Re: Turko-Syrian War
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:05 pm
A little fast forward after disengagement, the question may return if there is anything else to do but watch tv and eat pop corn.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1249
How the government howled. With the help of a neighbouring state, "terrorists" were trying to destroy the government and its army, blowing up and murdering its supporters. "Terrorists" were crossing the international border, arms were being shipped over the frontier and given to rebels fighting the government, "non-lethal" aid was being sent to the opposition. I couldn't help remembering this when I crossed that same border four days ago. Not from Turkey into Syria, but from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland.
Isolationism is just one tool of the MD.Ibrahim wrote: I'm pretty sure it was a popular bumper sticker on VW buses in the 1960's. "U.S. out of EVERYWHERE" For most of my lifetime it was the Pat Buchanan doctrine, now some Robert Spencer rube is claiming it. Tibet was trying it in the late 19th century, Japan from the 17th century to the 1860's. The idea of isolationism gets around!
Let the market handle it. If a country is too fucked up to trade with them the investment will be too risky and we don't trade rather than the current method of military corporate welfare. Let the backwater shitholes of the world languish.Ibrahim wrote:
I think trade without any foreign security presence would be even more difficult for the US than pure isolationism. That said, I don't think either option is practically possible, though certain desirable in many ways.
Thank you Very Much for your posts, Tinker and Ibrahim.Enki wrote:Let the market handle it. If a country is too fucked up to trade with them the investment will be too risky and we don't trade rather than the current method of military corporate welfare. Let the backwater shitholes of the world languish.Ibrahim wrote:
I think trade without any foreign security presence would be even more difficult for the US than pure isolationism. That said, I don't think either option is practically possible, though certain desirable in many ways.
That's a mean thing to say about Arkansas, but if we get back to international trading for a moment the US consumer economy benefits from stability theoretically provided by international meddling, as well as individuals and corporations benefiting from government contracts. Merchants drag their government with them, and this has been true since the Achaemenid Empire through the Roman and British to the present day.Enki wrote:Let the market handle it. If a country is too fucked up to trade with them the investment will be too risky and we don't trade rather than the current method of military corporate welfare. Let the backwater shitholes of the world languish.Ibrahim wrote:
I think trade without any foreign security presence would be even more difficult for the US than pure isolationism. That said, I don't think either option is practically possible, though certain desirable in many ways.
.
NATO must not use protecting Turkey as a pretext to intervene in Syria, the Iraqi PM said during a Russian press conference. The statement followed an escalation of tensions between Turkey and Syria following last week’s cross-border shelling.
“The story goes that supposedly Syrian planes dropped bombs on Turkish territory, but everything has been over-exaggerated, even if it did really happen,” Nouri al-Maliki said.
He argued that no one was threatening Turkey, and that there was no need for them to call on NATO for support.
.
monster_gardener wrote:Thank you Very Much for your posts, Tinker and Ibrahim.Enki wrote:Let the market handle it. If a country is too fucked up to trade with them the investment will be too risky and we don't trade rather than the current method of military corporate welfare. Let the backwater shitholes of the world languish.Ibrahim wrote:
I think trade without any foreign security presence would be even more difficult for the US than pure isolationism. That said, I don't think either option is practically possible, though certain desirable in many ways.
IMHO Ibrahim may be closer to correct......
One problem........ NOT the only one........
The backwaters are not going to just languish.........
Pirates......... Often Islamic........... Barbary and Indonesian Buganese in the past.......... Somali today........ And others........
Trouble is that cost conscious merchant ships usually don't staff and arm enough to Put Paid to Pirates briskly............
Trade is how we Uz got messed up with Malignant Malicious Muslims the very first time....
