What's new

Turkey is playing a dangerous game...

Don't underestimate us. That's what you did in Gallipoli and look how it ended for you. And here is another saying we like to use: we don't like to shed blood but should our fatherland face a direct threat we will cut the arteries of this world.
Its not about underestimating Turkey or whatever. I'm just making a rational observation. You think that if Turkey was like say Iran or North korea(a hostile non Non NATO member) , then Turkey would have invaded a European country like Cyprus and Western powers would have remained silent and not intervened?

Western powers tolerated that simply because Turkey was(and still is) a crucial NATO member acting as NATO'S forward plan against the mighty Soviet union in the black Sea region. Just like it's still useful against Russia today. Turkey location plays a crucial role in this. So Turkey is an important western security partner, reason we can't view Turkey like other Middle Eastern/Muslim countries like KSA, Egypt Iran. etc
Turkey's role, location, geography is quite important to be overlooked. So small Cyprus is a non issue when looking at the bigger picture for western powers.
So reason I said had Turkey been a hostile NON NATO member then things would have played out quite differently the way it did.
 
. .
Let's be honest here..

Turkey doesn't want war with Syria; they want to make sure the Kurds don't get an independent state. The Kurds and the Syrian troops have mostly avoided fighting each other... stop with the fake news.

I understand why Turks are pissed off with the pkk and kurds for bombing turkish cities. If Kurds want freedom that's the wrong way to go about things. By bombing civilians you're going to piss off the local population and lose support. Try using peaceful protests, if it turns nasty then defend yourself then you'll get more support both locally and internationally. This is what we were trying to teach Kurds...

The further Turkey presses on the worse it will be for you. Things will never be the same from an economic stand point.

Always have I supported Turkey in the past but this has gone to far. This is not how allies are supposed to behave...

We had a plan for Syria for peace in the region.

It's not logical for Turkey to be in this position... This just opens the door for Turkey to be attcked.. Don't be over confident either... Your Military has no experience in a major war.
You are painting a black and white picture here. Nothing is black and white in the middle east. It's all about interests.
I see nothing wrong in Turkey invading part of N. SYRIA to target its enemies the kurdish rebels/militias that might pose a threat to Turkey. Turkeys main enemy in Syria is the Kurds(well the armed wing of Kurdish fighters), since Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdish state in Syria to act as an encouragement to stir things up for its own restless Kurdish region, which had been the scene of a long bloody conflict between them and armed kurdish groups like the PKK. So Turkey is right to be worried. They are just looking after their own national interests which is normal.

Likewise, Russia has its own interests in the region, to Russia their main target is any group or entity that is against its ally Assad, thus threatening its sole military base and point of influence/power projection in the region.
The U. S and other western powers have their own national interests in the region/country as well. The U. S has found the Kurds to be a good reliable partner especially against Daesh and in solidifying their interests in the region. Nothing wrong in that. Every country is in Syria for their interests. I believe just because the U S has more power and influence to further its national interests doesn't means that it unfair or that they are in the wrong.
So it's just about perspective
 
. .
That's also because turkey has been a crucial member of NATO. If turkey was like say Iran(a hostile non NATO member) then Western powers would never have tolerated that, Turkey wouldn't have dared attack in the first place.
It's called leveraging and there always remains multiple ways!!! Usually folks find one...
 
.
It's called leveraging and there always remains multiple ways!!! Usually folks find one...
Obviously, that's the point I was trying to make. Being a NATO member comes with more leverage and some advantages that other non NATO members can't enjoy(Georgia and Ukraine are good case study) So it's easier to resolve such disputes without going to all out war with NATO and even in case of limited conflict, it's easier to negotiate and come to some sort of agreement/make concessions. However, when you are out then it's another matter altogether, since the conditions, geo political ramifications and alliances are different.
 
Last edited:
.
You are painting a black and white picture here. Nothing is black and white in the middle east. It's all about interests.
I see nothing wrong in Turkey invading part of N. SYRIA to target its enemies the kurdish rebels/militias that might pose a threat to Turkey. Turkeys main enemy in Syria is the Kurds(well the armed wing of Kurdish fighters), since Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdish state in Syria to act as an encouragement to stir things up for its own restless Kurdish region, which had been the scene of a long bloody conflict between them and armed kurdish groups like the PKK. So Turkey is right to be worried. They are just looking after their own national interests which is normal.

