Turkey Shoots Down Russian Fighter Plane

Jaybird180 said:
What's that mean? Last that I recall that language being used, it ended up with an indictment of a soverign leader (Milosevic).
Click to expand...

Turkmen are ethnic Turks who live in Northern Syria and oppose Assad militarily. Therefore, they are "terrorists" to Assad and Putin.
 
nddons said:
Putin shot down an airliner to make a point. I doubt that he cares what it looks like on TV.
Click to expand...

It might matter to him. If he shoots down an airliner he makes a point, if someone shoots down one of his toys on TV it makes him look bad. Dunno, I doubt either side really wants it to go any further.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Turkmen are ethnic Turks who live in Northern Syria and oppose Assad militarily. Therefore, they are "terrorists" to Assad and Putin.
Click to expand...
Circular definition error. I was referring to the prefix of the use of ethnic. The contexts I've seen it used hints at a conflict based upon...ethnicity, even amongst fellow countrymen.
 
Matthew said:
It might matter to him. If he shoots down an airliner he makes a point, if someone shoots down one of his toys on TV it makes him look bad. Dunno, I doubt either side really wants it to go any further.
Click to expand...


Oh, gotcha. I agree. I thought you were going toward Putin's inevitable response.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Circular definition error. I was referring to the prefix of the use of ethnic. The contexts I've seen it used hints at a conflict based upon...ethnicity, even amongst fellow countrymen.
Click to expand...

As you no doubt know, the borders in that part of the world were artificially drawn after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Ethnicity and tribe trump national borders. This whole conflict is essentially ethnic in nature, at it's most basic Sunni vs. Shia, which yes is religious, but also encompass tribal and ethnic differences.

That's pretty much why a solution imposed by the outsiders, East or West, is pretty much doomed short of brutal long term occupation.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
As you no doubt know, the borders in that part of the world were artificially drawn after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Ethnicity and tribe trump national borders. This whole conflict is essentially ethnic in nature, at it's most basic Sunni vs. Shia, which yes is religious, but also encompass tribal and ethnic differences.

That's pretty much why a solution imposed by the outsiders, East or West, is pretty much doomed short of brutal long term occupation.
Click to expand...

Aha! You're right! I think this is a key factor when it comes to understanding relations 'over there'.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Aha! You're right! I think this is a key factor when it comes to understanding relations 'over there'.
Click to expand...

The Balkans were different in that it was nationalism that drove the conflicts, with ultra-nationalists ethnically cleansing minorities from within their borders.

Flip side of the same coin, to a certain extent.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
As you no doubt know, the borders in that part of the world were artificially drawn after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Ethnicity and tribe trump national borders. This whole conflict is essentially ethnic in nature, at it's most basic Sunni vs. Shia, which yes is religious, but also encompass tribal and ethnic differences.

That's pretty much why a solution imposed by the outsiders, East or West, is pretty much doomed short of brutal long term occupation.
Click to expand...

Very few borders were not artificially drawn and few were not drawn after wars. The results of WWI led to WWII and the results of both wars still haunt us today.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
As you no doubt know, the borders in that part of the world were artificially drawn after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Ethnicity and tribe trump national borders. This whole conflict is essentially ethnic in nature, at it's most basic Sunni vs. Shia, which yes is religious, but also encompass tribal and ethnic differences.

That's pretty much why a solution imposed by the outsiders, East or West, is pretty much doomed short of brutal long term occupation.
Click to expand...

Borders everywhere are artificially drawn for various reasons. Europe is no exception. Even the US to some extent. They may makes sense when they are drawn, but overtime things change.

Unlike USA, where we worry about race, most of the world is far more concerned about ethnicity(race is just a more obvious form of that). It really does make a huge difference to people who your father is(bloodline). More so than religion and nationality.

Populations move, grow, shrink, change influence, but borders are rigid... at least until there is a conflict that redraws it.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Very few borders were not artificially drawn and few were not drawn after wars. The results of WWI led to WWII and the results of both wars still haunt us today.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me rephrase. The borders in that region were drawn by Britain and France to define their spheres of political influence, prior to the defeat of the Ottomans, with very little regard given to established or traditional ethnic, cultural or tribal political constructs in the region.

The maps were drawn in 1916, the war over in 1918. IOW, they divided the spoils before they were won.

Pretty artificial when viewed against the backdrop of how territory is generally divided post conflict, but I understand and accept your point.
 
Last edited:
Fine, the borders were drawn circa 1918. How many people are still alive from 1918?

cripes, get over it people...
 
Bob Noel said:
Fine, the borders were drawn circa 1918. How many people are still alive from 1918?

cripes, get over it people...
Click to expand...

Sadly, hate and grudges are passed down through generations. Look at us here in the states. We still have issues with the Civil War.
 
Those who do not learn the lessons of....aw forget it. Some will just never learn.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Those who do not learn the lessons of....aw forget it. Some will just never learn.
Click to expand...

That whole history lessons bit is meaningless.

1. Most people do not learn anything, and 2. Those who learn, tend to think they can achieve different results by "knowing" stuff.. guess where that leads.

So,
1. Nobody(or rather nobody that matters) ever learns anything useful from history.
2. History ALWAYS repeats itself.
 
Also.. People are people. They are not very different there vs here. We as species have not changed in last 60 years since WWII or 100 years since WWI or 10,000 since ancient Egypt.

Different people live in different circumstances and that tends to determine how they behave. But faced with similar circumstances, vast majority of people would behave very much the same and very predictably. Ugly circumstances = ugly behaviors
 
genna said:
Also.. People are people. They are not very different there vs here. We as species have not changed in last 60 years since WWII or 100 years since WWI or 10,000 since ancient Egypt.

Different people live in different circumstances and that tends to determine how they behave. But faced with similar circumstances, vast majority of people would behave very much the same and very predictably. Ugly circumstances = ugly behaviors
Click to expand...
This.

Every generation fancies itself smarter and wiser than the fools in the history books. But human nature is universal and will prevail.
 
The Russians shot down an unarmed South Korean 747 for straying across their line in 1983 how can they say anything against shooting down an armed warplane doing the same thing (repeatedly)? Especially nowadays with GPS, what's your excuse?
 
Silvaire said:
The Russians shot down an unarmed South Korean 747 for straying across their line in 1983 how can they say anything against shooting down an armed warplane doing the same thing (repeatedly)? Especially nowadays with GPS, what's your excuse?
Click to expand...

Except that's not what happened. What happened is that Turkey is fighting proxy war, just like the US and Russia are doing, and conflicts of interest get hashed out within these acts of escalation. Turkey is backing ethnic Turks fighting the Kurds, and buying smuggled oil from ISIS (they deny it, surprise surprise), while simultaneously allowing us to stage our airpower from Incirlik.

So they take that layup turkey-shoot at an unescorted Su-24, then the go running to daddy NATO when Russia bows up. And make no mistake, the Russian Federation would spank the turkish air force. They're already rolling S-400 batteries. And those are Russian-manned by the way, not some middle eastern TCN conscript. Check mate.

And let's not talk about what Turkey was doing around the days of operation northern watch, refueling from our own tankers to go bomb the very Kurds we were protecting from the Iraqi regime at the time. Turkey is the proverbial dual-handed poo stirrer. They're more hassle than they're worth when it comes to NATO membership. They might be the enemy of our enemy, but the Turkish are not our friends. Afghans, Iraqis, Turkish....never walk in front of these people at the armory line.
 
NATO is a curious thing now. I wonder what value the US gets from being in it.

It's clear what other countries get.

Turkey gets value that's on display right now -- it gets protection from its neighbor Russia, allowing it to indulge in adventures like the shootdown. The Baltic countries with their Russian speaking minorities get the same protection from Russia, which would otherwise be inclined to invade to "protect" those Russian speakers. Many of the richer countries get value by spending less than 1% of GDP on defense, relying on the US mainly for their protection.

Should the US should reconsider its membership?
 
Fighting proxy wars and playing the "enemy of my enemy" game has caused the US way too many problems and has cost us far too much in both blood and treasure with very little if anything to show for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top