OK, if you have missed it (pretty sure most have). I am following it since fews weeks and yes, we can see the same shit pre war than we have seen in Ukraine.
We will likely see an invasion of northern Syria by Turkish armed forces in next weeks.
The world is stressed with another war, he (Erdogan) willl start his own one.

In German and behind a paywall, sorry. News are really rare as everyone is lookinhg in another direction but they are there. I was just waiting for days for new one from a reliable western news source.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus239408593/Invasion-in-Syrien-Auf-Erdogan-wartet-ein-neuer-maechtiger-Feind.html

Hi

Erdogan is the definition of an opportunist, and while the West and Russia are engaged over Ukraine there is an opening for Turkey over Northern Syria. He has made it clear that he intends to expand the "safe zone" to cover the entire Turkish-Syrian border. In his view this is necessary - ultimately to enhance his regime's ability to stifle Kurdish movements.

He has been kicking up dust over the Finn's and Swede's joining NATO because of their alleged 'support for terrorism' (aka the Kurdistan Workers Party, a militant group which Turkey and the U.S. consider a terrorist organisation - whose members' have been in conflict with the Turkish state for decades). I believe he has withheld Turkish support for Finland and Sweden to join NATO in order to ensure cast-iron guarantees that any further incursion to Northern Syria will be met with minimal condemnation/official comment from NATO governments, this includes the Scandinavians.

Just my two cents, having focused my academic research on Turkish affairs.

Best regards
Dublinspotter.

Is there anything stopping countries who are in NATO supporting Sweden and Finland, but not with their NATO hats on.

bennett123 wrote:

Is there anything stopping countries who are in NATO supporting Sweden and Finland, but not with their NATO hats on.

I don't believe so. It just means that they can't call on Article 5. Of course, since the main countries that would probably support Sweden and Finland if they were attacked, would be the UK and US, it's not as important. Russia wouldn't be able to stand up to what they could deliver, all by themselves.

Will russia come to Aide syria?? Maybe it’s a genius Turkish plan to wearout russia! PHahahahahahahaha

Turkey and the Kurds probably need full blown combat to start resolving some long standing issues, unfortunately as they will be invading another country to get at the Kurds, those local will also take umbrage and will ultimately also join the fight. Limited campaign that will end after a reached number of casualties.

I was hoping to visit the Zeugma mosaic museum in Gaziantep in southern Turkey and try the famed local cuisine. The civil war in Syria seemed to be going quieter and this year seemed like a good time to the region. Maybe best to defer it to another year

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Is there anything stopping countries who are in NATO supporting Sweden and Finland, but not with their NATO hats on.

I don't believe so. It just means that they can't call on Article 5. Of course, since the main countries that would probably support Sweden and Finland if they were attacked, would be the UK and US, it's not as important. Russia wouldn't be able to stand up to what they could deliver, all by themselves.

The European Union is of course also a military defence pact and both (Sweden and Finland) are member of the EU. Why by hell everyone is forgetting it?
Norway is only associated to the EU, but is member of the NATO.

So Finland, Norway and Sweden were all not stupid, they are all members of big defence pacts, so either the NATO or the EU.
The difference is now, both want to get additional in the second defence pact.

I think they know that NATO is a much stronger defense pact than the EU. It it it's only purpose. The EU talks but doesn't have much of a command structure or integration.

The question is rather, do we really need Turkey in NATO ? Turkey causing issues with Greece, Cyprus, Libya, and now Kurds ?

Aesma wrote:

The question is rather, do we really need Turkey in NATO ? Turkey causing issues with Greece, Cyprus, Libya, and now Kurds ?

Then there is the flipside: does Turkey need NATO?
At one time Turkey felt seriously threatened by Russia (aka The Soviet Union) and their fears seemed justified. But now with Russia's withering performance in Ukraine and Turkey's military coming of age, I suspect that Erdoğan is ready and willing to bail out of the pact if given the slightest push.

Aesma wrote:

The question is rather, do we really need Turkey in NATO ? Turkey causing issues with Greece, Cyprus, Libya, and now Kurds ?

I refer you to Incirlik air base and the Montreux Convention

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The question is rather, do we really need Turkey in NATO ? Turkey causing issues with Greece, Cyprus, Libya, and now Kurds ?

I refer you to Incirlik air base and the Montreux Convention

We are out of the ME, and we now are using bases in Romania, we no longer need Incirlik.

The Middle East has been unstable for decades. Something will happen in the region sooner or later, and NATO or the USA will suddenly find Incirlik particularly useful again

Separately, the Montreux Convention is having an influence on the war in Ukraine by virtue of the powers granted to Turkey

davidjohnson6 wrote:

The Middle East has been unstable for decades. Something will happen in the region sooner or later, and NATO or the USA will suddenly find Incirlik particularly useful again

The ME is unstable because Israel keeps it unstable. The US has no possibility of solving the core problem there which is Israel's continued expansion, in fact our efforts have had a destabilizing effect and has only caused hatred toward the US among the Arabic and Islamic world. Our efforts in the ME have undermined the very security of the United States. The more we can distance ourselves from the ME, the better it is for the US from a economic or security standpoint. Israel has decided to go it alone and we should welcome that fact.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Separately, the Montreux Convention is having an influence on the war in Ukraine by virtue of the powers granted to Turkey

Geography is what granted Turkey's power over the Bosporus. The Montreux Convention only provides coherence to the policy that guides Turkey.

bennett123 wrote:

Is there anything stopping countries who are in NATO supporting Sweden and Finland, but not with their NATO hats on.

Form a NATO2 Without Turkey and abandon NATO1 is possible, I guess.
But it wouldn't make sense with the significance of Turkey's role in blocking Russian access from Black Sea to Mediterranean, Reliance on delivery of support via Turkey or from Turkey to Ukraine, and geographically blocking Russia from accessing Mediterranean through Syria military base. And also Turkey's role in suppressing radical force in Leviant area.

Vintage wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

The Middle East has been unstable for decades. Something will happen in the region sooner or later, and NATO or the USA will suddenly find Incirlik particularly useful again

The ME is unstable because Israel keeps it unstable. The US has no possibility of solving the core problem there which is Israel's continued expansion, in fact our efforts have had a destabilizing effect and has only caused hatred toward the US among the Arabic and Islamic world. Our efforts in the ME have undermined the very security of the United States. The more we can distance ourselves from the ME, the better it is for the US from a economic or security standpoint. Israel has decided to go it alone and we should welcome that fact.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Separately, the Montreux Convention is having an influence on the war in Ukraine by virtue of the powers granted to Turkey

Geography is what granted Turkey's power over the Bosporus. The Montreux Convention only provides coherence to the policy that guides Turkey.

How are some of the recent conflicts in Middle East, like Yemen civil war, ISIS, Turkish dealing with Kurdish people (which cause Turkish current action in Northern Syria), and war between Georgia and Armenia, or a bit earlier the blockade against Qatar, having anything to do with Israel?

c933103 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Is there anything stopping countries who are in NATO supporting Sweden and Finland, but not with their NATO hats on.

Form a NATO2 Without Turkey and abandon NATO1 is possible, I guess.
But it wouldn't make sense with the significance of Turkey's role in blocking Russian access from Black Sea to Mediterranean, Reliance on delivery of support via Turkey or from Turkey to Ukraine, and geographically blocking Russia from accessing Mediterranean through Syria military base. And also Turkey's role in suppressing radical force in Leviant area.

With how small the Russian Black Sea Fleet is, is that really all that important?

c933103 wrote:

How are some of the recent conflicts in Middle East, like Yemen civil war, ISIS, Turkish dealing with Kurdish people (which cause Turkish current action in Northern Syria), and war between Georgia and Armenia, or a bit earlier the blockade against Qatar, having anything to do with Israel?

There was a policy paper in 1996 for Likud Party written by Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm, calling for the de
struction of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a
Hashemite monarch. The governments of Syria, Lebanon,Saudi Arabia and Iran would then have to be overthrown or destabilized, in order for Israel to be
secure in a kind of 'Greater US-Israel Co-Prosperity Sphere.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_B ... _the_Realm

Then, mysteriously decades later, Likud is in power and most of what was written has happened.

Peace will never exist in the Middle East because simply it is not beneficial to Israel.

And by the way Armenia and Georgia are not really considered Middle East countries..

santi319 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

How are some of the recent conflicts in Middle East, like Yemen civil war, ISIS, Turkish dealing with Kurdish people (which cause Turkish current action in Northern Syria), and war between Georgia and Armenia, or a bit earlier the blockade against Qatar, having anything to do with Israel?

There was a policy paper in 1996 for Likud Party written by Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm, calling for the de
struction of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a
Hashemite monarch. The governments of Syria, Lebanon,Saudi Arabia and Iran would then have to be overthrown or destabilized, in order for Israel to be
secure in a kind of 'Greater US-Israel Co-Prosperity Sphere.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_B ... _the_Realm

Then, mysteriously decades later, Likud is in power and most of what was written has happened.

Peace will never exist in the Middle East because simply it is not beneficial to Israel.

And by the way Armenia and Georgia are not really considered Middle East countries..

