Things hotting up with Turkey

That’s not an aswer to my simple question. I’ve never implied that your are ‘Anti-Muslim ‘. Oh and if the US takes a Hegemony Holiday (I think I’ll claim IPR on that), they won’t be able to walz back in and reclaim it. I’ll think you’ll find others will be settling in quite nicely, thank you.
Many Americans have an unquestioning acceptance of a political ideology which states, amongst other things, that their country is unique and special in the world and has been ordained by heaven or historical inevitability to lead or rule over the world. Suggestions that other countries find this idea laughable do not go over well with these people.

I will try to keep this post short, so I won't go into a detailed historical exposition of the above. However for the purposes of foreign policy Americans can be divided into basically three camps, the Atlanticists, the Isolationists, and for lack of a better label, the Manifest Destiny types.

The Atlanticists have little interest in ideology and are mainly concerned with practical matters of immediate consequence. These people are the ones who have outlooks which are most aligned with their European counterparts.

The Manifest Destiny types believe the US is somehow special and historically unique and has been ordained by heaven or by historical inevitability to rule over the world, by the point of the bayonet if necessary. The Isolationists believe more or less the same thing, but believe that US leadership is to be one of example, rather than of formal empire.

None of these ideas fall along party lines, so it is possible to have a mixture of all of them vying for control at the same time. All three seems to be battling for control of Trump's ear at the present time.

The Manifest Destiny types are a minority, but they tend to be well connected and so have influence out of proportion to their numbers. They also have an intense interest in foreign policy, unlike the Isolationists. I believe that if given free rein they will ultimately lead the US to disaster, and possibly the world into another catastrophic war. They have many of the same failings as those around Kaiser Wilhelm at the beginning of the last century.

The Isolationists represent the opinions of much of the middle of the US, including where our friend from Wyoming lives. They are typically ignored but are currently on the ascendency in reaction to the spectacular failures of the grand plans of the Manifest Destiny types in the Middle East and Central Asia over the past few decades. Vast sums were expended on foreign wars with little to show for it, all while the economic base of the centre of the US crumbled under the forces of globalisation.

The Atlanticists tend to exist in the vacuum left between the other factions when neither of them is the flavour of the month. The present political drama has still a few more acts to go and I think it will be some time before they are in control again.

With regards to Turkey, the Manifest Destiny types would expect deference and obedience from them, and would be willing to use whatever measures they have available, such as trade sanctions, to extract it. The Isolationists would resent what they see as Turkish "ingratitude", and react by withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, from any US bases there. LJonsey is viewing things from the latter perspective.

My own opinion of Turkey is that they are a regional power in a region that will matter to the world so long as we rely on oil to power it. Some people may not like that situation, but this is the world we live in.

The Turks have their own problems, issues, concerns, and priorities, and these may not line up well with our own. However, the Middle East is their back yard and we can work with them on matters of mutual interest so long as we start from the premise that we have no right or ability to force the Turks to operate against their own vital interests.
 
Many Americans have an unquestioning acceptance of a political ideology which states, amongst other things, that their country is unique and special in the world and has been ordained by heaven or historical inevitability to lead or rule over the world. Suggestions that other countries find this idea laughable do not go over well with these people.

I will try to keep this post short, so I won't go into a detailed historical exposition of the above. However for the purposes of foreign policy Americans can be divided into basically three camps, the Atlanticists, the Isolationists, and for lack of a better label, the Manifest Destiny types.

The Atlanticists have little interest in ideology and are mainly concerned with practical matters of immediate consequence. These people are the ones who have outlooks which are most aligned with their European counterparts.

The Manifest Destiny types believe the US is somehow special and historically unique and has been ordained by heaven or by historical inevitability to rule over the world, by the point of the bayonet if necessary. The Isolationists believe more or less the same thing, but believe that US leadership is to be one of example, rather than of formal empire.

None of these ideas fall along party lines, so it is possible to have a mixture of all of them vying for control at the same time. All three seems to be battling for control of Trump's ear at the present time.

