No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by brooklyn on May 18, 2022 12:34:11 AM
Fascination with the US and Nato

On other threads, some posters have evinced their fascination with what the US has done over the years with respect to Nato. And with how nuclear and even conventional war might be avoided in the future. And even with the NY fire department.

I invite all those so fascinated to post here, so that other threads can go forward without troll-like interruptions.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
brooklyn - 18 May 2022 00:35:22 (#1 of 73)

and let me note: the NY fire department has a fascinating history. many brave fire-fighters have died for the rest of us. let me know if you would like details. I can write, for example, about 9/11.

balkanwise - 18 May 2022 07:35:09 (#2 of 73)

if anything,thats the place to discuss whether NATO are acting monolithicaly in Syria, or whether some countries are pursuing their own agenda which is independent of, and contrary to, the u.s aims.

instead of bringing this discussion to threads that are about other places (nato as an organisation is incidentaly not involved in either ,but that doesnt bother some with an agenda)

tasselhoff - 18 May 2022 07:39:23 (#3 of 73)

Turkey was obviously acting in its own interests.

machiavelli - 18 May 2022 07:41:49 (#4 of 73)

Keep feeling fascination - looking, learning, moving on.

tasselhoff - 18 May 2022 07:44:15 (#5 of 73)

And the history of the private NY fire crews is fascinating!

guigal - 18 May 2022 08:10:33 (#6 of 73)

balkanwise - ( #2 of 3) if anything, that's the place to discuss whether NATO are acting monolithically in Syria, or whether some countries are pursuing their own agenda which is independent of, and contrary to, the u.s aims.

The US aim for their illegal invasions of Syria is to keep the insurrection going until Assad is overthrown. "Fighting Assad to the last Syrian", you might say. The operation is not taking place under the NATO flag but all NATO members, including Turkey have been enlisted by the Americans, as well as dozens of other countries. Ukraine , Sweden and Finland, for example.

The only invasion under the NATO collective defence clause was in Afghanistan. That does not mean that NATO is not a useful tool of American foreign policy, as in Syria. Nor is there any dispute that Turkey has its own anti-Kurdish war aims in Syria. That is not incompatible with the American aim of regime change.

guigal - 18 May 2022 08:16:35 (#7 of 73)

#5

Brooklyn is here to keep us informed of the history of New York City. I always feel what a venerable history-ridden place the city is and don't get the sense of having entirely left Europe until I get to the West Coast.

balkanwise - 18 May 2022 09:24:59 (#8 of 73)

Turkey are fighting against the u.s allies on the ground in syria, and are doing so in direct collaboration (in fact joint patrols) with russia. How is that them being 'enlisted by the americans'?

guigal - 18 May 2022 09:47:45 (#9 of 73)

As long as Turkey's intervention destabilizes Syria, that's in line with American policy on regime change. Turkey has been enlisted into the US coalition in Syria. You may be saying that it's not as obedient and enthusiastic in following orders as a prize specimen like the UK, but that doesn't mean that the US doesn't think it's not a useful member of the coalition.

NATO, as an institution, and its members, including Turkey, are detailed as partners in the American coalition. https://www.state.gov/the-global-coalition-to-defeat-isis-partners/ Coalition partners are praised, without exception, for their contributions.

The 'joint patrols' were agreed by the USA when Trump withdrew American troops and left the Kurds near the Turkish border, exposed to Turkish forces.

AP) — Turkey and Russia launched joint patrols Friday in northeastern Syria, under a deal that halted a Turkish offensive against Syrian Kurdish fighters who were forced to withdraw from the border area following Ankara’s incursion.

After an abrupt and widely criticized decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw American troops from this part of Syria, the Kurdish forces approached the Syrian government and Russia for protection. Syrian government troops and Russian military police subsequently moved into areas along the border.

Two ceasefire agreements —brokered by the U.S. and Russia— paused Turkey’s operation to allow the Syrian Kurdish fighters withdraw 30 kilometers (about 19 miles, away from the border.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/turkey-and-russian-begin-joint-patrols-in-northeast-syria

balkanwise - 18 May 2022 11:06:51 (#10 of 73)

turkey's intervention is against the kurds.the 'joint patrols' are between russia and turkey,against the people the u.s backs.you stop with trump etc,this is what has been and is happening.

nato countries have actually placed embargoes of weapons sales to turkey exactly because of the way they are used in syria!!!!

you are so eager to portray nato as simply an instrument of u.s policy where everyone is following the line. Its not true.

while what turkey does is obviously against u.s interests,other nato members in the past have opted to leave the alliance (and then returned)

your narative is taken out of russian press releases that say the u.s pressured finland and sweden to join nato. The vote in the finish parliament was 188 in favour, 8 against(one extreme right wing, one independent and 6 out of the 18 left wing mps.),who applied that much pressure,how and why now???as for sweden ,noone can pressure sweden!!

guigal - 18 May 2022 10:48:08 (#11 of 73)

nato as simply an instrument of u.s policy where everyone is following the line. Its not true.

Of course it's not true. Whoever said it was?

The history of international politics is not one of perfectly conceived plans where every piece falls in place and events remain predictable and under control. You have the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a salient example. I'll leave you to make your own judgement on the political intentions and their execution in, for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

But, tell us, why your particular hostile interest in Turkey. There are plenty of reasons but you do seem to be speaking from some partisan position. I only ask from the point of view of clarification, not necessarily to imply that there can't be good reasons for your view.

balkanwise - 18 May 2022 11:59:47 (#12 of 73)

what i have to say about turkey i say it in the turkey thread. what i say here is in accordance to this thread(or in ukraine threads about ukraine.it just so happens that what is going on in syria breaks your argument about instruments of u.s poiicy etc.Interesting that you think its 'hostile', most of it is against imperialist policies,such as the one erdogan is pusrsuing.would you say someone against putin is hostile to russia?btw i started out supporting erdogan when he first took power,and feel betrayed by his transformation into a sultahn wannabee.Have i clarified things for you?

brooklyn - 18 May 2022 13:08:34 (#13 of 73)

why would we not expect the Nato alliance to be generally consistent with the interests of the US? that's why you enter an alliance. and how is it a legit criticism of the US that it enters/leads an alliance that acts consistently with US interests?

if there is something "off" about the alliance, it must be that it is not in the interest of other members to belong. but the other members (and those now eager to join) don't seem to find it inconsistent with their ambitions to belong. perhaps the "every continent for itself" approach, which would inspire Europe to have its own military alliance and kick the US out of it, would seem silly to those who think arbitrary lines and geographic features should not dissuade nations with similar values from joining each other to promote those values.

I'm sure we can each find one or two Nato policies or projects we dislike. still, if the alliance were an anachronism or disserved the interests of members -- as they see those interests -- it would not be growing.

guigal - 18 May 2022 12:13:35 (#14 of 73)

Have i clarified things for you?

You hint that you are of Turkish Kurd origin and are opposed, very reasonably, to Turkish nationalist policies. But you're not explicit.

We have a communication problem. It's perfectly right to be hostile to policies which are wrong. Being hostile to American, Russian or any other government policies is a civil right. Military hostilities are a different kettle of fish.

Using NATO as an instrument of American foreign policy does not mean that it is the sole, complete and infallible instrument available to the US administration. The usefulness of Turkey is - glaringly obviously - not limitless. But that is very far from making an asset of no value.

You can check out for yourself the advantages that the USA has got from its relationship with Turkey. Just start with the American bases in Turkey.

guigal - 18 May 2022 12:28:45 (#15 of 73)

( #13 of 14) why would we not expect the Nato alliance to be generally consistent with the interests of the US? that's why you enter an alliance. and how is it a legit criticism of the US that it enters/leads an alliance that acts consistently with US interests?

Naturally, the USA, like any other country, acts on behalf of what it purports to be in its own interest. What is problematic is the leading role that a superstate from another continent plays in Europe. Even more problematic is that it could possibly be in the interests of the people of Europe (or the USA for that matter) to be annihilated in a nuclear confrontation between the USA and Russia.

It has been accepted by all concerned that this is a real and present danger. Fortunately, in the immediate situation by President Biden. We hope that Putin is equally restrained but we can't rule out accident, miscalculation, a bold gamble or, apparently, insanity.

brooklyn - 18 May 2022 13:36:47 (#16 of 73)

<<What is problematic is the leading role that a superstate from another continent plays in Europe.>>

why? there is a (mostly) democratic community of nations that stretches from Riga to Honolulu. why is that somehow less worthy of recognition than a democratic community stretching from Riga to Lisbon?

<<Even more problematic is that it could possibly be in the interests of the people of Europe (or the USA for that matter) to be annihilated in a nuclear confrontation between the USA and Russia.>>

Russia has nukes. Russia is aggressive. the people of Europe helped form Nato because they felt that they would be safer from Russia if allied with a country that helps deter Russian attack and blunts efforts at nuclear blackmail.

guigal - 18 May 2022 13:34:52 (#17 of 73)

a (mostly) democratic community of nations that stretches from Riga to Honolulu.

EU citizens will be surprised to learn they can vote in American presidential elections. And the signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to hear that their fear of nuclear war was misplaced and that we should all learn to love the bomb and give praise for nuclear deterrents. Such lovely things. Every country should have one. Or maybe just self-styled good countries should be praised for their preparations to wipe out their fellow human beings who have the misfortune to live under worse governments.

brooklyn - 18 May 2022 14:46:25 (#18 of 73)

a total non-sequitur. I said nothing to suggest that "a democratic community of nations" was made up of countries whose citizens vote in each others' elections. nor did I suggest that non-proliferation is a bad idea, or that anyone should seek to wipe out citizens of non-democratic countries.

try harder.

balkanwise - 18 May 2022 16:26:21 (#19 of 73)

guigal-we certainly do have a communication problem if you think i hint at being a turkish kurd.

my problem is with regimes that espouse territorial expansion with military means (use or threat of use of force).at this point in time,my most pressing issue is with putin for this very reason.I am not hostile to turkey any more than i am hostile to russia,and thats not at all.i hope that is clear.

as to who benefited most from turkey's participation in nato ,we would have to start this discussion from the marshal plan, if you find the time i will also try.

guigal - 19 May 2022 06:33:54 (#20 of 73)

regimes that espouse territorial expansion with military means (use or threat of use of force).at this point in time,

Israel, for example?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » International