Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
A better question is are there people like you working in NATO or the West to see that done?
So...NATO is expanding...
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Skallagrim
Well-known member
What's that? I can't hear you. Please take Erdogan's cock out of your mouth before responding.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
What Marduk is acknowledging is Turkey has advantages to be admitted to NATO. This is not any dick sucking but an unwarranted truth because Turkey is the hub between east and west ever since Constantinople was lost thereby not smallfry.What's that? I can't hear you. Please take Erdogan's cock out of your mouth before responding.
That is why like the asshole who holds the bridge for a crossing for the tolls Erdogan has quite the negotiating power.
Please take PKK commie cock out of your ass before talking to me.What's that? I can't hear you. Please take Erdogan's cock out of your mouth before responding.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
You can call me many things, but a communist I am decidely not. Nor have I at any point advocated giving the Kurds anything, so your smear is nonsensical -- like the rest of your posts here.
Evidently, you cannot face the fact that your inexplicable submission to Turkish interests is illogical, so you try to shift the topic every which way.
If Turkey has too much power, the answer not to bow before them like serfs, and thus give them more power. The "dhimmitude" is strong in those like Marduk. They readily prostate themselves before the Sultan.
I say that first we cast Turkey out of NATO, because an enemy within the walls is a mortal peril. Then we continue the stategy of letting Russia bleed itself to death, prompting it to collapse into gangsterism and chaos as the current regime ultimately fails. As soon as Russia is in turmoil and unable to act coherently -- eliminate Turkey. By any means necessary. Remove their power completely. If their control of the Straits is an issue (and it is!), then the correct solution is to take the Straits back. Make Istanbul Constantinople again.
The hypocrisy in Marduk's position is obvious. On the one hand, he clearly doesn't want to act against Turkey, and grasps at any excue to justify whatever Turkey does. But on the other hand, to conceal his motives, he raises the false argument that we supposedly 'can't" act against Turkey, because "the will isn't there". He pretends that he'd like to act, but sadly it's "impossible".
What utter hypocrisy! If you really want the will to be there, and truly lament that it isn't there presently, then change your mind and start advocating to action against Turkey! Embody the will to act.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no question: Russia is a distraction. A dying power. In the regional vacuüm it leaves behind, Turkey arises as a real threat. Make no mistake: Turkey has expansionist ambitions. I would not be at all surprised if later this century, they move to seize all of Cyprus and the Suez Canal, thus attaining unfettered control of yet more strategic choke-points. We must break their power before this can happen.
Meanwhile, precisely because of people like Marduk, Turkey will most likely get every opportunity to exploit instead. And we'll have to fight the bastards while we're on the back foot. And when it does happen, when Turkey does prove a viper, when it bites us with poison fangs... people like Marduk will stand there with this look on their gullible faces:
Oh no, if only someone had warned us that Turkey wasn't to be trusted!
Last edited:
King Arts
Well-known member
Damn it don't you think I want this? I'd love to give Greece back it's territory. But do you honestly think the liberal west will do that? We'd need a massive revival of Christianity and the downfall of secularism to get the people on board with the idea of retaking Christian lands. Marduk is just saying that due to current political trends this is the way it has to be.You can call me many things, but a communist I am decidely not. Nor have I at any point advocated giving the Kurds anything, so your smear is nonsensical -- like the rest of your posts here.
Evidently, you cannot face the fact that your inexplicable submission to Turkish interests is illogical, so you try to shift the topic every which way.
If Turkey has too much power, the answer not to bow before them like serfs, and thus give them more power. The "dhimmitude" is strong in those like Marduk. They readily prostate themselves before the Sultan.
I say that first we cast Turkey out of NATO, because an enemy within the walls is a mortal peril. Then we continue the stategy of letting Russia bleed itself to death, prompting it to collapse into gangsterism and chaos as the current regime ultimately fails. As soon as Russia is in turmoil and unable to act coherently -- eliminate Turkey. By any means necessary. Remove their power completely. If their control of the Straits is an issue (and it is!), then the correct solution is to take the Straits back. Make Istanbul Constantinople again.
