Turkey Shoots Down Jet Near Syria Border

[otolith]

Countdown said:

We need to get out and stay out.

Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.

[Ayahuasca]

allnighter said:

Pesty said:

Russia seem to be hitting turkeys allies pretty hard. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to poke the bear.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2C5aAxpRGM

Wonder how many civilians died in that intense bombing? Wish they dropped one on the camera holder just to shut him up!

Cluster bombs? Thought those had been banned?

[otolith]

Ayahuasca said:

Cluster bombs? Thought those had been banned?

Nope. There is a convention banning them, but not everyone has signed up to it.

[rich85uk]

Pesty said:

Russia seem to be hitting turkeys allies pretty hard. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to poke the bear.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2C5aAxpRGM

And some more
http://youtu.be/XJbi1UnW4qg
http://youtu.be/GI1Y23g4Mk4

Few more on liveleak too, if the descriptions are true then they are hitting the Turkmen rebels and supply convoys from Turkey.

Looks like Russia has deployed some S-400 surface to air missile system incase anyone comes too close to one of its jets

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e2_1448635051

[Pesty]

allnighter said:

onder how many civilians died in that intense bombing? Wish they dropped one on the camera holder just to shut him up!

Doesn't matter they didn't use barrel bombs so we're good.

[anonymous-user]

Turkey shoot down jet. Syrian special forces help to rescue the surviving pilot. A monumentally spectacular own goal by Turkey..

[Countdown]

otolith said:

Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.

Ok - who do we need to bomb to stop the refugees? There are 3 bunches of nutters here and the success or defeat of any of the 3 will lead to mass reprisals and continuing refugees.

We did a bit of bombing in Afghanistan, we are still getting refugees...
We did a bit of bombing in Iraq, we are still getting refugees....
We did a bit of bombing in Libya, we are still getting refugees....

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Hilts said:

What was the benefit to the existing NATO members allowing Turkey to join NATO versus the potential drawbacks?

Turkey joined NATO in 1952 a mere 3 years after NATO came into existence. At that time it was a secular state who saw benefits to her security via NATO membership but, more importantly, could guard NATOs vulnerable southern flank and deny the Soviet Black Sea Fleet entry into the Mediterranean in times of tension.

[Guvernator]

otolith said:

Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.

It is either ALL our business in which case we should be intervening in every part of the world where there are humanitarian issues or we should stay out of all of them.

We can't declare ourselves world police and then only pick and choose to "help out" in areas which might have a financial benefit to us.

Also I don't even think there is a clear cut "good" side in the entire ME so who exactly should we be helping? I can't see any shining saints in the hole sordid area not to mention our going in to help seems to have caused more problems then it's solved.

I agree we should have stayed out, if they had put it to vote, I would certainly have voted against piling in where we aren't wanted. There are a lot of countries in Europe who don't suffer from any kind of terrorist problems, wonder why that is?

[Digga]

Countdown said:

otolith said:

Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.

Ok - who do we need to bomb to stop the refugees? There are 3 bunches of nutters here and the success or defeat of any of the 3 will lead to mass reprisals and continuing refugees.

We did a bit of bombing in Afghanistan, we are still getting refugees...
We did a bit of bombing in Iraq, we are still getting refugees....
We did a bit of bombing in Libya, we are still getting refugees....

Having done any bombing, the military minds generally seem to agree you then need boots on the ground to create peace and security.

The grand, publicised withdrawal of Allied troops Iraq and Afghanistan - a favourite election pledge of Obama (understandable, due to the casualties being incurred) - saw a decay in much of the progress made in these territories. Doing it right and well is a very long term and costly exercise that, it would seem, Western governments perhaps have neither the pockets nor the stomach for.

[Hilts]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Hilts said:

What was the benefit to the existing NATO members allowing Turkey to join NATO versus the potential drawbacks?

Turkey joined NATO in 1952 a mere 3 years after NATO came into existence. At that time it was a secular state who saw benefits to her security via NATO membership but, more importantly, could guard NATOs vulnerable southern flank and deny the Soviet Black Sea Fleet entry into the Mediterranean in times of tension.

Let's say they weren't in already and just for my curiosity do you or anyone else think if they applied for membership tomorrow would they get it?

Forget about the shootdown of the Fencer.

[otolith]

Countdown said:

otolith said:

Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.

Ok - who do we need to bomb to stop the refugees? There are 3 bunches of nutters here and the success or defeat of any of the 3 will lead to mass reprisals and continuing refugees.

We did a bit of bombing in Afghanistan, we are still getting refugees...
We did a bit of bombing in Iraq, we are still getting refugees....
We did a bit of bombing in Libya, we are still getting refugees....

There is not a simple dichotomy between "getting out and staying out" and bombing.

[otolith]

Guvernator said:

otolith said:

Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.

It is either ALL our business in which case we should be intervening in every part of the world where there are humanitarian issues or we should stay out of all of them.

We can't declare ourselves world police and then only pick and choose to "help out" in areas which might have a financial benefit to us.

Also I don't even think there is a clear cut "good" side in the entire ME so who exactly should we be helping? I can't see any shining saints in the hole sordid area not to mention our going in to help seems to have caused more problems then it's solved.

I agree we should have stayed out, if they had put it to vote, I would certainly have voted against piling in where we aren't wanted. There are a lot of countries in Europe who don't suffer from any kind of terrorist problems, wonder why that is?

Close the borders to refugees too? Good job we're self-sufficient in energy.

Nations don't have friends, they have interests.

[uk_vette]

Pesty said:

Russia seem to be hitting turkeys allies pretty hard. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to poke the bear.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2C5aAxpRGM

Looks good to me,

Bit of OTT shouting, but pretty restrained by the Ruskies I would say.

[uk_vette]

Guvernator said:

Hilts said:

What was the benefit to the existing NATO members allowing Turkey to join NATO versus the potential drawbacks?

I suspect the fact that they are right on the doorstep of Russia and most of the Middle East "problem" areas makes then a useful ally in terms of being able to base assets there, launch missions and even act as a screen between the dodier parts of the ME and the rest of Europe, at least that was certainly the case before Erdogan got into power, however he seems to have reversed a lot of those advantages now as no one seems to know where his allegiance lies.

They can be useful for collateral damage.

[ant leigh]

Hilts said:

Let's say they weren't in already and just for my curiosity do you or anyone else think if they applied for membership tomorrow would they get it?

Forget about the shootdown of the Fencer.

Interesting question?
Maybe not but there are considerable advantages to Turkey in Nato.

Control of the Bosphorus is actually very significant in bottling up Russia's fleet in the Black Sea. When you consider one of Russia's incentives for the Crimea annexation was control of the Black Sea that would be completely nullified by conflict with Turkey.

Turkey's armed forces are also significantly larger than most posters seem to understand and are also professional and equipped with modern NATO standard equipment. Certainly Russia would expect to come out on top but at massive damage to its own armed forces even if NATO didn't get involved.
Turkey is not a Georgia or a Ukraine and Putin understands that. As it appears does Erdogan.

Please note Turkey is largely a very modern and European country, especially Istanbul, but Erdogan is taking Turkey dangerously in the wrong direction IMO

[bitchstewie]

ant leigh said:

Please note Turkey is largely a very modern and European country, especially Istanbul, but Erdogan is taking Turkey dangerously in the wrong direction IMO

Didn't they vote for him? Genuine question, no idea what the choices are in Turkey.

[ant leigh]

bhstewie said:

ant leigh said:

Please note Turkey is largely a very modern and European country, especially Istanbul, but Erdogan is taking Turkey dangerously in the wrong direction IMO

Didn't they vote for him? Genuine question, no idea what the choices are in Turkey.

Yes they did, it was expected that there would be another coalition but during the election the 'ISIS' bomb on the peace parade occurred and suddenly there was a massive swing to Erdogan based on security concerns.
You can imagine how suspicious some people are about that.

Erdogan also appeals to the Middle and East of the country which is more rural. He is less popular in Istanbul which is very secular and his popularity is much lower amongst the educated middle classes. He is therefore polarising Turkey and that may be bad news in the long run for Turkey.

[Pesty]

bhstewie said:

ant leigh said:

Please note Turkey is largely a very modern and European country, especially Istanbul, but Erdogan is taking Turkey dangerously in the wrong direction IMO

Didn't they vote for him? Genuine question, no idea what the choices are in Turkey.

From half remembered discussions on here I seem to remember that only in Istanbul that s the case everywhere else is more 'conservative' and erdogan has huge support in the country was the general consensus.

Edited by Pesty on Friday 27th November 16:55

[Cobnapint]

Pesty said:

Russia seem to be hitting turkeys allies pretty hard. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to poke the bear.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2C5aAxpRGM

And the more they shouted Alan's snack bar, the more the bombing continued.

Haven't they worked it out yet.