorist organisation simply because Turkey is a Nato country. Under any objective criteria, the PKK and the YPG would be considered freedom fighters while Turkey with its jihadist proxy forces would be considered the hub of Sunni terror in the ME (as confirmed by the German intelligence service BND).

The EU needs to be on the right side of history. There is no way Erdogan can succeed with his imperialist expansion. To Russia and Iran, the Turkish invasion is just the easiest way of getting rid of the Americans. They can always squeeze out Turkey later.

Norway, Finland and The Netherlands have decided on an arms embargo. Germany still has restrictions imposed after the invasion of Afrin, Sweden has called for an EU embargo, and even France seems to be ready for sanctions. The chances are good that the EU will decide on sanctions.

ISIS is more or less destroyed.


Without the Kurds to contain them, ISIS will reemerge. If not ISIS, it'll be another group of Sunni terrorists. Different name, same fighters. The Turks will use them to control their so-called safe zone and use them for further expanding their influence in the region. ISIS could never have succeed in Syria without support from Turkey.

Erdogan is in our interest


Most definitely not. The EU has made the mistake of initially supporting Erdogan in the belief that he would reduce the influence of the military in Turkey. As it turns out, the military was the lesser evil.
#15041281
Erdogan: Give me everything I want.

Trump: What do I get?

Erdogan:


Trump: Art of the deal, baby.

Lmbo every other country is reviewing all the dumb illegal shit Trump has said on his phone calls and wondering if they should cash in their chips now or later. Looks like Erdogan cashed out first.
#15041282
Atlantis wrote:So, the very existence of the Kurdish people is the problem? That would lead to genocide as the only possible solution. The Turks and their jihadist proxies have already committed ethnic cleansing in Afrin. That's just one step short of genocide. Now they are implementing a policy of supplanting Kurds with Sunni Arabs in a much greater region.

The PKK is considered a terrorist organisation simply because Turkey is a Nato country. Under any objective criteria, the PKK and the YPG would be considered freedom fighters while Turkey with its jihadist proxy forces would be considered the hub of Sunni terror in the ME (as confirmed by the German intelligence service BND).

The EU needs to be on the right side of history. There is no way Erdogan can succeed with his imperialist expansion. To Russia and Iran, the Turkish invasion is just the easiest way of getting rid of the Americans. They can always squeeze out Turkey later.

Norway, Finland and The Netherlands have decided on an arms embargo. Germany still has restrictions imposed after the invasion of Afrin, Sweden has called for an EU embargo, and even France seems to be ready for sanctions. The chances are good that the EU will decide on sanctions.



Without the Kurds to contain them, ISIS will reemerge. If not ISIS, it'll be another group of Sunni terrorists. Different name, same fighters. The Turks will use them to control their so-called safe zone and use them for further expanding their influence in the region. ISIS could never have succeed in Syria without support from Turkey.



Most definitely not. The EU has made the mistake of initially supporting Erdogan in the belief that he would reduce the influence of the military in Turkey. As it turns out, the military was the lesser evil.


Okay, but how is weakened Turkey whose economy we will going to collapse with those sanctions not create problems? This will simply amplify the refugee situation because we are basically creating another failed state. Turkey is not close to being a failed state but IF we really squeeze them then it is going to happen eventually. Turkish economy depends on us. Existential issues are not something that you can prevent by sanctions as situation in Russia shows. Economic suffering is a 2nd tier problem compared to the safety of the state as a whole.

This is stupidity of the highest order to be on the "right side of history" if it doesn't bring positive effects short, medium or long term to your country. What exactly do we gain if we crash Turkish economy and deter Turkey from attacking the Kurds? (Which is not likely btw) Its clear what we loose though if we do it: more refugees and less money for us.

We don't need to get our hands dirty. Erdogan volunteered to do it. We just need to make sure that he delivers on everything he publicly promised and if he doesn't then we can squeeze him.
#15041285
JohnRawls wrote:Yeah, uhhh about that almost WW3 scenario that you are describing. No! Why would anybody in their right mind fight Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria(?) at the same time.

Syria would be an ally in this venture. there would be no need at all to take on Iraq and Iran at the same time. However once a Kurdish state had been established it could later annex territory in Iraq and Syria. In my scenario both Armenia and Kurdistan would be Russian client states. The Russians would force Assad to give up his Kurdish territory, but in return he would get the Arabic oil producing area in the East that is currently occupied by the Kurds. Putin was using his leverage over Assad to protect the Syrian Kurds, but then the Kurds chose to betray him and throw their lot in with American Zionists.

Obviously I'm not expecting anything like this to happen any time soon, but withdrawing troop from Eastern Syria is a good start as it reduces our dependence on Turkey. All personnel and equipment should be withdrawn from Turkey. A more passive strategy to help the Kurds would just be to ask Putin to forgive them and put them under his protection in return for dropping the sanctions against both Syria and Russia.
#15041286
JohnRawls wrote:Okay, but how is weakened Turkey whose economy we will going to collapse with those sanctions not create problems? This will simply amplify the refugee situation because we are basically creating another failed state. Turkey is not close to being a failed state but IF we really squeeze them then it is going to happen eventually. Turkish economy depends on us. Existential issues are not something that you can prevent by sanctions as situation in Russia shows. Economic suffering is a 2nd tier problem compared to the safety of the state as a whole.

This is stupidity of the highest order to be on the "right side of history" if it doesn't bring positive effects short, medium or long term to your country. What exactly do we gain if we crash Turkish economy and deter Turkey from attacking the Kurds? (Which is not likely btw) Its clear what we loose though if we do it: more refugees and less money for us.

We don't need to get our hands dirty. Erdogan volunteered to do it. We just need to make sure that he delivers on everything he publicly promised and if he doesn't then we can squeeze him.


Turkey will suffer, not because of anything the EU has done, but because Erdogan's imperialist project isn't realistic. There will be a backlash that'll hurt Turkey both politically and economically. The weakness of the Turkish economy is entirely due to Erdogan's hunger for power. He stimulated the economy by debt-driven development ahead of elections and then tried to fiddle with the economy by pressuring the central bank. That reduces trust in the Turkish economy. After successful peace talks with the Kurds, he restarted the conflict with the Kurds in 2015 to roll back the Kurdish party and regain his majority in parliament to turn Turkey into a presidential system for implementing his imperialist ambitions.

Erdogan is bad news, no matter how you look at it. The EU cannot rely on Erdogan. The EU does have a lot of leverage. Cancelling the customs union with Turkey would tank the economy. Russia is not in a position to replace the EU economically. Appeasement does not work with Erdogan.

Thus, to be on "the right side of history" has a broader meaning than occupying the moral high ground. It's also to position yourself against Erdogan because he is bound to fail due to imperial overreach.
#15041287
Atlantis wrote:Turkey will suffer, not because of anything the EU has done, but because Erdogan's imperialist project isn't realistic. There will be a backlash that'll hurt Turkey both politically and economically. The weakness of the Turkish economy is entirely due to Erdogan's hunger for power. He stimulated the economy by debt-driven development ahead of elections and then tried to fiddle with the economy by pressuring the central bank. That reduces trust in the Turkish economy. After successful peace talks with the Kurds, he restarted the conflict with the Kurds in 2015 to roll back the Kurdish party and regain his majority in parliament to turn Turkey into a presidential system for implementing his imperialist ambitions.

Erdogan is bad news, no matter how you look at it. The EU cannot rely on Erdogan. The EU does have a lot of leverage. Cancelling the customs union with Turkey would tank the economy. Russia is not in a position to replace the EU economically. Appeasement does not work with Erdogan.

Thus, to be on "the right side of history" has a broader meaning than occupying the moral high ground. It's also to position yourself against Erdogan because he is bound to fail due to imperial overreach.


I will be more specific. What is the point of Turkey suffering?(What is the benefit for Europe?) How are Turkeys actions affect the situation in Europe? How is Turkey threatening Europe economically or militarily? As you said yourself, Erdogan is harming his country more than enough to be any kind of threat to Europe and if you are of the opinion that he will collapse his country then what are you worrying about?
#15041293
I didn't know much about Syria before but didn't we basically have a couple hundred folk there supporting the Kurdish fighters, and their presence was basically keeping the peace since Turkey didn't want to do anything while American military folk were around?

Because that sounds like an extremely cheap, genuinely good thing for our military to do with some actual benefits??? And we gave it up for: ???? ?? ???
#15041296
SpecialOlympian wrote:I didn't know much about Syria before but didn't we basically have a couple hundred folk there supporting the Kurdish fighters, and their presence was basically keeping the peace since Turkey didn't want to do anything while American military folk were around?

Because that sounds like an extremely cheap, genuinely good thing for our military to do with some actual benefits??? And we gave it up for: ?? ?? ?

Maybe you didn't give it up for nothing and Putin will call Trump a genius again publicly. :excited:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 23
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]