The hypocrisy in Marduk's position is obvious. On the one hand, he clearly doesn't want to act against Turkey, and grasps at any excue to justify whatever Turkey does. But on the other hand, to conceal his motives, he raises the false argument that we supposedly 'can't" act against Turkey, because "the will isn't there". He pretends that he'd like to act, but sadly it's "impossible".
What utter hypocrisy! If you really want the will to be there, and truly lament that it isn't there presently, then change your mind and start advocating to action against Turkey! Embody the will to act.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no question: Russia is a distraction. A dying power. In the regional vacuüm it leaves behind, Turkey arises as a real threat. Make no mistake: Turkey has expansionist ambitions. I would not be at all surprised if later this century, they move to seize all of Cyprus and the Suez Canal, thus attaining unfettered control of yet more strategic choke-points. We must break their power before this can happen.
Meanwhile, precisely because of people like Marduk, Turkey will most likely get every opportunity to exploit instead. And we'll have to fight the bastards while we're on the back foot. And when it does happen, when Turkey does prove a viper, when it bites us with poison fangs... people like Marduk will stand there with this look on their gullible faces:
Oh no, if only someone had warned us that Turkey wasn't to be trusted!
The whole discussion here is about Sweden wanting to join NATO while giving "soft" support to Kurds. Meanwhile Turks want a deal where Sweden stops the latter before doing the former. So don't play coy here, you know what this is about now, even in the unlikely scenario you didn't.
And care to explain to me whose interests should be paramount in the NATO alliance if not its member states?
Now you're just clowning around, USA has even more power in the alliance, more than anyone else by a big margin, are you going to say the same about them?
What do you do if Russia annoyingly does not follow with your plan and graciously collapse without causing any further trouble?
If you can convince even half of NATO governments and USA (because it will require their ok) to do that, you would have the right to expect the Bush and Cheney families sponsor a coronation ceremony for you, because that would make you the rightful king of neocon warhawks, the chosen one, who will lead them to all the wars they ever wanted but could never get.
I'm a huge meanie who refuses to engage in ridiculous wishful thinking when others do it, sure.
IDGAF. As i said, terrible me, refusing to cheer for other's crazy dreams.
Earth called, they want to know when do expect your orbital reentry...
Also please don't hit my sides on the way there because they may be somewhere around the orbit.
Yes, the nuclear power that holds Germany and France by the wallet and wannabe tsar who wants to rebuild the empire and is doing so right now is the distraction, a half third world country with wannabe sultan, economy in freefall even without sanctions and no guts to even start a serious war, just nibble at the edges of civil war embroiled Syria is the real threat.
Turkey has no navy to do half of that, and if it did, well, USA and UK would have some issues with the Suez stuff especially.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Secularism is already past its prime. Religiosity is on the rise world-wide, including in the West (yes, even when you completely discount the migration of Muslims). You know what also tends to drive religious upsurges? Bad times. You know what we're in for? Yup, bad times. The current economic stress is merely prelude; the "solutions" (e.g. printing new trillions) doom us to a worse crash than 2008. Worse than 1929. There's also the fact that religiosity in the West has followed a pretty clear wave of ups and downs, and we're set for another Great Awakening (to use the American term for the phenomana associated with this). Combine the fact that we're set for that anyway with the pressing socio-economic conditions, and you can bet it'll be a big one.
That'll help us along as far as the "will" is concerned.
Unfortunately, the very factors I cite here also involve considerable domestic turmoil across the West. Which means that this is also going to be the period in which enemies like China and Turkey are going to be able to do a lot of shit with impunity. Again: Marduk doesn't believe that Turkey will be a threat, but you have to consider their ambitions over the next few decades. When the West faces considerable internal trouble (which is bound to happen, purely given the current state of affairs), foreign power projection will be severely interrupted for a time. Opportunistic rivals will exploit that.
My point here has been that it would be much better to act now, than to have to deal with the problems later, when they've had a chance to grow much bigger. I must dispute that Marduk is just saying that we have no other choice. It's completely clear that Marduk wouldn't support action against Turkey even if broad support manifested itself this very minute. And that's my issue with his attitude: he doesn't want to act, he willingly kneels for the Sultan, but he pretends as if it's just a matter "unfortunately, we have no choice".
