World Politics

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

A series of videos apparently leaked by the Russian Defense Ministry reveal the presence of Iranian F-14 and MiG -29 fighters in Syrian skies for the first time. They were shown by “The Aviationist,” Italian magazine, escorting heavy Russian bombers, including the Tupolev TU-160, the heaviest, fastest and most destructive bomber ever built, on missions no more than 150 km from Israel’s northern border.

The ageing F-14s, built in the 1970s by American aviation giant Grumman, were originally sold to Iran when the Shah was in power and taken over by the reorganized Iranian air force after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Upgraded many times, the F-14s now feature state-of-the-art avionics, weapons and navigation systems, procured byTehran despite the strict UN embargo on their sale to the Islamic Republic.

Dozens of these upgraded warplanes, upgraded with intelligence-collection and tracking systems, have begun operating in Syrian air space near the Israeli border, under the pretense of escorting the Russian bombers. Iranian eyes in the sky are therefore studying the frontier area and gather valuable intelligence on Israel’s air defenses. Normally, if Iranian warplanes had turned up in Syrian air space, the Israeli Air Force would have fought them off and shot them down, but by flying alongside Russian bombers they are protecting themselves against Israeli action.

http://www.debka.com/article/25034/First-Iranian-fighter-jets-over-Syria-alongside-Russian-bombers

This should turn 'interesting before too long. Ok, so the Russians have their super anti-aircraft missiles in Syria, just waiting for a Turkish plane to stray over the border, which the Turks will of course take great care not to do, as they contemplate just how badly they have **** themselves as a result of shooting down the Russian plane. Oops, got diverted...

...so on top of these sh!t hot missiles, we could now, theoretically at least, see Russian, Syrian, Iranian, American, British, French, Jordanian and UAE planes in action over Syria at the same time. What, in the name of all **** that are holy, could possibly not go wrong?

Hardly dozens of F-14s. They have as little as one squadron operational now(maybe 12-14 aircraft)TOTAL and the problem isn't the avionics but the airframe. It's getting old. It is really old technology compared to other 4th and 5th gen. aircraft now flying. Both U, European and Russian. WE had problems keeping them flying with all the assets of the USN..

 

[blutto]

....latest news from ace # 1 ally in war against ISIS...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turkey Refuses to Close Border With Syria to Stop Oil Smuggling


Source: Sputnik News

Turkey has refused US demands to close the part of the border with Syria which is controlled by Daesh (Islamic State) militants, local media reported. Ankara said that it is impossible to close the border and Daesh terrorists may boost their forces in response, according to The Hurriyet Daily News.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also underscored that if the border is closed Ankara will not be able to accept refugees from Syria. ( blutto comment....so this dipsh!t is saying they are so stupid they can't tell the difference btwn a person and a tanker truck....like duhhhh...) However, closing the border along the area controlled by Daesh would create obstacles for smuggling the oil Turkey buys from the terrorists. Recently, Russia accused Ankara of buying illegal oil from militants in Syria and transporting it to three ports across the Turkish-Syrian border.

The Russian Defense Ministry provided evidence of Turkey buying and transporting illegal oil, including images of oil-carrying tank trucks near the border. The ministry claimed Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his family are involved in selling illegal oil.

Earlier, Washington proposed to close 98 kilometers of the Turkish-Syrian border and deploy additional forces to the area. According to estimates, the measure would require nearly 30,000 troops and building watchtowers each three meters along the borderline.

(snip)



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151204/1031234308/turkey-bordel-oil.html



"We can't stop it," Turkey is saying, "that would cost us money!"

True, it would cost them some money, but I wonder if anyone has mentioned Ankara just received three billion plus from the E.U. to assist it in gaining control over the continuing refugee crisis? Exercising serious control over its Southern border would be certain to enhance Turkey's control over the flow of refugees. Right?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....too funny for words...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"European rights court slams Russia for phone tapping

Source: AFP

Strasbourg (France) (AFP) - The European Court of Human Rights condemned Russia's large-scale mobile phone-tapping system Friday, ruling that it risked "destroying democracy".

Judges at the Strasbourg court said that without "adequate and effective guarantees against abuse... the system of secret surveillance set up to protect national security might undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it."

The case was brought by Roman Zakharov, the editor-in-chief of a publishing house in Russia's second city Saint Petersburg, who claimed that the security services could tap mobile phone conversations without a warrant. He tried to contest this in the Russian courts in 2003 but his case was thrown out. Zakharov had complained that mobile phone operators were required by law to install equipment that "permitted blanket interception of communications".

The European court found that although Zakharov was not able to prove that he had been placed under surveillance himself, he had a justifiable complaint because the measures "affected all" mobile phone users.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/european-rights-court-slams-russia-phone-tapping-165128889.html

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....and here is something that most definitely not too funny for words...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama’s authorization of air strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq serves as an opportunity to remind ourselves which countries are bankrolling the deadly terror group.

The answer; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Qatar – three of the United States’ biggest allies in the region.

Last night Obama announced limited air strikes to slow the advance of ISIS fighters and help members of the Yazidi religious minority group who were forced to flee into a mountainous region in the north of Iraq to avoid slaughter.

However, the administration has failed to put pressure on several Gulf states that are directly responsible for helping ISIS gain a foothold in Iraq in the first place.

As the Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin documents, “The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.”

In addition to funding itself through criminal activity and punitive taxes imposed on the local population on pain of death, ISIS relies on a steady stream of income from countries that have bankrolled extremist Islamists for years yet have faced zero backlash from successive White House administrations. Even evidence of direct Saudi involvement in 9/11 failed to generate any reconsideration of who America calls its friends.

“Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

terrorists apologists

This is insulting and pretty dumb.

Umm did you see the reactions of some people on here to the terrorist attacks?

At least one poster openly celebrated the hebdo attacks. Another argued that the terrorists are merely poor people who have no representation trying to get their voice heard. Another thought the terrorist should have chosen a stauncher American ally.

It's not like theres no precedence for that on the far wackjob wing of the American left, which is heavily overrepresented on the internet and on this forum. Their leader Michael Moore said al Qaeda are like the minute men of the American revolution. Ward Churchill said that wtc workers are legitimate targets 'little eichmans" one could go on. I've seen posts over the years on here backing these views.

I don't see what your issue is. Justifying terrorism is not terrorist apologism? What words should I use then?

Posting this great speech from Hillary Benn for the benefit of the terrorists apologists. Particularly the last 2 minutes.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/dec/03/hilary-benn-airstrikes-vote-speech-full-must-confront-isis-evil-video

IS are not fighting any kind of noble cause. They kill people for the being gay. They kill people to quench a thirst for blood. They kill children for being born into the wrong families.

As Benn says, they are Fascists, Racists, no different to Hitler and they hate all the values of democracy and liberty.

It was a good speech, and there were many good speeches from all sides of the argument yesterday. As an aside, Angus Robertson (SNP) would make a great game show host.

Now I am surprised that a clearly highly educated poster such as yourself sees the bomb/don't bomb as such a binary question. You must know that many of those who oppose "just" bombing ISIL aren't doing so because they somehow sympathise with terrorists, and are merely trolling. Fair enough. If David Cameron can do it, so can we.

A good group of countries are already dropping bombs all over Syria, but the expectation is that the UKs bombs are somehow friendlier and more accurate.

The point is, a war/battle isn't won by merely dropping bombs. This is just being seen to be doing something.

A real concern, and my real concern is: who are we fighting, who fights alongside us, and who do we want to fill that vacuum, and how popular will our choice of leadership be. As yet, I don't believe there is a plan for this. We can't even agree with our allies against ISIS. So, say we defeat ISIS we then fall out about who assumes the leading role in Syria. If we don't know ourselves and we don't know our enemy (we say it is ISIL yet we allow our NATO ally to trade oil?), then we win nothing.

I didn't say anything about bomb or not bomb.
I share the fears that military action on it's own could create more problems than solutions.

I was merely talking about benn's description of isis because some continue to think (in some cases wishfully) that they are some sort of revolutionary army fighting for the rights of the underprivileged. Benn in his last 2 minutes hits it right on the money. They are fascists. They kill people for the crime of being gay. Anyone who sees anything admirable in this group needs to seriously look in the mirror.

Anyone that openly celebrated the Hebdo attacks, can't be someone on the "far wackjob wing of the American left." Apart from this, you seem to have the idea that the "wackjobs" are pro-terror. It's one thing to call into question the many things the West has done to foster such fanaticism, which is part of our democratic freedom of speach. It is entirely another, however, to support terrorism. Worse still is to bilthely overlook history and, most egocentrically, dismiss it in the name of a presumed moral superiority. One can, in other words, be critical and at once firm.

ISIL is a most violent reaction agianst modernity, antidemocratic and antifeminine that comes from an archaic and patriarchal society that sees liberty with inextinguishable hatred, espescially that of women, and proposes the apocalipse rather than capitulate. How, then, can anyone in their right mind be supporting?

 

[Amsterhammer]

Hitch, I know you claim this wonderful memory, but I don't recall anyone here ever being 'pro terrorist', unless such sentiment was buried deep in some nonsense of Echoes that I didn't read. I find your accusations pretty offensive, and totally untrue. Calling Michael Moore some kind of "leader" of something you believe to be an American "whackjob left", shows just how laughingly off base you are, and how your right wing panties are showing. Your problem has always been that you are convinced you are the only one who's ever correct.

So come on wise guy, let's see support for terrorists.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Hitch, I know you claim this wonderful memory, but I don't recall anyone here ever being 'pro terrorist', unless such sentiment was buried deep in some nonsense of Echoes that I didn't read. I find your accusations pretty offensive, and totally untrue. Calling Michael Moore some kind of "leader" of something you believe to be an American "whackjob left", shows just how laughingly off base you are, and how your right wing panties are showing.

So come on wise guy, let's see support for terrorists.

Well that reaction of labeling anyone who doesn't slavishly tow the party line on every little issue, right wing, in the hope that it goes down as an insult, is what i would call one of the classic traits of the western wackoleft.

Seen earlier this week in fact in the threats and abuse aimed at Hillary Benn and other Labour mp's.

That's one of the differences between the real left and the whackoleft. One realizes the importance of debate and difference of opinion and progressively believes that these qualities in society will allow society to improve. Both Mr Benn and Mr Corbyn embodied this, this week. And embodied for years by the great Mr Nawaz who did a fantastic job on BBC question time again this week.
The other are basically people who never outgrew the infant impulse to get angry at the concept of a contrary opinion and want to bully society into following their views by throwing around their old insults of "right wing" and "paid by the CIA" at anyone who possesses the quality of free thought.

Something Moore fits neatly into seeing as how he's a liar and a fraud and doesn't consider any cheap tactic beneath him. Though considering he's extremely good friends with many of his right wing equivalents, I wouldn't rule out this merely being a racket to try and cash in on the far leftist nutjobs (while Hannity and co get the right wing share of the market) not unlike how Brailsford cashes in on similarly mentally disturbed lycra warriors.

Not really sure what you are so upset about though? Is it that I said he was a leader, or the fact that he was a member of this group?

If its the former, I guess you may have a point, I was being a bit liberal with the word "leader" (its not like these people believe in democracy anyway ) but he was very much their voice and their face, together with some even more extreme nutters like Galloway and Clark.

If its the latter, well I already included the quote that proves he is just that. Minute men. Moore praised Al Quaeda as the minute men and heroes of the "revolution". That is quite clearly an extrmely wackjob left position

Anyway, yes echoes is the one who I was referring to re supporting terrorists. Posting smileys on velorooms after the attack in Austalia last year. Saying Charlie Hebdo got what they were asking for. Never mind the dozens of other red flags and obsession with jews.

Your problem has always been that you are convinced you are the only one who's ever correct.