AND
Trade will likely allow Muslim Salafi Sabotage Simebots and others of ill will to come here and do Uz harm as they did on Sept. 11
1) I don't believe there is any such stability currently.Ibrahim wrote:That's a mean thing to say about Arkansas, but if we get back to international trading for a moment the US consumer economy benefits from stability theoretically provided by international meddling, as well as individuals and corporations benefiting from government contracts. Merchants drag their government with them, and this has been true since the Achaemenid Empire through the Roman and British to the present day.Enki wrote:Let the market handle it. If a country is too fucked up to trade with them the investment will be too risky and we don't trade rather than the current method of military corporate welfare. Let the backwater shitholes of the world languish.Ibrahim wrote:
I think trade without any foreign security presence would be even more difficult for the US than pure isolationism. That said, I don't think either option is practically possible, though certain desirable in many ways.
Enki wrote:.
If we spent even half of our current military budget on Piracy interdiction, there would be no fear of pirates.
.
Politically, no. But in terms of securing fossil fuel exploitation every major source in the M.E. is relatively secure except for the Iranian supply which is controlled by a regime hostile to the US. Coincidentally that is the country in the region that the US and certain allies are most actively targeting.Enki wrote:1) I don't believe there is any such stability currently.Ibrahim wrote:That's a mean thing to say about Arkansas, but if we get back to international trading for a moment the US consumer economy benefits from stability theoretically provided by international meddling, as well as individuals and corporations benefiting from government contracts. Merchants drag their government with them, and this has been true since the Achaemenid Empire through the Roman and British to the present day.Enki wrote:Let the market handle it. If a country is too fucked up to trade with them the investment will be too risky and we don't trade rather than the current method of military corporate welfare. Let the backwater shitholes of the world languish.Ibrahim wrote:
I think trade without any foreign security presence would be even more difficult for the US than pure isolationism. That said, I don't think either option is practically possible, though certain desirable in many ways.
Agreed, though it has always been the case, both internationally and domestically.2) We shouldn't be ensuring corporate profits by killing people.
I think the US has been pretty bad at overseas economic colonialism, and should give up on it for that reason alone. At least it was profitable for e.g. the British, at least for a while. US interventionism loses money for the country as a whole, and only enriches a few connected Americans. That's the outrage and the political lever that activists in the US should be able to use to stop it. Compassion for overseas victims has always fallen pretty flat as an appeal, but some fat cats getting rich which the rest of the country gets poorer in sinks into "catastrophic" and "immoral" levels of debt? That's something that you'd think more Americans could unite behind stopping.3) There are other ways to protect our merchants other than micromanaging the domestic politics of every nation except China in Asia.
Ibrahim wrote:.
. . in terms of securing fossil fuel exploitation every major source in the M.E. is relatively secure except for the Iranian supply which is controlled by a regime hostile to the US. Coincidentally that is the country in the region that the US and certain allies are most actively targeting.
[..]
I think the US has been pretty bad at overseas economic colonialism, and should give up on it for that reason alone. At least it was profitable for e.g. the British, at least for a while. US interventionism loses money for the country as a whole, and only enriches a few connected Americans. That's the outrage and the political lever that activists in the US should be able to use to stop it. Compassion for overseas victims has always fallen pretty flat as an appeal, but some fat cats getting rich which the rest of the country gets poorer in sinks into "catastrophic" and "immoral" levels of debt? That's something that you'd think more Americans could unite behind stopping.
.
Maybe Iran should use a possible conflict between Turkey and Syria to test its most recent military hardware. Will Iranian sol-air missiles succeed in shooting down Turkish aircraft? Will its anti-tank weapons succeed in destroying Turkish armour? Will its radar be up to the task? Will its electronic equipment be able to disrupt Turkish communications? All in all a great opportunity to assess whether Iran would be able to inflict serious damage to Israel and the US forces, in case of conflict.Turkey's army on high state of readiness, first step for Syria no-fly zone
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 11, 2012
War tensions over Syria continued to spiral early Thursday, Oct. 11, when Turkey’s armed forces were placed on a state of readiness and its chief of staff pledged stronger response to any hostile act by Syria, A high-placed US source confirmed to debkafile that Turkey had, by forcing a Syrian civilian Airbus A320 plane en route from Moscow to Damascus to land in Ankara and declaring Syrian airspace “unsafe,” taken the first step toward creating a no-fly zone over Syria.