That lie is what irks me. If he just came out and admitted he likes pleasing the Turks and doing their bidding -- well, we'd disagree, but at least it'd be an honest opinion.
My problem with your idea is that your whole basis for the need for a war against Turkey is your own delusional fantasies which i don't share and you are completely failing to convince me that they are something more than that, in fact you are achieving the opposite right here.
Turkey's leadership is ambitious... So? So is Russian, and Iranian, and several others. Means also matter.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
My problem with your idea is that your whole basis for the need to appease Turkey is your failure to see that they can't be trusted and your blind faith that they won't betray us despite clear evidence to the contrary. (Something you fail to recognise, despite having in fact cited examples yourself.)
The delusions are yours.
Paranoia is not synonymous with good politics, and paranoia + preemptive strike doctrine is a commonly recognized recipe for disaster, not a radical new genius idea.
If only trustworthy countries regarding action against Russia should be allowed in NATO, we would have to kick out France, Hungary and Germany alongside Turkey, and that obviously is not politically feasible.
Throwing Kurds under the bus is not appeasement, its common sense, as it is of no cost to NATO, its just a cost to Sweden's virtue signalling status and internal left wing politics.
Swedish government survives no-confidence vote with help of former Kurdish fighter
By Anna Ringstrom and Simon Johnson
www.euronews.com
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
If the will is there truly there then do it and find out what happens as an evicted Turkey picks a new side while denying the West access to their backyard especially towards military transport.If Turkey has too much power, the answer not to bow before them like serfs, and thus give them more power. The "dhimmitude" is strong in those like Marduk. They readily prostate themselves before the Sultan.
I say that first we cast Turkey out of NATO, because an enemy within the walls is a mortal peril. Then we continue the stategy of letting Russia bleed itself to death, prompting it to collapse into gangsterism and chaos as the current regime ultimately fails. As soon as Russia is in turmoil and unable to act coherently -- eliminate Turkey. By any means necessary. Remove their power completely. If their control of the Straits is an issue (and it is!), then the correct solution is to take the Straits back. Make Istanbul Constantinople again.
The hypocrisy in Marduk's position is obvious. On the one hand, he clearly doesn't want to act against Turkey, and grasps at any excue to justify whatever Turkey does. But on the other hand, to conceal his motives, he raises the false argument that we supposedly 'can't" act against Turkey, because "the will isn't there". He pretends that he'd like to act, but sadly it's "impossible".
What utter hypocrisy! If you really want the will to be there, and truly lament that it isn't there presently, then change your mind and start advocating to action against Turkey! Embody the will to act.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no question: Russia is a distraction. A dying power. In the regional vacuüm it leaves behind, Turkey arises as a real threat. Make no mistake: Turkey has expansionist ambitions. I would not be at all surprised if later this century, they move to seize all of Cyprus and the Suez Canal, thus attaining unfettered control of yet more strategic choke-points. We must break their power before this can happen.
Meanwhile, precisely because of people like Marduk, Turkey will most likely get every opportunity to exploit instead. And we'll have to fight the bastards while we're on the back foot. And when it does happen, when Turkey does prove a viper, when it bites us with poison fangs... people like Marduk will stand there with this look on their gullible faces:
Oh no, if only someone had warned us that Turkey wasn't to be trusted!
Turkey controls the black sea.
Only reason they are in NATO.
Sure you may be able to get a few other NATO members would agree but why should we fight Turkey?
What would we do once we beat them? Do what we did in Iraq?
Because it opens the door for someone who doesn't like NATO to take power or for puppet control from Iran or Syria.
Invading and defeating turkey is a stupid move because we would have to push our logistics through a bunch of allied countries. Stretching it thin.
We wouldn't be able to land any forc3s in the black sea until the war ends.
So basically invading Turkey is stupid and gives Turkey reason to call for Russia or Iranian support and make a bloodbath.
I thought I was a warmonger.
Only reason they are in NATO.