And your problem Tovarish has always been that you consider yourself god's own psychologist and are always telling everyone else what they are thinking. I believe its even led to some bans no?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Hitch, I know you claim this wonderful memory, but I don't recall anyone here ever being 'pro terrorist', unless such sentiment was buried deep in some nonsense of Echoes that I didn't read. I find your accusations pretty offensive, and totally untrue. Calling Michael Moore some kind of "leader" of something you believe to be an American "whackjob left", shows just how laughingly off base you are, and how your right wing panties are showing. Your problem has always been that you are convinced you are the only one who's ever correct.

So come on wise guy, let's see support for terrorists.

I agree with that. Michael Moore is not a leader. More like a fat a$$ with an opinion. Who I hope one day will shut is pie hole (aka) well you know what I mean.

I don't remember and don't have the time but there was someone here who happened to be almost if not outright celebrating the C-Hebdo stuff and pretty much (at least the way I read it) supporting the terrorist view.
Is it ok in the world to call these murderers Radical Islamic Terrorist? I mean here in the USA that is off limits.

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

Hitch, I know you claim this wonderful memory, but I don't recall anyone here ever being 'pro terrorist', unless such sentiment was buried deep in some nonsense of Echoes that I didn't read. I find your accusations pretty offensive, and totally untrue. Calling Michael Moore some kind of "leader" of something you believe to be an American "whackjob left", shows just how laughingly off base you are, and how your right wing panties are showing. Your problem has always been that you are convinced you are the only one who's ever correct.

So come on wise guy, let's see support for terrorists.

It wasn't buried very deep.

 

[rhubroma]

You cantradict yourself Hitch when placing Echoes in the same lot with, what was it, the "far wackjob wing of the American left." And your concept of free thought doesn't seem to apply to those whose views don't coincide with your rather curious idea of reality, given that anyone who tries to be somewhat objective when looking at Western-Islam relations is "pro-terror" or must be from the now famous "far wackjob wing of the American left."

There is nothing intellectually worse than such inconsistancy while doning the mantel of victimization.

Let's take a look at another recent contradiction of terms. Saudi Arabia has condemned 50 citizens to death by decapitation, including the Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh, punished for apostasi. Now this is the USA's most strategic oil Mideast partner and yet it destroyed Iraq to "bring democracy" to the region, resulting in how many civilian Muslim deaths and only creating in the process a void that has generated the Caliphate. Now does me saying so make me "pro-terror" or simply an independent thinker or, better yet, impartial observer?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

impartial observer?

makes you merely an observer. why it demands the qualifier impartial?

*that is a devil's advocate.

implicit is, one has to surrender an element of validity to your opposition. Even the term your opposition, is framing the contention.

 

[blutto]

....a very very interesting lenses thru which to view global warming....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fifty percent of the world’s carbon emissions are produced by the world’s richest 10%, while the poorest half – 3.5 billion people – are responsible for a mere 10%. This is according to a new report by Oxfam, which also found that the richest 1% of the world’s population emit 175 times more carbon than those living in the bottom 10%."

....from... http://www.businessinsider.com/study-richest-10-are-causing-climate-change-2015-12

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

....a very very interesting lenses thru which to view global warming....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fifty percent of the world’s carbon emissions are produced by the world’s richest 10%, while the poorest half – 3.5 billion people – are responsible for a mere 10%. This is according to a new report by Oxfam, which also found that the richest 1% of the world’s population emit 175 times more carbon than those living in the bottom 10%."

....from... http://www.businessinsider.com/study-richest-10-are-causing-climate-change-2015-12

Cheers

I'm not rich but I'm sure that I produce pollution to the environment. Our very existence on the planet guarantees that. I'm not sure but I don't think that the environment is going to try and kill me here at the office though.

 

[Echoes]

So I was the celebrater ??? At first I didn't react because I had no reason to feel targeted, even though I suspected that poster meant me.

