Live Conflict Israel-Palestine War|Regional Escalations

[Huelague]

Why would Turkey (who is part of NATO) want to ally with Syria and Iran? Why would they want to leave the winning side to join the losers?

What exactly do we win?

 

[contricusc]

The GCC is there only for the Golfstates, its a exlusive organisation. We need a more broader concept like the European Union, inlcluding Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia et.

You are going with countries that are geographically very far away, so they are not very likely to have meaningful economic relations with you. Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia are simply too far.

Some more realistic prospects for such a bloc would be Azerbaidjan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan and Tajikistan, as they are closer together geographically and they don’t have regional conflicting interests with Turkey.

Maybe i was a little to enthousiastic with the country names, but it needs a start. Before the EU was created, half of Europe was in ruins and war with eachother.

Turkey is on good terms with Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar etc. You start with 2 of 3 countries first, like the EU started as the European Coal and Steel Community with 6 founding members.

The problem is the geographic dispersion of those countries. Except for Algeria and Morocco, none of those contries have direct borders between themselves. While the North African counries and Turkey could be connected through the Mediterranean, Pakistan and Qatar are too isolated.

It would outfit and outsource the Western blocs if it can be established. The bloc can impose sanctions together like cutting of gas and oil to the EU when they arm Israel for example.

If the purpose of such a bloc would be to sanction the West, then no serious country would join, as being part of the bloc would be a handicap, not a benefit. Why would you want to antagonize the EU, especially in Turkey’s case, which has a direct broder with the EU?

Why woukd Turkey (or Morocco, Algeria, Egypt) choose to antagonize the EU (which is the beiggest power at the Mediterranean) for a trivial reason like arming Israel? Those countries would be much better off if they simply sought to improve relations with Israel and try to help in negotiating a lasting peace in the region.

Israel started a long time ago by killing Iranian nuclear scientists before Iran attacked them. Israel also bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 before Iraq did anything. Countries dont need to attack first, if they are a potential danger, Israel and the US attack them anyway.

My question is, why would you want to be a potential danger for Israel? When you have leaders like Saddam Hussein or the Iranian Ayatollahs, it is normal for countries that are verbally threatened to feel unsafe when such psychos build nuclear weapons.

It is very easy to be safe from Israel. You just don’t have to constantly threaten them and arm their enemies. Many muslim countries do it just fine, like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc.

That Israeli general said: "Iran can be contained, the real challenge is Turkey".

When did Turkey ever attack Israel to deserve this?

It is because Erdogan constantly has aggressive rethoric towards Israel. The same happens with Greece. Words have consequences, and when Erdogan is talking aggressively towards Israel and Greece in order to gain domestic political support, those countries feel threatened and consider Turkey to be a potential enemy.

It would be much easier for Turkey to have good relations with Greece and Israel if your leader would refrain from making aggressive comments towards those countries.

 

[contricusc]

What exactly do we win?

You win safety, because being part of NATO means potential enemies would think twice before attacking you. There are several aggressive countries in Turkey’s region (Russia, Iran, Israel), but none of them would dare to attack Turkey as long as it is part of NATO.

If you would be out, and allied with pariah countries like Iran, there would be nothing stopping your potential enemies from attacking. Israel could easily strike targets inside Turkey like it does within Iran, if they would feel threatened.

Also, by being part of NATO you get easier access to advanced military technology, which would be much harder to get as a country outside the alliance, perceived by NATO as a potential threat.

Not only that NATO membership protects you from potential external threats, but it protects you from NATO itself.

 

[Rooxbar]

We ain't aligning with Iran and Syria, thank you very much.

 

[TR_123456]

Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, North-Cyprus, these countries must unite like a copy of the EU/NATO to forever get rid of internal terror organisations and form a iron block against Israel/US/UK.

Iraq,Syria,Iran really?
Most of your posts dont make any sense,you need to think before posting.
Iraq and Syria are Iran's lackeys working against us in Iraq and Syria but you want to unite with these countries against the ''West''?
Tövbe tövbe.

 

[YeşilVatan]

You win safety, because being part of NATO means potential enemies would think twice before attacking you. There are several aggressive countries in Turkey’s region (Russia, Iran, Israel), but none of them would dare to attack Turkey as long as it is part of NATO.

It is quite clear NATO won't lift a finger to defend Turkey (except Spain). We saw what happened after 2015 russian plane shooting. And US just trashed the region by going into Iraq, massively destabilizing and caused immense problems for us. They never even asked our opinion on the matter, or any other matter. We have to play hardball to get the minimum ally behaviour out of westerners.

Also, by being part of NATO you get easier access to advanced military technology, which would be much harder to get as a country outside the alliance, perceived by NATO as a potential threat.

Only partially true. Italy, Spain and maybe the Brits are willing to sell subcomponents but nearly all the other nations with notable defence industry have embargoes on us, mostly unofficial in nature. They overprice items, delay deliveries, offer out of date tech, cause diplomatic problems under the guise of human rights (which we all know they really don't even care about). That's if they don't outright put sanctions and weapons embargoes on us.

Not only that NATO membership protects you from potential external threats, but it protects you from NATO itself.

That's also partially true. They actively arm, fund and shelter enemies of the Turkish Republic. They are currently building an army of kurdish seperatists just south of our border. Not to mention gulenist cult shenanigans.

On another note, we might avoid direct confrontation being in NATO, but the blade is double edged. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to go directly against NATO because we would would suffer a lot economically as Turkish citizens, but that doesn't change the fact that if Turkey switched sides and became Iran 2.0, entire NATO security architecture would have to be restructured, and it wouldn't look pretty.

Needlessly mention I'm not with "from the river to the sea" gang, and I find NATO membership valuable still, but I don't attach any sentimentality to it. If the calculus changed and we could leave that den of iniquity, intrigue and dishonor, I would support it with my whole heart.

 

[StefaN]

At the moment, personal interests are being looked at, as long as anyone has an interest of any kind, he will try in every way to reach them.. And the worst is when weapons are drawn, Israel's nice pranking towards its neighbors, a very restless young child among adults, a question is just how long will big brother urge him to tease....

 

[TR_123456]

restless young child among adults

And the adults are?

 

[StefaN]

And the adults are?

when I said adults I meant the Muslims who have lived there for centuries...

 

[TR_123456]

when I said adults I meant the Muslims who have lived there for centuries...

first,its not only Muslims,there are Christians and even Jews living there for centuries in peace but elaborate,specify them.
Who,the Palestiians,the surrounding Arab countries or...?

 

[Rooxbar]

Israel by threatening to decimate Hizbollah, thus removing Iran's main deterrence outside of their border, is trying to force Iran's hand to resort to its only other deterrence option, nuclear bombs. The calculation probably is similar to Saddam's WMDs and the way they were used to shape public opinion before U.S. could attack. Islamic Republic's founder Khomeini's son said today: "Our military deterrence must go one level higher." Such overt telegraphing will only play into Netanyahu's hand.

 

[TR_123456]

Israel by threatening to decimate Hizbollah, thus removing Iran's main deterrence outside of their border, is trying to force Iran's hand to resort to its only other deterrence option, nuclear bombs. The calculation probably is similar to Saddam's WMDs and the way they were used to shape public opinion before U.S. could attack. Islamic Republic's founder Khomeini's son said today: "Our military deterrence must go one level higher." Such overt telegraphing will only play into Netanyahu's hand.

And you believe they will ever fight each other directly?

 

[YeşilVatan]

And you believe they will ever fight each other directly?

Iran in its current form is at the tail end of its usefulness. I think they will go for a regime change.

 

[TR_123456]

Iran in its current form is at the tail end of its usefulness. I think they will go for a regime change.

Not gonna happen without outside interference,they(the mullahs) have strict controll over Iran.

 

[Afif]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1841988011245916443

@Anmdt @Sanchez @Kartal1

 

[Rooxbar]

And you believe they will ever fight each other directly?

Israel cannot fight Iran directly, and Iran doesn't want to do it because they're afraid of U.S.

 

[Sanchez]

Not gonna happen without outside interference,they(the mullahs) have strict controll over Iran.

I'm not 100% sure on this. They've used too much capital over the last 2 decade outside their borders and an important part of the country is fed up. While we don't know much about internal power dynamics and a possible civil war threat is low, a popular protest is possible.

 

[Anmdt]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1841988011245916443

@Anmdt @Sanchez @Kartal1

Ah new iranian cover up for firing 400 missiles, and 200 reaching the target.

Casualty? Financial or infastructure damage, none. This tells everything to me.

Quoting a fair comment and making it biased seems so Iran-ish to. (Not meaning you bro the tweet which quotes a fairly made analysis on the missile attack).

I am sane enough to know for a MRBM and a maneuvering MaRV, the cost of the warhead should be only a fraction. 'Stunner missile' is not something i would believe in, but 'Decoy' launching MaRVs are. As naturally Iran would do a lo-hi mix to overwhelm AD to let some slip through ( which did, and noone discusses it) .

Iran should have randezvous the attack with a satellite fly-by to at least confirm and prove their claims. Or at least one naturally expects them to launch a spy satellite by this time following their glorified space program, won't they?.

It is Israel (despite me not appreciating or approving their acts at all) versus Iran. One who has always been telling the truth on yielded attack on the target or on whom has been succesfully engaged versus one another who claims to shoot starship enterprise galaxies away. One side is too high on Opium to see through.

Ah wait that post was ironical, Month Python level epique joke, indeed.

 

[Afif]

Ah new iranian cover up for firing 400 missiles, and 200 reaching the target.

Casualty? Financial or infastructure damage, none. This tells everything to me.

Quoting a fair comment and making it biased seems so Iran-ish to. (Not meaning you bro the tweet which quotes a fairly made analysis on the missile attack).

I am sane enough to know for a MRBM and a maneuvering MaRV, the cost of the warhead should be only a fraction. 'Stunner missile' is not something i would believe in, but 'Decoy' launching MaRVs are. As naturally Iran would do a lo-hi mix to overwhelm AD to let some slip through ( which did, and noone discusses it) .

Iran should have randezvous the attack with a satellite fly-by to at least confirm and prove their claims. Or at least one naturally expects them to launch a spy satellite by this time following their glorified space program, won't they?.

It is Israel (despite me not appreciating or approving their acts at all) versus Iran. One who has always been telling the truth on yielded attack on the target or on whom has been succesfully engaged versus one another who claims to shoot starship enterprise galaxies away. One side is too high on Opium to see through.

Bro, I totally agree with you. Iranians are certainly exaggerating the outcome of this attack. And it clearly failed to do the damage they intended. Also yes, Israelis are more credible in these regards.

Though, I wasn't focusing on his conclusions. I only wanted to share this stunning video of 'stunner' missiles' failure like this as terminal interceptors. Thought they would do better. You know how it is advertised with all those fancy tech in it. (Dual mode AESA+ IIR seeker, super maneuverability) now it looks worse than PAC-3.

It seems Israel's most effective and credible defense against Iranian MRBMs are arrow 2/3.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1841589587522576467

@dBSPL @Sanchez

 

[Anmdt]

Bro, I totally agree with you. Iranians are certainly exaggerating the outcome of this attack. And it clearly failed to do the damage they intended. Also yes, Israelis are more credible in these regards.

Though, I wasn't focusing on his conclusions. I only wanted to share this stunning video of 'stunner' missiles' failure like this as terminal interceptors. Thought they would do better. You know how it is advertised with all those fancy tech in it. (Dual mode AESA+ IIR seeker, super maneuverability) now it looks worse than PAC-3.

It seems Israel's most effective and credible defense against Iranian MRBMs are arrow 2/3.

I believe the first tweet was ironical, mate.