What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
On a related vein at least we would have had consistency in our foreign policy across situations and across enemies as well. This piecemeal, wing it on the fly, make it up as we go along, crap has been a total disaster. "leading from behind" is sounding more and more like a fancy way to dress up "I don't know what the f I am doing" after the fact.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it would make one iota of difference? I don't. I don't see any evidence it would either.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Washington said its war planes, along with those of coalition ally the United Arab Emirates, had struck nine targets in Syria, including six near Kobani that hit Islamic State artillery and armored vehicles. It also struck Islamic State positions in Iraq five times.

Nevertheless, Kobani remained under intense bombardment from Islamic State emplacements, within sight of Turkish tanks that have so far done nothing to help.

U.S. officials were quoted voicing impatience with the Turks for refusing to join the coalition against Islamic State fighters who have seized wide areas of Syria and Iraq. Turkey says it could join but only if Washington agrees to use force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as the Sunni Muslim jihadists fighting him in a three-year-old civil war.
Click to expand...

Yikes. That's pretty hardcore negotiating. "Nice ethnic minority ya got here. Would be a shame if somethin' happened to it."
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So, for Turkey to save itself we have to fix Syria? And if we fix that does it just turn into another Iraq that we supposedly fixed?

**** the whole area. Get out.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

If ISIS invades Turkey, would that be a foreign invasion in which we'd be required by NATO treaty to come to Turkey's defense? If so, that might be the height of irony.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

St. Clown said:
If ISIS invades Turkey, would that be a foreign invasion in which we'd be required by NATO treaty to come to Turkey's defense? If so, that might be the height of irony.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt ISIS would invade Turkey, but if they did, it would certainly be ironic. Of course I suppose we could say our bombing, which we're already doing, is coming to their defense. Turkey in recent years seems to be behaving less and less as an ally and responsible member of NATO.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

St. Clown said:
If ISIS invades Turkey, would that be a foreign invasion in which we'd be required by NATO treaty to come to Turkey's defense? If so, that might be the height of irony.
Click to expand...

Since ISIS is not a recognized state, it's not an invasion, it's a terrorist attack. I do not know if we are obligated to respond to that (though we should).
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
Since ISIS is not a recognized state, it's not an invasion, it's a terrorist attack. I do not know if we are obligated to respond to that (though we should).
Click to expand...

Why? They won't let us use their airfields. They won't protect their own state. Why should we respond????
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

ScoobyDoo said:
Why? They won't let us use their airfields. They won't protect their own state. Why should we respond????
Click to expand...

Because they are an ally under treaty. If we would refuse to defend them then we should sever the alliance. But as long as they are a formal ally we should honor the alliance, to protect the integrity of the concept of "alliance."

It may well be time to rethink Turkey's membership in NATO. NATO exists to deter attack by Russia on Western Europe by formally committing the US to military response. All well and good -- NATO has done a great job and as a side effect has helped stabilize Europe after the two world wars. But that mechanism is not enhanced by including Turkey. Heck, Australia isn't part of NATO. Alliances have different purposes.

Turkey is in NATO because:

1) The US wants every forward deployment base we can get surrounding those delicious Middle Eastern oil reserves

2) As a symbolic gesture that Turkey is "part of Europe"

3) Because Turkey used to be a secular counter-example to the religious states of the Muslim world

If Erdoğan indicates the future of Turkey, 3) is eliminated. 1) becomes less and less important as we move away from our slavery to the Saudi royal family. That leaves 2), which is a hardly a good enough reason to tolerate all the additional stresses on NATO that Turkey's membership creates.

If they fail to live up to their NATO responsibilities that's a good pretext to kick them out.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

They're more responsible for the three state Iraq solution (the only one that made sense) not happening because they cower in fear every time the Kurds are mentioned.

Yes, kick them out of NATA. Fine with me. They're worthless anyway.

You appear to want the US to police the World as much as anyone else does. I don't. Complete waste of money, treasure, time, and effort.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
Yeah, that's me all over. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, you want to protect Turkey. I don't understand how the hell we're obligated to defend them when they've done NOTHING in their own backyard while we've blown trillions and lives.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

ScoobyDoo said:
They're more responsible for the three state Iraq solution (the only one that made sense) not happening because they cower in fear every time the Kurds are mentioned.

Yes, kick them out of NATA. Fine with me. They're worthless anyway.

You appear to want the US to police the World as much as anyone else does. I don't. Complete waste of money, treasure, time, and effort.
Click to expand...
He's an employee for a defense, has a vested interest in the US spending money on these sorts of things. In economics it's called "rent seeking".
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

St. Clown said:
He's an employee for a defense, has a vested interest in the US spending money on these sorts of things. In economics it's called "rent seeking".
Click to expand...

Isn't that Lynah? I didn't think Kepler was employed by a defense contractor...
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Frankly, end NATO. It's another waste of time and money. We spend more money on defending Europe then they do. Time for that to end.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

dxmnkd316 said:
Isn't that Lynah? I didn't think Kepler was employed by a defense contractor...
Click to expand...
Lynah might be defense also (I thought energy sector out in Cali.), but I know Kepler has flat out stated that he does, joking about it a couple times while rooting for more missiles (or something) to be used in the Middle East.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

St. Clown said:
So Canada was able to muster up a full half-squadron of fighters, two recon planes, and an airborne fuel tanker. Gee, thanks. Were they going to add a few spit wads into the mix, too?
Click to expand...
You forgot the ice rinks. Curling and Hockey will save the world!

Oh and Timbits.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

St. Clown said:
Lynah might be defense also (I thought energy sector out in Cali.), but I know Kepler has flat out stated that he does, joking about it a couple times while rooting for more missiles (or something) to be used in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Lynah makes things that fly, fly. I make his things that fly make other things go boom.

Together we are basically the entire US economy except for lawn chairs and Cheetos. So be nice.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
Turkey is in NATO because:

1) The US wants every forward deployment base we can get surrounding those delicious Middle Eastern oil reserves

2) As a symbolic gesture that Turkey is "part of Europe"

3) Because Turkey used to be a secular counter-example to the religious states of the Muslim world
Click to expand...

The Bosporus and Dardanelles might have something to do with it too.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Craig P. said:
The Bosporus and Dardanelles might have something to do with it too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we really need to project seapower into the Black Sea anymore. The Sixth Fleet can pretty much hit anything in the Caucasus from anchor off Naples, and the food is better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top