I guess it's pretty telling that he said I celebrate. He didn't even just say I supported terrorist attacks or sided with terrorists. No he said I celebrated. Of course, he's unable to substantiate. Claiming that Charlie Hebdo got what they've been looking for is by no means a celebration, nor a show of support (for anybody with more than two brain cells) nor whatever except claiming that they got what they had been looking for, period. I stand by it. Besides, again, I said that on a private shoutbox, which proves once again that that poster cannot make any difference between public and private speech, what you are saying in private between friends or what can be published on the Internet, on TV, etc. Of course, he's just from the "Reality TV" generation, but that ain't no excuse. This being said, since I truly said that, I can put up with it but it's no less disrespectful.

I never posted any smiley on Velorooms after what happened in Australia, I don't know where he got that from, I'm no longer even active on VR forums and already wasn't by that time. Besides probably my comments on Judaism must soar up to 10% of my contributions on this section. So I'm just wondering where he sees an obsession. I have an obsession with secularism, that's true and I assume it. Oh and of course, I have to laugh at the insult: "whackjob left". I mean with the years passing by, I've started making a collection of insults. Before I even registered on these boards I already had: Fascist, Neonazi, Petainist, etc. Someone even associated me with communism (that was a former French Algerian, anti-Gaullist when I was a fervent Gaullist). Here I of course had the same insults. But "whackjob left", that must be most surprising insult I ever had . Even though, perhaps Foxxybrown came up with that one day or another.

All in all I guess that my "crime" here is just irreverence. That's why so many people trashed me after 01/07. It's quite an irony though because irreverence is precisely what characterised the Charlie spirit back in the seventies when society was still very much traditional (whether the bourgeois or the labouring classes) under the De Gaulle years, extended by President Pompidou. Today, the Charlies are the ruling class and they are as repressive towards irreverent people like me as was the somewhat conservative rule of General De Gaulle back in the days. Nowadays, we got to prosternate before them. Muslims in particular. They got forced to demonstrated behind Netanyahu's a*se. But it ain't me, it ain't me, I am no fortunate son. The funniest thing with the Charlies now who demonstrated in Paris on 01/11 is how they started applauding cops. As Adrien Abauzit noticed, lol, it meant a whole twist in their ideology. As if they had abandoned everything. I mean the Charlie ideology was based on anarchy and the revolt against authority, represented by the police. "Cops = SS" said the May '68 demonstrators. Now the same people, the Charlies, are applauding cops. Lol, it's as though I started saying "Fascist Christ" or "Long live the European Union". The day I'm saying that you'd think I dropped it all. There's no risk, of course. But it's pretty astounding.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

impartial observer?

makes you merely an observer. why it demands the qualifier impartial?

*that is a devil's advocate.

implicit is, one has to surrender an element of validity to your opposition. Even the term your opposition, is framing the contention.

I was merely being facetious and was only trying to frame the debate within the terms presented.

 

[blackcat]

yeah, I was just being a ****. thats my raison d'etre, aint it Glenn?

'nother caveat: not as ***** douchebaggery like David Millar my avatar tho...

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

yeah, I was just being a d!ck. thats my raison d'etre, aint it Glenn?

'nother caveat: not as d!ckish douchebaggery like David Millar my avatar tho...

Some would say this world needs ***** as a raison d'etre to save it from taking itself too seriously, the root of all evil.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So I was the celebrater ??? At first I didn't react because I had no reason to feel targeted, even though I suspected that poster meant me.

I guess it's pretty telling that he said I celebrate. He didn't even just say I supported terrorist attacks or sided with terrorists. No he said I celebrated. Of course, he's unable to substantiate. Claiming that Charlie Hebdo got what they've been looking for is by no means a celebration, nor a show of support (for anybody with more than two brain cells) nor whatever except claiming that they got what they had been looking for, period. I stand by it. Besides, again, I said that on a private shoutbox, which proves once again that that poster cannot make any difference between public and private speech, what you are saying in private between friends or what can be published on the Internet, on TV, etc. Of course, he's just from the "Reality TV" generation, but that ain't no excuse. This being said, since I truly said that, I can put up with it but it's no less disrespectful.

I never posted any smiley on Velorooms after what happened in Australia, I don't know where he got that from, I'm no longer even active on VR forums and already wasn't by that time. Besides probably my comments on Judaism must soar up to 10% of my contributions on this section. So I'm just wondering where he sees an obsession. I have an obsession with secularism, that's true and I assume it. Oh and of course, I have to laugh at the insult: "whackjob left". I mean with the years passing by, I've started making a collection of insults. Before I even registered on these boards I already had: Fascist, Neonazi, Petainist, etc. Someone even associated me with communism (that was a former French Algerian, anti-Gaullist when I was a fervent Gaullist). Here I of course had the same insults. But "whackjob left", that must be most surprising insult I ever had . Even though, perhaps Foxxybrown came up with that one day or another.

All in all I guess that my "crime" here is just irreverence. That's why so many people trashed me after 01/07. It's quite an irony though because irreverence is precisely what characterised the Charlie spirit back in the seventies when society was still very much traditional (whether the bourgeois or the labouring classes) under the De Gaulle years, extended by President Pompidou. Today, the Charlies are the ruling class and they are as repressive towards irreverent people like me as was the somewhat conservative rule of General De Gaulle back in the days. Nowadays, we got to prosternate before them. Muslims in particular. They got forced to demonstrated behind Netanyahu's a*se. But it ain't me, it ain't me, I am no fortunate son. The funniest thing with the Charlies now who demonstrated in Paris on 01/11 is how they started applauding cops. As Adrien Abauzit noticed, lol, it meant a whole twist in their ideology. As if they had abandoned everything. I mean the Charlie ideology was based on anarchy and the revolt against authority, represented by the police. "Cops = SS" said the May '68 demonstrators. Now the same people, the Charlies, are applauding cops. Lol, it's as though I started saying "Fascist Christ" or "Long live the European Union". The day I'm saying that you'd think I dropped it all. There's no risk, of course. But it's pretty astounding.

I'll be your Huckleberry.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

yeah, I was just being a d!ck. thats my raison d'etre, aint it Glenn?

'nother caveat: not as d!ckish douchebaggery like David Millar my avatar tho...

If you aim to please then no doubt Brah.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

yeah, I was just being a d!ck. thats my raison d'etre, aint it Glenn?

'nother caveat: not as d!ckish douchebaggery like David Millar my avatar tho...

i forgot to add my caveat for #grammar

but I never ascribed to grammar
#norevisions
#notypocorrections
#nodrafts

#Poeslaw

 

[python]

anyone recall turkey's indignant pleas about its sovereignty being violated...

well, now in addition to well documented thousands of violations of greek sovereignty and dozens of syria's, the 'ottoman sovereign' is now on record violating another neighbour.

Iraq demands 'immediate' withdrawal of Turkish forces from its territory
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-demands-immediate-withdrawal-turkish-forces-its-territory-1593349681

another source with a different angle...
Iraq summons Turkey ambassador over troop 'incursion'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/iraq-demands-withdrawal-turkish-troops-mosul-151205061510572.html

in another place i read that a senior member of iraqi parliament demanded using the iraqi air force...that would be verrry interesting. i know of one potent air force just across the border that would be more than happy to oblige if only requested

of course, such a development would be discounted by the turkish military planners, but vlad said he discounted being attacked by the turks in the back...

 

[blutto]

...someone has decided stupid is just not good enough and has put some considerable effort to develop a new form of military grade weaponized stupid....find below the first result of that work...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Poland considers asking for access to NATO nuclear weapons

Source: Associated Press

Poland considers asking for access to NATO nuclear weapons
Published: December 6, 2015

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — A Polish official says that the Defense Ministry is considering asking for access to nuclear weapons through a NATO program under which the United States places them on the territory of certain allied states.

Tomasz Szatkowski, the deputy defense minister, said that the ministry is currently discussing whether to ask to take part in NATO's so-called nuclear sharing program to improve the country's defenses.

The idea comes as Poland is worried about a resurgent Russia to its east.

Polish media say Szatkowski's comments Saturday to the private broadcaster Polsat mark the first time a Polish official has said the country wants to become part of the program.

Read more: http://www.tbo.com/ap/world/poland-considers-asking-for-access-to-nato-nuclear-weapons-ap_worlda570f3ca09a14b428cbf4eebd84a2a8a

....yup just what the world needs, a bunch of half cocked self-righteous pollacks running around with nuclear weapons....

Cheers

 

[jens_attacks]

We want them too

#nuclearromania

Who i'm kidding, we probably already stole some

 

[blutto]

"Isn’t that how it all went down? Except we’re missing one important factoid here, because according to the first op-ed “The increase in military cooperation within NATO… and the piling up of NATO forces near Turkey’s border”…took place in parallel with the deal between Ankara and the Brussels.”

Get it? So there was a quid pro quo that no one wants to talk about. In other words, Germany, France and the UK agreed to support Erdogan’s loony plan to conduct military operations in Syria, risking a serious dust-up with Russia, in order to save their own miserable political careers."

....and the blackmail to get the ball rolling would be ....

"Blackmail? Is that what we’re talking about, blackmail?

It sure sounds like it.

Let’s summarize: Erdogan intentionally releases tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into Europe to put pressure on EU politicians who quickly lose the support of their people and face the meteoric rise of right wing parties. And then, the next thing you know, Merkel, Hollande and every other EU leader is looking to cut a deal with Erdogan to keep the refugees in Turkey."

....a bit far fetched?....maybe....maybe not....

...from everyone's fave commentator, Mike Whitney... http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/03/erdogan-blackmails-nato-allies/

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....'nother problem involving Turkey, oil , Kurds and Barzani ( the Kurdish "leader" implicated in the ISIS oil trade )....btwn has very recently formally asked Turkish forces to leave Iraq....and do note Mosul is sort of the de facto ISIS capital....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Should Mosul be cleared of the Islamic State the Turkish heavy weapons will make it possible for Turkey to claim the city unless the Iraqi government will use all its power to fight that claim. Should the city stay in the hands of the Islamic State Turkey will make a deal with it and act as its protector. It will benefit from the oil around Mosul which will be transferred through north Iraq to Turkey and from there sold on the world markets. In short: This is an effort to seize Iraq's northern oil fields.

That is the plan but it is a risky one. Turkey did not ask for permission to invade Iraq and did not inform the Iraqi government.

The Turks claim that they were invited by the Kurds:

Turkey will have a permanent military base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul as the Turkish forces in the region training the Peshmerga forces have been reinforced, Hürriyet reported.
The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter’s visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4.

There are two problems with this. First: Massoud Barzani is no longer president of the KRG. His mandate ran out and the parliament refused to prolong it. Second: Mosul and its Bashiqa area are not part of the KRG. Barzani making a deal about it is like him making a deal about Paris.

The Iraqi government and all major Iraqi parties see the Turkish invasion as a hostile act against their country. Abadi demanded the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish forces but it is unlikely that Turkey will act on that. Some Iraqi politicians have called for the immediate dispatch of the Iraqi air force to bomb the Turks near Mosul. That would probably the best solution right now but the U.S. installed Premier Abadi is too timid to go for such strikes. The thinking in Baghdad is that Turkey can be kicked out after the Islamic State is defeated. But this thinking gives Turkey only more reason to keep the Islamic State alive and use it for its own purpose. The cancer should be routed now as it is still small.

Barzani's Kurdistan is so broke that is has even confiscated foreign bank accounts to pay some bills. That may be the reason why Barzani agreed to the deal now. But the roots run deeper. Barzani is illegally selling oil that belongs to the Iraqi government to Turkey. The Barzani family occupies not only the presidential office in the KRG but also the prime minister position and the local secret services. It is running the oil business and gets a big share of everything else. On the Turkish side the oil deal is handled within the family of President Erdogan. His son in law, now energy minister, had the exclusive right to transport the Kurdish oil through Turkey. Erdogan's son controls the shipping company that transports the oil over sea to the customer, most often Israel. The oil under the control of the Islamic State in Iraq passes the exactly same route. These are businesses that generate hundreds of millions per year."

.....from... http://www.moonofalabama.org/

Cheers