Early Thursday, Moscow responded with a demand from Ankara for clarifications claiming that 17 Russians were aboard the intercepted flight. Turkey had reported 37 passengers on the plane without specifying their nationalities. The intercepted Airbus was released overnight after a part of its cargo, described as military in nature, was impounded
In another sign that Syrian crisis was reaching a new and dangerous level, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta referred in Brussels, for the third time in 24 hours, to the threat of chemical warfare. He said US troops had set up a headquarters in Jordan to help monitor chemical and biological weapons sites in Syria. debkafile had previously reported that similar headquarters were already present in Turkey and Israel.
Our sources note that, just as Turkish cross-border artillery exchanges with Syria since last week have been carving out, day by day, a 10-kilometer buffer strip on Syrian land, so too Ankara has begun the process of creating a no-fly zone in Syrian air space. It is because of this initiative, that American military officials have begun citing Bashar Assad’s standing threat to resort to chemical warfare in the face of outside military intervention in the Syrian conflict. They suggest that the Syrian ruler may judge the peril to his regime on a par with the 2011 Western-Arab intervention in Libya which caused Muammar Qaddafi’s downfall. Assad and Iran, perhaps, too, are unlikely to sit still and let this happen.
http://www.debka.com/article/22428/Turk ... o-fly-zone
Endovelico wrote:Maybe Iran should use a possible conflict between Turkey and Syria to test its most recent military hardware. Will Iranian sol-air missiles succeed in shooting down Turkish aircraft? Will its anti-tank weapons succeed in destroying Turkish armour? Will its radar be up to the task? Will its electronic equipment be able to disrupt Turkish communications? All in all a great opportunity to assess whether Iran would be able to inflict serious damage to Israel and the US forces, in case of conflict.Turkey's army on high state of readiness, first step for Syria no-fly zone
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 11, 2012
War tensions over Syria continued to spiral early Thursday, Oct. 11, when Turkey’s armed forces were placed on a state of readiness and its chief of staff pledged stronger response to any hostile act by Syria, A high-placed US source confirmed to debkafile that Turkey had, by forcing a Syrian civilian Airbus A320 plane en route from Moscow to Damascus to land in Ankara and declaring Syrian airspace “unsafe,” taken the first step toward creating a no-fly zone over Syria.
Early Thursday, Moscow responded with a demand from Ankara for clarifications claiming that 17 Russians were aboard the intercepted flight. Turkey had reported 37 passengers on the plane without specifying their nationalities. The intercepted Airbus was released overnight after a part of its cargo, described as military in nature, was impounded
In another sign that Syrian crisis was reaching a new and dangerous level, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta referred in Brussels, for the third time in 24 hours, to the threat of chemical warfare. He said US troops had set up a headquarters in Jordan to help monitor chemical and biological weapons sites in Syria. debkafile had previously reported that similar headquarters were already present in Turkey and Israel.
Our sources note that, just as Turkish cross-border artillery exchanges with Syria since last week have been carving out, day by day, a 10-kilometer buffer strip on Syrian land, so too Ankara has begun the process of creating a no-fly zone in Syrian air space. It is because of this initiative, that American military officials have begun citing Bashar Assad’s standing threat to resort to chemical warfare in the face of outside military intervention in the Syrian conflict. They suggest that the Syrian ruler may judge the peril to his regime on a par with the 2011 Western-Arab intervention in Libya which caused Muammar Qaddafi’s downfall. Assad and Iran, perhaps, too, are unlikely to sit still and let this happen.
http://www.debka.com/article/22428/Turk ... o-fly-zone
.
Enki wrote:.
Iran would be stupid to attack US bases. Iran would put up a nasty fight, but they would lose in the end.
.
.
Lasers could also refine fuel-grade uranium to possible weapons grade in fewer steps than centrifuges, they say.
[..]
"The smaller physical footprint and lower energy requirements would make a clandestine laser facility more difficult to detect," said Jim Walsh, a research associate at MIT's Security Studies Program.
[..]
"Iran had its own laser program, and they have got a good understanding about the process," Heinonen said, referring to methods used before newer technology now being developed or energy purposes.
[..]
Laser beams can also separate uranium isotopes, but MIT's Kemp said the technology had been pursued unsuccessfully for decades. "Indeed we do not yet know whether" the technique being developed by General Electric will work or not, he added.
General Electric said Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) - the GE-Hitachi company which would build a plant utilizing the new laser technology in North Carolina - had "met - and in many cases exceeded - all regulations pertaining to safeguarding this technology."
GLE head Chris Monetta said the laser method "could be one of the keys to the nation's long-term energy security."
Laser enrichment could produce half the refined uranium the United States needs each year for its nuclear reactors, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
.
Iran's not attacking anything while everybody is looking at Syria. This might be their "Get out of jail free" card from Bibi's face-saving war.Enki wrote:Iran would be stupid to attack US bases. Iran would put up a nasty fight, but they would lose in the end.
.
Yakis’ expert opinion is that Syria could turn out to be Turkey’s “Vietnam”. He rubbishes the idea of a “safe zone” within Syria adjacent to the Turkish border because that region is Kurdish-dominated and Turkish troops will have to be stationed there right inside Syria for that zone to be kept “free”.
But, Yakis warns, Syrian Kurds will inflict a million cuts on the Turkish soldiers deployed there, who will increasingly find themselves trapped in a quagmire.
.
Jnalum Persicum wrote:Enki wrote:.
Iran would be stupid to attack US bases. Iran would put up a nasty fight, but they would lose in the end.
.
America is not into starting another war .. otherwise there was plenty opportunity to do so
Best opportunity was when W.Bush attacked Iraq .. he could have attacked Iran too
but now it is too late
Nobody can touch Iran
like saying Russia or China could invade and take over Mexico .. yes, they could .. but would America let Russia take over Mexico or China take over Canada ? ?
Nobody can attack Iran
BTW : Iran says it "possesses" laser know-how but won't use it
.
Lasers could also refine fuel-grade uranium to possible weapons grade in fewer steps than centrifuges, they say.
[..]
"The smaller physical footprint and lower energy requirements would make a clandestine laser facility more difficult to detect," said Jim Walsh, a research associate at MIT's Security Studies Program.
[..]
"Iran had its own laser program, and they have got a good understanding about the process," Heinonen said, referring to methods used before newer technology now being developed or energy purposes.
[..]
Laser beams can also separate uranium isotopes, but MIT's Kemp said the technology had been pursued unsuccessfully for decades. "Indeed we do not yet know whether" the technique being developed by General Electric will work or not, he added.
General Electric said Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) - the GE-Hitachi company which would build a plant utilizing the new laser technology in North Carolina - had "met - and in many cases exceeded - all regulations pertaining to safeguarding this technology."
GLE head Chris Monetta said the laser method "could be one of the keys to the nation's long-term energy security."
Laser enrichment could produce half the refined uranium the United States needs each year for its nuclear reactors, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
.
.
Everyone can be touched....... including Uz......... We keep finding that out again & again.......... 911 was a good example....Nobody can touch Iran
monster_gardener wrote:.Everyone can be touched....... including Uz......... We keep finding that out again & again.......... 911 was a good example...Jnalum Persicum wrote:.
Nobody can touch Iran
.
.
Thank you Very Much for your Post, Azari.Jnalum Persicum wrote:monster_gardener wrote:.Everyone can be touched....... including Uz......... We keep finding that out again & again.......... 911 was a good example...Jnalum Persicum wrote:.
Nobody can touch Iran
.
.
Anybody would be stupid to touch America .. OR .. IRAN
Because the consequences would be disaster for those fools touching America or touching Iran
in that sense, it makes entirely sense that 9/11 was a "false flag" , inside job
Ossama or Al Ghaida, or anybody supposedly have done 9/11, had 2B an durian thinking America would not lash and kill so many woman and children .. only explanation is, Ossama did not do it, it was a controlled demolition to fool American Joe into getting the ball rolling to what happened next and still continuing
in that sense
Yes,
you can touch Iran
but
what will follow will be catastrophic not only for west, but all the world .. will morph into WW-3
That is why nobody has touched Iran
Notion, West can make arrangement with Russia and China and than attack Iran, a non starter, as long term geopolitical vital interest of Russia (soon, pretty much a Muslim nation) and China is with Iran
.
Ossama or Al Ghaida, or anybody supposedly have done 9/11, had 2B an durian thinking America would not lash and kill so many woman and children
You are likely quite right........... though IF we are lucky maybe the wind currents will keep the fallout in the Northern Hemisphere long enough for it to decay to a level that will allow humanity or dogs in the Southern Hemisphere to survive.... Maybe even civilization capable of stopping the next Big Space Rock.........what will follow will be catastrophic not only for west, but all the world .. will morph into WW-3
.
“What's happening in Syria is all part of America's great project to reshape the borders of the Middle East. America and its allies don't care about bringing democracy to the Syrian people. Look at what happened to Iraq!” he fumes. “The imperialist countries are only after oil and mineral resources.”
.
.
The beliefs stem in part from a bold Bush administration political proposal that has faded into obscurity in the West, but remains lodged in the minds of many here. Known as the Greater Middle East Initiative, it was formally introduced by then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006 at a conference in Tel Aviv. Her references to "the birth pangs of a New Middle East" and the unveiling there of a new map of the region featuring a "Free Kurdistan" are still remembered with resentment.
Even with a new administration in the White House that has sought to distance itself from the previous administration's Middle East policies, many in the region are suspicious of US motives and don't believe that the various uprisings began as indigenous, people-driven movements, independent of any US involvement.
Refik Eryilmaz, a Turkish parliamentarian from Antakya with the opposition Republican People's Party, says that Western superpowers are trying to incite a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites so that countries in the region fragment along ethno-religious lines, becoming weaker in the process.
[..]
"The access to oil will be made easier when people in these regions are divided and fighting amongst themselves. Both the US and Israel want to weaken Iran and strengthen their own position in the Middle East. But to do this, first they must weaken Syria and replace the current government with someone who supports them instead of Iran," says Mr. Eryilmaz.
[..]
“All ethno-religious groups have lived side by side in this region for centuries. But if someone hits a beehive from the outside, they will destroy the peace within the hive. All the bees inside the hive will fight with one another. That's exactly what the US is doing in the Middle East,” says Mr. Yenmis.
[..]
But today, Turkey's role as a bridge between the West and the Arab world on the Syrian conflict has again raised suspicions. Its alliances with the US and autocratic countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have also come out as strong backers of the Syrian opposition, have provoked accusations that Turkey is more intent on weakening secular Syria and reinstating a Sunni government than in democracy.
While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed last year on a live broadcast that the US initiative never took root, some in the Middle East still refer back to Mr. Erdogan's older statements of being GMEI's co-chairman, and remain convinced that a US-inspired scheme – with Turkey taking the lead – is underway.
“Perhaps the US is doing what's right for its own country and implementing a foreign policy that will protect its dominance in the world, but we have to inquisition the countries that are acting as a US pawn. Many people in Turkey think that Turkey is merely serving US interests in the region to its own detriment,” says Eryilmaz.
Back in Antakya's coffee house, with no end in sight to the Syrian conflict, local trader Ahmet Sari shows how deeply this sentiment reaches.
“So many people have died unnecessarily in Syria – children are dying," he says, wearily. "We just want this war to stop and for there to be peace. We don't hate the American people. We just want the US administration to stop trying to spread its expansionist policies.”
.