Likewise, Russia has its own interests in the region, to Russia their main target is any group or entity that is against its ally Assad, thus threatening its sole military base and point of influence/power projection in the region.
The U. S and other western powers have their own national interests in the region/country as well. The U. S has found the Kurds to be a good reliable partner especially against Daesh and in solidifying their interests in the region. Nothing wrong in that. Every country is in Syria for their interests. I believe just because the U S has more power and influence to further its national interests doesn't means that it unfair or that they are in the wrong.
So it's just about perspective
So its completely ok to arm the enemy of your Ally just because its in your interest?
 
.
I think they not your friend if they arm your enemy
Their intentions were bad providing weapons to enemy for turkey

clipart-of-a-retro-black-and-white-business-man-kicking-another-in-the-butt-by-bestvector-1985.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
the title of the thread is kind of funny ''Turkey is playing a dangerous game!'' in fact we are the only one who in not playing any games here! our actions speak louder than any words! but yee for the rest game over man game over...
 
.
Let's be honest here..

Turkey doesn't want war with Syria; they want to make sure the Kurds don't get an independent state. The Kurds and the Syrian troops have mostly avoided fighting each other... stop with the fake news.

I understand why Turks are pissed off with the pkk and kurds for bombing turkish cities. If Kurds want freedom that's the wrong way to go about things. By bombing civilians you're going to piss off the local population and lose support. Try using peaceful protests, if it turns nasty then defend yourself then you'll get more support both locally and internationally. This is what we were trying to teach Kurds...

The further Turkey presses on the worse it will be for you. Things will never be the same from an economic stand point.

Always have I supported Turkey in the past but this has gone to far. This is not how allies are supposed to behave...

We had a plan for Syria for peace in the region.

It's not logical for Turkey to be in this position... This just opens the door for Turkey to be attcked.. Don't be over confident either... Your Military has no experience in a major war.

By which angle Turkey is playing any sort of game.
Actually Turkey is out there to end the game played by cowards.
 
.
So its completely ok to arm the enemy of your Ally just because its in your interest?
Well, Even allies sometimes have conflict of interests and as they don't always agree on everything. For example Britain and Spain have a dispute over Gibraltar which Spain claims as its own, Spain even supports Argentina's claim over Falklands Island. However that doesn't mean we are not allies or close partners. Can't always agree on everything. At the end of the day, every country/power have their own national interests as well. However, countries an still be ally while having disagreements over a range of issues, but overall geo-politically/economically/military they might still have more things in common as it's serves their overall interest being allies/close partners.
That's precisely why Turkey is still part of NATO for over half a century now, because it's leader know it has serve and still serve them well when looking at the overall situation, despite what some emotional delusional folks might think. You can rule a country based on emotions and rash decisions like a common man. :)
 
.
A dangerous game? Ahahahahh :)

Come and save your terrorist if you don't like it.
"HACI ANESTİ!.. GEL DE ORDULARINI KURTAR!”
 
Last edited:
.
Why is US still in syria after isis is finished? Why arm the pkk ?there is too much for this to explain nou Actually the US is gone too far if you ask me.
That's why Erdogan apologized to Putin & making deals for future conflicts.
 
.
The Legitimacy of the Operation Olive Branch:

  • UN Security Council’s decisions: no. 1624 (2005), 2170 (2014) and 2178 (2014) and as per the self-defense right under the 51th item of UN charter, also (Turkey) mentioned being respectful to Syria’s territorial integrity.
  • USA violating The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and Article 18 of Vienna Convention by supporting PKK-affiliated YPG/SDF(PYD) terrorists...

    - Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): Obligation Not To Defeat The Object And Purpose Of A Treaty Prior To Its Entry Into Force

    - United States Signs Arms Trade Treaty on September 25, 2013

    http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

    - ATT entered into force on 24 December 2014
 
Last edited:
.
Well, Even allies sometimes have conflict of interests and as they don't always agree on everything. For example Britain and Spain have a dispute over Gibraltar which Spain claims as its own, Spain even supports Argentina's claim over Falklands Island. However that doesn't mean we are not allies or close partners. Can't always agree on everything. At the end of the day, every country/power have their own national interests as well. However, countries an still be ally while having disagreements over a range of issues, but overall geo-politically/economically/military they might still have more things in common as it's serves their overall interest being allies/close partners.
That's precisely why Turkey is still part of NATO for over half a century now, because it's leader know it has serve and still serve them well when looking at the overall situation, despite what some emotional delusional folks might think. You can rule a country based on emotions and rash decisions like a common man. :)
There is a very big difference in support by words and arming the enemy with heavy weaponry.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom