Turkey shoots down Russian jet

M

MrShwag

Got the Call to Lynchburg
An action that can only be interpreted as defiance in the face of the great american tradition of slaughtering and eating them, the turkeys have begun firing back. One can only wonder: "Why a Russian plane" on a predominately American holiday"- the answer has to be as simple as - "well, turkey's don't really have that big of a brain compared to say a crow, or an eagle".

In all seriousness, this could be a real mess and should probably not be taken lightly.
 
To add insult to injury the Russian helicopter sent to rescue any survivors was also shot down, this time by anti-Assad rebels (probably with American missiles).
 
Turkey is reallllyyy defensive of their eastern side. I've had friends who worked there who were quickly booted out...
 
Turkey has a lot of explaining to do. Looks like the plane went over the border, but only for about ten seconds. Looks like it was well into Syrian territory when shot down.
 
The Don said:
Hope this isn't the spark for WW3 being we're part of NATO and all.
Click to expand...

By the way that Obama didn't interfere in Ukraine, Backed down in Syria and won't combat ISIS, I wouldn't be shocked if he refused to help NATO if NATO was involved.
 
Krgrecw said:
By the way that Obama didn't interfere in Ukraine, Backed down in Syria and won't combat ISIS, I wouldn't be shocked if he refused to help NATO if NATO was involved.
Click to expand...

Syria not so simple. World War 3 shouldn't have started because of Crimea. And the Turks are two-faced. Doubt we should be helping them when they arelooking the other way with ISIS.
 
There was an idea floated after Saddam Hussein fell that Iraq should be divided into three countries, one of which would be a Kurdish homeland. I wonder how that would have worked out and if it would have made the situation better or worse. Probably better in the sense that the Sunni v. Shi'ite tension wouldn't be as palpable, but it probably would have given the Kurds a homebase from which to create tension in Syria and Turkey, whose present borders both contain areas largely populated by Kurds. Just a thought experiment, but with the Kurds doing a lot of heavy lifting both in Iraq and Syria, I sure want to keep them on the US' side of the Middle Eastern ledger.

As for this incident, I can never really figure out the Turks. I have an acquaintance working with the State Department in Ankara. He has about a year left over there. I'm sure he'll have some interesting stories (some of which he can actually tell) upon his return.
 
50PoundHead said:
There was an idea floated after Saddam Hussein fell that Iraq should be divided into three countries, one of which would be a Kurdish homeland. I wonder how that would have worked out and if it would have made the situation better or worse. Probably better in the sense that the Sunni v. Shi'ite tension wouldn't be as palpable, but it probably would have given the Kurds a homebase from which to create tension in Syria and Turkey, whose present borders both contain areas largely populated by Kurds. Just a thought experiment, but with the Kurds doing a lot of heavy lifting both in Iraq and Syria, I sure want to keep them on the US' side of the Middle Eastern ledger.

As for this incident, I can never really figure out the Turks. I have an acquaintance working with the State Department in Ankara. He has about a year left over there. I'm sure he'll have some interesting stories (some of which he can actually tell) upon his return.
Click to expand...

And I was one of those supporting this, and while there were letigimate reasons why this wasn't done (like how to share the oil revenues from the wells, which are mostly in the south of Iraq, to be the bottom line is that these 3 groups (Kurds, Shi-ites, and Sunnis) just can't get along together in the same country and I can tell you as a long time teacher, when you have 3 little shi-ites in one classroom who can't get along (or who get along too well) you really have to separate them.
 
50PoundHead said:
There was an idea floated after Saddam Hussein fell that Iraq should be divided into three countries, one of which would be a Kurdish homeland. I wonder how that would have worked out and if it would have made the situation better or worse. Probably better in the sense that the Sunni v. Shi'ite tension wouldn't be as palpable, but it probably would have given the Kurds a homebase from which to create tension in Syria and Turkey, whose present borders both contain areas largely populated by Kurds. Just a thought experiment, but with the Kurds doing a lot of heavy lifting both in Iraq and Syria, I sure want to keep them on the US' side of the Middle Eastern ledger.

As for this incident, I can never really figure out the Turks. I have an acquaintance working with the State Department in Ankara. He has about a year left over there. I'm sure he'll have some interesting stories (some of which he can actually tell) upon his return.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the three state division was mainly untenable due to the intermingled nature of the Sunni an Shia in much of Iraq. The Kurds were/are more separated. So, conceivably a Kurdish state is/was more of a possibility - but not a Sunni and a Shia one due to the massive segregation and upheaval required (though ISIS is doing a fairly good job of that with their genocidal proclivities).

And while a Kurdish state makes sense to us - Syria and more notably, Turkey, wouldn't stand for it.

I bet your friend will!
 
Krgrecw said:
Wouldn't be surprised if Putin starts arming the Kurds. That's how he can get Turkey back.
Click to expand...

spoken like someone that doesn't understand that region at all

but if that was in play, it would be way more complicated than you make it since Assad and the Kurds aren't allies and you would have to come to some agreement of giving up part of Syria to make a Kurdistan official
 
Russians announcing this AM that they have proof Turkey is buying ISIL oil from Iraq/Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top