The Manifest Destiny types are a minority, but they tend to be well connected and so have influence out of proportion to their numbers. They also have an intense interest in foreign policy, unlike the Isolationists. I believe that if given free rein they will ultimately lead the US to disaster, and possibly the world into another catastrophic war. They have many of the same failings as those around Kaiser Wilhelm at the beginning of the last century.

The Isolationists represent the opinions of much of the middle of the US, including where our friend from Wyoming lives. They are typically ignored but are currently on the ascendency in reaction to the spectacular failures of the grand plans of the Manifest Destiny types in the Middle East and Central Asia over the past few decades. Vast sums were expended on foreign wars with little to show for it, all while the economic base of the centre of the US crumbled under the forces of globalisation.

The Atlanticists tend to exist in the vacuum left between the other factions when neither of them is the flavour of the month. The present political drama has still a few more acts to go and I think it will be some time before they are in control again.

With regards to Turkey, the Manifest Destiny types would expect deference and obedience from them, and would be willing to use whatever measures they have available, such as trade sanctions, to extract it. The Isolationists would resent what they see as Turkish "ingratitude", and react by withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, from any US bases there. LJonsey is viewing things from the latter perspective.

My own opinion of Turkey is that they are a regional power in a region that will matter to the world so long as we rely on oil to power it. Some people may not like that situation, but this is the world we live in.

The Turks have their own problems, issues, concerns, and priorities, and these may not line up well with our own. However, the Middle East is their back yard and we can work with them on matters of mutual interest so long as we start from the premise that we have no right or ability to force the Turks to operate against their own vital interests.
You tend to leave out things like our “allies” inserting their SF types to destabilize a country and trying to advance their own goals.

Or their rampant, viralant displays of Anti Americanism that prompted the forced evacuation of all dependents from that country.

Or their detention of an American God botherer, to use as leverage.

It does not take to many of these types of events to place one in the shitbag category. Withdrawing from Turkey just removes another domino, and makes it that much easier to re-evaluate the status quo.

But ruling the world is not a popular idea.
Engaging with whom we have to, and ignoring who we can is more popular these days.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Or their rampant, viralant displays of Anti Americanism that prompted the forced evacuation of all dependents from that country.
Where and when? The DoD and State Department both gave the IS terrorist threat as the reason - no anti-US feeling - which, as I've stated above, is not manifest in Turkey.
You tend to leave out things like our “allies” inserting their SF types to destabilize a country and trying to advance their own goals.
Where and when? Are you referring to the Turkish presence in northern Iraq or NW Syria - both on their border and intercepting terrorist attacks?. Perhaps you can explain the US presence in those areas in a similar manner? Would the US permit continued terrorist attacks form, say, Mexico or (God Forbid!) Canada without intervening?
Or their detention of an American God botherer, to use as leverage.
Agreed but also released. When do you think the US will extradite Fetullah Gulen?
Withdrawing from Turkey just removes another domino
A domino dropped by whom?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Many Americans have an unquestioning acceptance of a political ideology which states, amongst other things, that their country is unique and special in the world and has been ordained by heaven or historical inevitability to lead or rule over the world. Suggestions that other countries find this idea laughable do not go over well with these people.

I will try to keep this post short, so I won't go into a detailed historical exposition of the above. However for the purposes of foreign policy Americans can be divided into basically three camps, the Atlanticists, the Isolationists, and for lack of a better label, the Manifest Destiny types.

The Atlanticists have little interest in ideology and are mainly concerned with practical matters of immediate consequence. These people are the ones who have outlooks which are most aligned with their European counterparts.

The Manifest Destiny types believe the US is somehow special and historically unique and has been ordained by heaven or by historical inevitability to rule over the world, by the point of the bayonet if necessary. The Isolationists believe more or less the same thing, but believe that US leadership is to be one of example, rather than of formal empire.

None of these ideas fall along party lines, so it is possible to have a mixture of all of them vying for control at the same time. All three seems to be battling for control of Trump's ear at the present time.

The Manifest Destiny types are a minority, but they tend to be well connected and so have influence out of proportion to their numbers. They also have an intense interest in foreign policy, unlike the Isolationists. I believe that if given free rein they will ultimately lead the US to disaster, and possibly the world into another catastrophic war. They have many of the same failings as those around Kaiser Wilhelm at the beginning of the last century.

The Isolationists represent the opinions of much of the middle of the US, including where our friend from Wyoming lives. They are typically ignored but are currently on the ascendency in reaction to the spectacular failures of the grand plans of the Manifest Destiny types in the Middle East and Central Asia over the past few decades. Vast sums were expended on foreign wars with little to show for it, all while the economic base of the centre of the US crumbled under the forces of globalisation.

The Atlanticists tend to exist in the vacuum left between the other factions when neither of them is the flavour of the month. The present political drama has still a few more acts to go and I think it will be some time before they are in control again.

With regards to Turkey, the Manifest Destiny types would expect deference and obedience from them, and would be willing to use whatever measures they have available, such as trade sanctions, to extract it. The Isolationists would resent what they see as Turkish "ingratitude", and react by withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, from any US bases there. LJonsey is viewing things from the latter perspective.

My own opinion of Turkey is that they are a regional power in a region that will matter to the world so long as we rely on oil to power it. Some people may not like that situation, but this is the world we live in.

The Turks have their own problems, issues, concerns, and priorities, and these may not line up well with our own. However, the Middle East is their back yard and we can work with them on matters of mutual interest so long as we start from the premise that we have no right or ability to force the Turks to operate against their own vital interests.
An excellent summary of US foreign policy approaches. I have been fortunate to spend about half of my career working for or with US personnel (State, Navy, Army, Air Force & Marines) and I have found them very dedicated professionals. But they were exclusively outside CONUS. Those I met and worked with in Europe (COMUSNAVEUR, EUCOM) enjoyed the freedoms and diversity of Europe and in almost all cases, wanted to stay in Europe.

My State Department pals (Italy, Balkans, AFG, Turkey) were world-weary and cynical about DC and over the last two years felt abandoned by the President who has singularly chosen to ignore their advice on engagement across the region. There is also a huge gulf between Foggy Bottom (State) and the Pentagon - and in particular, CENTCOM, who operates - it seems - in a FP vacuum, seeing the world in a series of conflicts, conducting wars with little oversight.
 
Where and when? The DoD and State Department both gave the IS terrorist threat as the reason - no anti-US feeling - which, as I've stated above, is not manifest in Turkey.

Where and when? Are you referring to the Turkish presence in northern Iraq or NW Syria - both on their border and intercepting terrorist attacks?. Perhaps you can explain the US presence in those areas in a similar manner? Would the US permit continued terrorist attacks form, say, Mexico or (God Forbid!) Canada without intervening?

Agreed but also released. When do you think the US will extradite Fetullah Gulen?

A domino dropped by whom?
Let’s use Valley of the Wolves. A film with a theme about vengeance against American Servicemembers. For what oh yes their SF types being detained in Northern Iraq on a mission to destabilize thr area so Turkey could intervene.

Unless the Turks can provide some hard evidence he won’t be.

I understand you love the Turks, but not everybody does. Our lot is with Israel.
 
Many Americans have an unquestioning acceptance of a political ideology which states, amongst other things, that their country is unique and special in the world and has been ordained by heaven or historical inevitability to lead or rule over the world. Suggestions that other countries find this idea laughable do not go over well with these people.

I will try to keep this post short, so I won't go into a detailed historical exposition of the above. However for the purposes of foreign policy Americans can be divided into basically three camps, the Atlanticists, the Isolationists, and for lack of a better label, the Manifest Destiny types.

The Atlanticists have little interest in ideology and are mainly concerned with practical matters of immediate consequence. These people are the ones who have outlooks which are most aligned with their European counterparts.

The Manifest Destiny types believe the US is somehow special and historically unique and has been ordained by heaven or by historical inevitability to rule over the world, by the point of the bayonet if necessary. The Isolationists believe more or less the same thing, but believe that US leadership is to be one of example, rather than of formal empire.

None of these ideas fall along party lines, so it is possible to have a mixture of all of them vying for control at the same time. All three seems to be battling for control of Trump's ear at the present time.

The Manifest Destiny types are a minority, but they tend to be well connected and so have influence out of proportion to their numbers. They also have an intense interest in foreign policy, unlike the Isolationists. I believe that if given free rein they will ultimately lead the US to disaster, and possibly the world into another catastrophic war. They have many of the same failings as those around Kaiser Wilhelm at the beginning of the last century.

The Isolationists represent the opinions of much of the middle of the US, including where our friend from Wyoming lives. They are typically ignored but are currently on the ascendency in reaction to the spectacular failures of the grand plans of the Manifest Destiny types in the Middle East and Central Asia over the past few decades. Vast sums were expended on foreign wars with little to show for it, all while the economic base of the centre of the US crumbled under the forces of globalisation.

The Atlanticists tend to exist in the vacuum left between the other factions when neither of them is the flavour of the month. The present political drama has still a few more acts to go and I think it will be some time before they are in control again.

With regards to Turkey, the Manifest Destiny types would expect deference and obedience from them, and would be willing to use whatever measures they have available, such as trade sanctions, to extract it. The Isolationists would resent what they see as Turkish "ingratitude", and react by withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, from any US bases there. LJonsey is viewing things from the latter perspective.

My own opinion of Turkey is that they are a regional power in a region that will matter to the world so long as we rely on oil to power it. Some people may not like that situation, but this is the world we live in.

The Turks have their own problems, issues, concerns, and priorities, and these may not line up well with our own. However, the Middle East is their back yard and we can work with them on matters of mutual interest so long as we start from the premise that we have no right or ability to force the Turks to operate against their own vital interests.
Like this analysis. I'd just add that of course Corporate America games all these varying geopolitical views to reap the maximum gain for itself. It is also inclined to try and swing the pendulum itself once it feels that a change in the direction of political travel will yield greater financial returns. It would also be a mistake to assume that those corporations that enjoy a liberal identity (Apple, Google) are any less ruthless than Dyncorp etc. when it comes to the bottom line. Both benefit most from the expansionist policies underlying Manifest Destiny, hence the frenzied and well funded assault on Trumpish isolationism.
 
Like this analysis. I'd just add that of course Corporate America games all these varying geopolitical views to reap the maximum gain for itself. It is also inclined to try and swing the pendulum itself once it feels that a change in the direction of political travel will yield greater financial returns. It would also be a mistake to assume that those corporations that enjoy a liberal identity (Apple, Google) are any less ruthless than Dyncorp etc. when it comes to the bottom line. Both benefit most from the expansionist policies underlying Manifest Destiny, hence the frenzied and well funded assault on Trumpish isolationism.
I would say it's probably a bit more complex than that. American oil and mining companies would prefer countries that were firmly under a US thumb in order to protect their assets there, so they would support the "Manifest Destiny" types. The same is no doubt true for the "security" industry, in a more obvious way.

For consumer goods companies though, they are more interested in selling in markets where the money is, which means countries which are harder to dominate. They are also more vulnerable to consumer boycotts. Their financial interests would lean more towards the Atlanticist position of being involved enough to try to influence other wealthy countries in a manner which benefits those companies but without stirring up too much overt anti-Americanism.

Neither of course has a financial interest in isolationism.

However, there is also American regional geography which comes into play here as well. The big American multi-nationals are headquartered mainly in densely populated areas on either coast or in the few big urban centres in the middle such as Chicago or Dallas. The latter have far more in common with the coastal regions than they do with their surrounding territory.

These regions which host the corporate headquarters as well as the offices and other facilities of the successful software, marketing, and media companies are also the strongholds of the Manifest Destiny and Atlanticist viewpoints. They both benefit from an expansionist US, as well as champion it. These people have been the primary beneficiaries of globalisation in the US, which has given them cheaper manufactured goods from Asia as well as global markets for well paying jobs in technology, entertainment, and financial, advertising and marketing services.

The Isolationist strongholds are in the more thinly populated centre of the country, whose economic pillars have been undermined by globalisation.

In both cases self-interest is being dressed up as principle. Now many of these people may genuinely believe they are doing "the right thing", but their opinions and world views are also being shaped by the larger economic forces operating around them.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Let’s use Valley of the Wolves. A film with a theme about vengeance against American Service members. For what oh yes their SF types being detained in Northern Iraq on a mission to destabilize thr area so Turkey could intervene.
So no different from Rambo, then. It's a fictional film and TV series, and basing your foreign policy on that. Remind me why the US was intervening in Iraq and how this had greater legitimacy than Turkey, an immediate neighbour, that was suffering from cross border attacks?
Our lot is with Israel
You are clearly unaware of the close military relationship between Turkey and Israel...which did take a bit of a nose-dive in 2010 when Israeli Commandos killed 13 Turkish citizens on the M/V Mavi Marmara, of Gaza. I would stress it's not either/or. Turkey has absolutely no love for the Syrian regime, nor Iran, nor KSA. Just like Israel.
I understand you love the Turks, but not everybody does.
I have spent almost six years as SME on Turkey; I've studied there and I have lived and worked there. I am no lover of the AKP regime, nor of Erdoğan, but as I have stressed before, geography doesn't change. You may be dismissive of Turkey's legitimate security concerns about northern Syria and Iraq, as much as you seem to be of Europe; that is understanding from a Midwest isolationist American perspective, I suppose. But that's now how most European countries, and specifically the UK, view it.

By the US turning it's back on Turkey, you will give carte blanche to Erdoğan to look east. He's doing it already and has played Trump as a fool.
 
So no different from Rambo, then. It's a fictional film and TV series. Remind me why the US was intervening in Iraq and how this had greater legitimacy than Turkey, an immediate neighbour, that was suffering from cross border attacks?

You are clearly unaware of the close military relationship between Turkey and Israel...which did take a bit of a nose-dive in 2010 when Israeli Commandos killed 13 Turkish citizens on the M/V Mavi Marmara, of Gaza. I would stress it's not either/or. Turkey has absolutely no love for the Syrian regime, nor Iran, nor KSA. Just like Israel.

I have spent almost six years as SME on Turkey; I've studied there and I have lived and worked there. I am no lover of the AKP regime, nor of Erdoğan, but as I have stressed before, geography doesn't change. You may be dismissive of Turkey's legitimate security concerns about northern Syria and Iraq, as much as you seem to be of Europe; that is understanding from a Midwest isolationist American perspective, I suppose. But that's now how most European countries, and specifically the UK, view it.

By the US turning it's back on Turkey, you will give carte blanche to Erdoğan to look east. He's doing it already and has played Trump as a fool.

Well in 2003 the occupation of Iraq had just started, do you really think the US was going to take a favorable view to the Turks already making a cluster ****, even worse?? Blame Rumsfeld for that, but sending your SF types to destabilize a region that is being occupied by American forces that could result in deaths of US personal is a bit taboo.

Mountain West, not quite the same as the Midwest. America is never truly Isolationist, but we can be very picky about who and what we deal with and what is the benefit of doing so.

Turkey has been looking towards Russia for awhile and Trump is not helping, that you are correct about. But the world is always changing.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Turkey looking towards Russia - a de facto neighbour - since they shot down a SU-24 on the Syrian border in Nov 2015? They have always had a dialogue with Russia, even when Russian forces occupied almost half of Anatolia and decimated the Ottoman 2nd Army between 1915-1917, and got within 10 miles of Aya Sofya (Constantinople) in 1878. But don't confuse dialogue and strategic positioning with the Putin/Erdoğan bromance. Like the US and the Trump/Putin love-in.

Whether the West likes it or not, there will be no resolution of the Syria crisis without negotiating with Russia (forget Iran). Again, this is directly affecting Turkey - remember the 3.5 Million registered Syrian refugees living in Turkey (which Turkey dearly wants to repatriate?) The S-400 acquisition is part frustration/part brinksmanship, which, again, I think Erdoğan will Trump, if you pardon the pun, as there is now an outline agreement for the US to provide Patriot systems to Turkey.
 
The S-400 acquisition is part frustration/part brinksmanship, which, again, I think Erdoğan will Trump, if you pardon the pun, as there is now an outline agreement for the US to provide Patriot systems to Turkey.
Perhaps not. Or maybe the Turks are better negotiators than the clowns in Whitehall at trying to get what they want.

'Turkish authorities reportedly rejected a U.S. offer which demands Turkey to cancel the purchase of Russian-made S-400 missile defence systems in return since it did not include a discount on the price set or a transfer of technology, Turkey's pro-government newspaper Yeni Şafak said on Jan. 5. "The U.S.’s latest Patriot missiles offer failed to include neither a technology sharing clause demanded by Ankara nor a discount on the proposed $3.5 billion deal," Yeni Şafak said.'

Turkey rejects new U.S. offer to cancel purchase of Russian S-400 missiles - pro-gov't daily | Ahval
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Perhaps not. Or maybe the Turks are better negotiators than the clowns in Whitehall at trying to get what they want.

'Turkish authorities reportedly rejected a U.S. offer which demands Turkey to cancel the purchase of Russian-made S-400 missile defence systems in return since it did not include a discount on the price set or a transfer of technology, Turkey's pro-government newspaper Yeni Şafak said on Jan. 5. "The U.S.’s latest Patriot missiles offer failed to include neither a technology sharing clause demanded by Ankara nor a discount on the proposed $3.5 billion deal," Yeni Şafak said.'

Turkey rejects new U.S. offer to cancel purchase of Russian S-400 missiles - pro-gov't daily | Ahval
Perhaps not. Or maybe the Turks are better negotiators than the clowns in Whitehall at trying to get what they want.

'Turkish authorities reportedly rejected a U.S. offer which demands Turkey to cancel the purchase of Russian-made S-400 missile defence systems in return since it did not include a discount on the price set or a transfer of technology, Turkey's pro-government newspaper Yeni Şafak said on Jan. 5. "The U.S.’s latest Patriot missiles offer failed to include neither a technology sharing clause demanded by Ankara nor a discount on the proposed $3.5 billion deal," Yeni Şafak said.'

Turkey rejects new U.S. offer to cancel purchase of Russian S-400 missiles - pro-gov't daily | Ahval
The Turkish mantra across their burgeoning defence industry sector is 'technology transfer' and 'co-industrialisation'; indeed this was cited very early on in the S-400 deal, that would have seen (at least as advised to Erdogan) the S-400 produced in Turkey for export. That's gone rather quiet over the last year; but the Russian deal is much cheaper, with Putin offering all sorts of interest-free deals which remain attractive given how weak the TLR is these days.

But Mike Pompeo and Gen Dunsford (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) are visiting Ankara on Wednesday, I believe, and apart from the shambles which is the US position (ie POTUS's) position on northern Syria and the PYD/YPG, I am pretty sure that PAtriot vs S-400 will be almost at the top of the agenda.
 
But Mike Pompeo and Gen Dunsford (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) are visiting Ankara on Wednesday, I believe, and apart from the shambles which is the US position (ie POTUS's) position on northern Syria and the PYD/YPG, I am pretty sure that PAtriot vs S-400 will be almost at the top of the agenda.
Not sure how warm Pompeo's reception will be. The Turks certainly do brinkmanship well.

'US Mike Pompeo equating PYD/YPG terror group with 'the Kurds' is 'troubling,' says Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman.

'Turkey on Friday decried recent remarks by the U.S. secretary of state on Turkey's role in ensuring Syria's security and territorial integrity. "We reject both the style and content of U.S. Secretary of State [Mike] Pompeo's statements that he gave yesterday in an interview to a website regarding our country with respect to Syria," Hami Aksoy, spokesman for Turkey’s Foreign Ministry, said in a statement.'


Turkey rebuffs US secretary of state's remarks
 
Turkey should not attack Kurds after U.S. Syria pull-out: U.S. national security adviser | Reuters
Bolton, currently in Israel but due in Turkey on Monday says the Turks shouldn’t undertake Ops unless coordinated and agreed by the US at a minimum and that Tr (and their sponsored FSA) don’t attack the SDF, the majority of whom are YPG. That is (highly) unlikely to be appreciated by Turkish officials imo:
“We don’t think the Turks ought to undertake military action that’s not fully coordinated with and agreed to by the United States at a minimum so they don’t endanger our troops, but also so that they meet the president’s requirement that the Syrian opposition forces that have fought with us are not endangered,” Bolton told reporters ahead of talks with Israeli officials.
 
Any truth in this, about Turks losing their trust in religion?

In an interview with Al-Monitor, Eliacik opined that contrary to popular belief, Muslim societies ruled by religiously conservative governments tend to disincline from Islam. “According to recent research of mine, similar outcomes are currently seen in three countries in the Islamic world — Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey,” he said. “They are all ruled by religious governments, but in all three countries atheism and deism are spreading, while religiosity is declining [and] suspicion toward religion is growing. Because of those governments, people begin to think that Islam is in fact a lie and they have been deceived.”

According to Eliacik, the same three trends can be observed among young people in the three countries. “The first group is sliding to deism and atheism. The second group is drifting away to radical fundamentalist groups, and the third group is shifting to a Muslim-leftist thought,” he said
That's got to be a positive for the future if there is any basis to it

Free thinkers should be supported wherever they are
 
An interesting negotiation technique to persuade Allies, though good to see Trump apparently not selling out the Kurds.

'President Trump threatened Turkey on Sunday with harsh economic sanctions if it attacks Kurdish forces in Syria after American troops withdraw from the country in the coming months. “Will devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter, suggesting that there would be a 20-mile safe zone around the group after American forces leave. He added, “Likewise, do not want the Kurds to provoke Turkey.”

'Mr. Trump’s tweets marked the first public threat toward Turkey, a NATO ally, over the Kurds and seemed to offer a blanket of protection for the group, a band of American-backed militias that the Turkish government sees as terrorists.'


Trump Threatens to ‘Devastate Turkey Economically’ if It Attacks Kurds
 
By the US turning it's back on Turkey, you will give carte blanche to Erdoğan to look east. He's doing it already and has played Trump as a fool.
How about Turkey turning its back on Europe and the US...and Erdogan is a fool. Will give Erdogan carte blanche to look east???? Are you really that far behind? Your love of Turks and Turkey seems to have blinded you to what has gone on for a long time.

The Turks have wanted to Join the EU but failed due to their human rights record. A record that recently, in historical terms, was graphicaly demonstrated by the Armenian Genocide. An event that a huge number of the population actively participated in. Their treatment and general behaviour towards the Kurds, echoes of how they treated the Armenians.

The failure to gain free access to theEU and Europe has embittered Erdogan, who now is playing Russia against the US.

His seeming belief that the F-35 program could not do without Turkish participation has already cost the US and the various countries that have bought the F-35 billions already to ensure that they will not be held to ransom by Turkey. If the F-35 ban goes ahead Turkey will also lose millions. His actions to date have been hugely costly.

The choice of the Russian S-400 as a member of NATO was a blatant departure from NATO protocols on commonality. But then Turkey has a history of being an awkward NATO partner.

Erdogan purged his forces of Western leaning Officers and men, who are his military advisors now? Obviously those who would now like to buy from Russia. The oversight being their massive reliance on US weapon systems. Their Air Force relies almost entirely on the F-16’s. Smart move to be courting possible US sanction’s.
 
Last edited:
The Turkish mantra across their burgeoning defence industry sector is 'technology transfer' and 'co-industrialisation
Their terms in recent cases simply unacceptable.

But then it seems Turkish terms in a broad spectrum of cases are proving hard to digest.

The original Patriot talks. EU membership. NATO policies. Having the S-400 and F-35. Rolls Royce Engine participation, Pratt & Whitney partnership to name but just a few.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top