Sure you may be able to get a few other NATO members would agree but why should we fight Turkey?
What would we do once we beat them? Do what we did in Iraq?
Because it opens the door for someone who doesn't like NATO to take power or for puppet control from Iran or Syria.
Invading and defeating turkey is a stupid move because we would have to push our logistics through a bunch of allied countries. Stretching it thin.
We wouldn't be able to land any forc3s in the black sea until the war ends.
So basically invading Turkey is stupid and gives Turkey reason to call for Russia or Iranian support and make a bloodbath.
I thought I was a warmonger.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Too late. We're in a time people will bitch more about the dark shit doing that.
A crusade is the stupidest thing right now.
Because guess what country is not Christian? China.
Guess what country will garner support of every middle eastern country and huge amount of money.
China.
Great, we took over Turkey, now Iran and China are more powerful and terrorism is on the rise in the West to levels greater then 9/11.
Was it worth?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Again, your blatant hypocrisy is on display. First, you go on and on abot nations having no allies and geo-politics being cut-throat and only intended for pure opportunism. When I point out that my view actually derives from a view not unlike that, you suddenly start to claim we have to be careful and never rock the boat.
Basically, when Turkey acts with cold opportunism, we have to accept it. We're not allowed to do it ourselves, though.
Anyway -- my stance is that you can judhe a power by its actions, and those of Turkey are hostile. So treat it as a hostile power. You pretend as if Turkey is going to be our friend if we just play nice, while it's clear that they will only be a "friend" as long as it serves them. So push them out so you have armour between yourself and their eventual attack... or keep them in, and they'll get to stab you in the unprotected soft body-parts at a moment of their choosing.
Don't you see how insane it is to keep a clear enemy within your alliance?
Turkey has lied to NATO about its non-objection, and then publicly stabbed NATO in the back to serve its own ends.
Turkey has manipulated NATO powers with their migrant-blackmail, and has openly declared it'll do so again if they think it fitting.
Turkey has actively threatened NATO politicians (e.g. Geert Wilders) and has actively sought to persecute and endanger their lives.
Turkey has access to NATO plans, but is also in bed with NATO's enemies.
These are the facts. Turkey should not be in NATO. If you truly cannot grasp this, then all further debate is pointless, and only the eventual conflict (sadly fought on Turkish terms) will make clear how foolish it was to keep them in NATO instead of treating them as the enemy that they were all along.
My point is that the conflict is going to happen anyway, whether you want it or not. Turkey isn't a friend or ally. It is an enemy that we mistakenly treat as a friend and ally. This is an enormous risk, and any benefit of having Turkey in NATO doesn't justify that risk.
Zachowan, you ask about the danger of "someone who doesn't like NATO" taking control in Turkey. I say that someone already holds power in Turkey. They are already hostile. Right now, it is imperative to remove Turkey from NATO and to base all future war plans on the assumption that Turkey will be hostile. Which is true regardless of other factors.
As far was "war-mongering" goes: again, I see the conflict as inevitable, and I would prefer it fought on the most favourable terms. The alternative is to wait and hope (in vain), and eventually find yourself forced into a much worse conflict at a later stage. To limet the scale of any horror through timely action is not war-mongering, but rather the minimalisation of needless blood-shed.
I think, to be clear, that no action will be taken. I also think we'll come to regret that before altogether too long. I think that a world in which Hitler got curb-stomped in the '30s would have been preferable to the much more extensive carnage that we got. For the same reason, I think that a world in which we curb-stomp Erdogan in the short term will be better than the considerably more bloody alternative.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
It's going to get worse while the West suffers internally.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The current century summed up in a single sentence.
In certain more advanced cultures this all could be solved by issuing a Batchall and invoking the sacred right to Trial by Combat.
If Turkey wishes to dishonor it's prior agreement vowed to Finland, let it do so in a Trial of Refusal or submit to the whims of the NATO Council.
If Turkey wishes to dishonor it's prior agreement vowed to Finland, let it do so in a Trial of Refusal or submit to the whims of the NATO Council.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
That sounds like a dignified solution for the immediate issue. I support this.