If anything it is now Saudi leading many of the conflicts mentioned above.
Ans government of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran together with Saudi from 1996 are still here nowadays.

c933103 wrote:

How are some of the recent conflicts in Middle East, like Yemen civil war, ISIS, Turkish dealing with Kurdish people (which cause Turkish current action in Northern Syria), and war between Georgia and Armenia, or a bit earlier the blockade against Qatar, having anything to do with Israel?

The Yemen 'civil war' is not a civil war, it is an invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. This invasion is related to (one facet of) the Israeli bargain that has been struck between Israel and SA whereby SA will be supported by Israel in a war against Iran with the promise that Saudi Arabia will become the dominant power in the Gulf (for the first time ever). Israel is using the old British / French subversive technique of pitting one tribe against another in the ME, only this time it is one nation against another. Following previous practice by Israel, Britain and France; Saudi Arabia will be betrayed in the end, leaving both Iran and Saudi Arabia's economies and military destroyed and Israel in firm control of both.

ISIS is of course blowback from the Iraq war which was foisted off on the Bush / Cheney administration by the Israeli intelligence's Project for a New American Century. It was Israel's stated intention to get the US into a war against Saddam's Iraq and the PNAC was the vehicle which accomplished that.

The current Kurdish plight is also blowback from the Iraq war. Turkey is taking advantage of the fact that the Kurds are all on their own after they attempted to separate themselves from Iraq.

As mentioned above, Georgia and Armenia are of the Caucasus region, not the ME.

A short explanation for the SA Qatar conflict is that this is due to Qatar's continued relations with Iran and Yemen in opposition to the SA / Israeli war aims.

johns624 wrote:

I think they know that NATO is a much stronger defense pact than the EU. It it it's only purpose. The EU talks but doesn't have much of a command structure or integration.

It's a moot point. The moment a single EU country is attacked NATO kicks in because they have members there.

Finland and Sweden getting into NATO is merely signaling Russia they messed up and kicked them out of their non aligned status.

I'd certainly feel better if we took our nukes out of Turkey and handed the air base back to the them.
Maybe we could rotate a few aircraft through there but I thnk US forces in Turkey are a liability now. Let them pay for it's upkeep.

Vintage wrote:

c933103 wrote:

How are some of the recent conflicts in Middle East, like Yemen civil war, ISIS, Turkish dealing with Kurdish people (which cause Turkish current action in Northern Syria), and war between Georgia and Armenia, or a bit earlier the blockade against Qatar, having anything to do with Israel?

The Yemen 'civil war' is not a civil war, it is an invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. This invasion is related to (one facet of) the Israeli bargain that has been struck between Israel and SA whereby SA will be supported by Israel in a war against Iran with the promise that Saudi Arabia will become the dominant power in the Gulf (for the first time ever). Israel is using the old British / French subversive technique of pitting one tribe against another in the ME, only this time it is one nation against another. Following previous practice by Israel, Britain and France; Saudi Arabia will be betrayed in the end, leaving both Iran and Saudi Arabia's economies and military destroyed and Israel in firm control of both.

ISIS is of course blowback from the Iraq war which was foisted off on the Bush / Cheney administration by the Israeli intelligence's Project for a New American Century. It was Israel's stated intention to get the US into a war against Saddam's Iraq and the PNAC was the vehicle which accomplished that.

The current Kurdish plight is also blowback from the Iraq war. Turkey is taking advantage of the fact that the Kurds are all on their own after they attempted to separate themselves from Iraq.

As mentioned above, Georgia and Armenia are of the Caucasus region, not the ME.

A short explanation for the SA Qatar conflict is that this is due to Qatar's continued relations with Iran and Yemen in opposition to the SA / Israeli war aims.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. The information is there, the facts are there. People just don’t wanna know, and they rather bury their heads in the sand.

Whats happening in the Middle East now has been in the making for years.

JJJ wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I think they know that NATO is a much stronger defense pact than the EU. It it it's only purpose. The EU talks but doesn't have much of a command structure or integration.

It's a moot point. The moment a single EU country is attacked NATO kicks in because they have members there.

Finland and Sweden getting into NATO is merely signaling Russia they messed up and kicked them out of their non aligned status.

I don't know why some here continually talk about an EU army and how strong it would be. All it would do is duplicate NATO. I think they only talk about it because they want a European country to run it and not the US. It's just politics, mainly French.

art wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I'd certainly feel better if we took our nukes out of Turkey and handed the air base back to the them.
Maybe we could rotate a few aircraft through there but I thnk US forces in Turkey are a liability now. Let them pay for it's upkeep.

Don't know the history intimately but I thought the way the world got out of the Cuba crisis was by JFK removing nukes from Turkey while USSR removed nukes from Cuba. If not having nukes in Cuba or Turkey avoided a possible WW3 in 1962 what the **** was NATO thinking putting them there again?

They were there, however their dismantling was planned and at the start of the crisis JFK was surprised to find they were still there, now a liability as Polaris subs came on line and were forward deployed.
The Soviet agenda, well the particular obsession of the General Secretary, was get the missiles in, announcing when they are fully operational, use as leverage on those European based IRBM’s, already being phased out. Mostly though it was about, for Khrushchev, Berlin. For all the bluster about it being an ‘Anti Facist Barrier’ (shades of Putin’s Ukraine BS), it was a huge policy failure, after failing to strong arm the West for the zones under their control in the 1961 crisis.
Plus his prized ‘Virgin Lands’ agricultural program seriously failing, threatening his position.
As for Cuba? Put it this way, once the plan was rumbled, the first Castro heard about the Soviet announcement to withdraw them, was on the radio news!

Certainly there were huge concerns about the Jupiter missiles, that they were super vulnerable, unreliable, erratic in testing, it replicated the Thor’s based for a few years in the UK under a joint RAF/USAF dual key command system.
So only existed due to inter service rivalry when nukes were everything in the 50’s, every service had to have a system.
Then there was basing them in a nation that then, was not the most stable in NATO to put it mildly.

art wrote:

How will other countries react to Turkey invading Syria if that comes to pass? What will Assad think about it? Perhaps he will be content with another country helping to quell Kurdish secessionism.

How did they react the first time, I think Turkish forces are still in Syria or am I thinking about Iraq?
Heading over to google.

Yep, still there it looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_o ... hern_Syria
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/1 ... hern-syria
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 022-06-05/

Vintage wrote:

The Yemen 'civil war' is not a civil war, it is an invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. This invasion is related to (one facet of) the Israeli bargain that has been struck between Israel and SA whereby SA will be supported by Israel in a war against Iran with the promise that Saudi Arabia will become the dominant power in the Gulf (for the first time ever). Israel is using the old British / French subversive technique of pitting one tribe against another in the ME, only this time it is one nation against another. Following previous practice by Israel, Britain and France; Saudi Arabia will be betrayed in the end, leaving both Iran and Saudi Arabia's economies and military destroyed and Israel in firm control of both.

Saudi is already a dominant power in the Gulf by long.
And how do you define it as subversive when it is what the ruler of those countries want, to have a target that they don't have to face military setback against, such that those rulers can gain support from their population?

ISIS is of course blowback from the Iraq war which was foisted off on the Bush / Cheney administration by the Israeli intelligence's Project for a New American Century. It was Israel's stated intention to get the US into a war against Saddam's Iraq and the PNAC was the vehicle which accomplished that.

Are you suggesting that American diplomatic policy is manipulated by Israel for Israeli interest?

The current Kurdish plight is also blowback from the Iraq war. Turkey is taking advantage of the fact that the Kurds are all on their own after they attempted to separate themselves from Iraq.

You get the country wrong
Turkish force is now going to be in Syria not Iraq

A short explanation for the SA Qatar conflict is that this is due to Qatar's continued relations with Iran and Yemen in opposition to the SA / Israeli war aims.

Yes you nailed it that it was done due to it being against the Saudi
But Israel didn't even involve themselves into this.

Interesting that the Israeli plan was to have the entire ME in flames, but ISIS and Turkey's war against the Kurds have nothing to do with Israel, the things that make you go hmmm..... Imagine all those ISIS fighters being told that their entire campaign for a caliphate was all an Israeli plot... better it be blowback.

From Goggle -

As part of NATO's nuclear umbrella , Turkey continues to host approximately 50 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on its territory at Incirlik Air Base. While the Cold War-era B61 bombs serve little military purpose, they provide tangible evidence of a continued American commitment to Turkish security. Mar 31, 2021

c933103 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The Yemen 'civil war' is not a civil war, it is an invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. This invasion is related to (one facet of) the Israeli bargain that has been struck between Israel and SA whereby SA will be supported by Israel in a war against Iran with the promise that Saudi Arabia will become the dominant power in the Gulf (for the first time ever). Israel is using the old British / French subversive technique of pitting one tribe against another in the ME, only this time it is one nation against another. Following previous practice by Israel, Britain and France; Saudi Arabia will be betrayed in the end, leaving both Iran and Saudi Arabia's economies and military destroyed and Israel in firm control of both.

Saudi is already a dominant power in the Gulf by long.

For the last 3,000 years, the Arabic peninsula has been populated by tribes people who eschewed education and lived in a primitive state culturally and materially. About 90 years ago the British 'discovered' oil there on the eve of WW2 which began a flow of money into the peninsula, however the population remained tribal and continued to eschew education in spite of the newfound material wealth enjoyed by the tribe that was selected by the British to be the ruling clan.

The Persians on the other hand have had an advanced culture all along, beginning about 3,000 years ago. If you lack knowledge of or are resistant to knowledge of the Persian Empire, be advised that I decline the opportunity to write you a tutorial.

Iran, aka Persia, has been the economic, cultural and military power for all these millennia. Saudi Arabia is only as much of a power as it is (however much that is) as a result of them blowing much of their recently gained oil money on western military hardware. This hardware gives them the ability to attack Iran, but it in no way gives them ability to invade or subdue Iran. Their money and western weapons leaves them the ability to become vandals, no more. Even that will dissipate as soon as their oil runs out. They have no hope of eclipsing Iran. Israel has sold them a lie.

And how do you define it as subversive when it is what the ruler of those countries want, to have a target that they don't have to face military setback against, such that those rulers can gain support from their population?

As I said, this is just another example of the tactic used in the ME (and all over the globe) by colonial powers as long as there have been colonial powers; they promise one faction, religion, tribe or now in this case nation, support. The colonial powers use all sorts of deceitful messages to gain compliance from the 'mark'; the colonial power's intention is never as it is presented to the mark, the goal was and is to subjugate both the mark and the victim. Operating in this deceitful manner is the very definition of subversive.

Are you suggesting that American diplomatic policy is manipulated by Israel for Israeli interest?

Yes

c933103 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The current Kurdish plight is also blowback from the Iraq war. Turkey is taking advantage of the fact that the Kurds are all on their own after they attempted to separate themselves from Iraq.

You get the country wrong
Turkish force is now going to be in Syria not Iraq

You don't seem to understand that the US invasion of Iraq created instability throughout the region. You also don't seem to understand the Kurd concept of Kurdistan. I don't believe it is my obligation to teach you from square one about the politics of the ME, so if you still have questions on this, you'll need to do your own research.

c933103 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

A short explanation for the SA Qatar conflict is that this is due to Qatar's continued relations with Iran and Yemen in opposition to the SA / Israeli war aims.

Yes you nailed it that it was done due to it being against the Saudi
But Israel didn't even involve themselves into this.

You are ignoring the fact that Saudi war aims against Iran and Yemen are the result of Israel's subversive meddling.

johns624 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I think they know that NATO is a much stronger defense pact than the EU. It it it's only purpose. The EU talks but doesn't have much of a command structure or integration.

It's a moot point. The moment a single EU country is attacked NATO kicks in because they have members there.

Finland and Sweden getting into NATO is merely signaling Russia they messed up and kicked them out of their non aligned status.

I don't know why some here continually talk about an EU army and how strong it would be. All it would do is duplicate NATO. I think they only talk about it because they want a European country to run it and not the US. It's just politics, mainly French.

Who's talking about an EU army?

The EU has a self defence clause which involves the national armies of all member states (some of which are NATO, some aren't).

Besides that, the EU is building a command structure, pooled purchasing, shared capacities and a few other goodies but ultimately the individual countries are the ones responsible for defence.

Amazing how soon we forget.....the President of France along with a German Chancellor was also on about an EU Army.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633
Just in case the BBC is not regarded as a reliable source...
https://www.politico.eu/article/angela- ... ment-nato/

Vintage wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The Yemen 'civil war' is not a civil war, it is an invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. This invasion is related to (one facet of) the Israeli bargain that has been struck between Israel and SA whereby SA will be supported by Israel in a war against Iran with the promise that Saudi Arabia will become the dominant power in the Gulf (for the first time ever). Israel is using the old British / French subversive technique of pitting one tribe against another in the ME, only this time it is one nation against another. Following previous practice by Israel, Britain and France; Saudi Arabia will be betrayed in the end, leaving both Iran and Saudi Arabia's economies and military destroyed and Israel in firm control of both.

Saudi is already a dominant power in the Gulf by long.

For the last 3,000 years, the Arabic peninsula has been populated by tribes people who eschewed education and lived in a primitive state culturally and materially. About 90 years ago the British 'discovered' oil there on the eve of WW2 which began a flow of money into the peninsula, however the population remained tribal and continued to eschew education in spite of the newfound material wealth enjoyed by the tribe that was selected by the British to be the ruling clan.

The Persians on the other hand have had an advanced culture all along, beginning about 3,000 years ago. If you lack knowledge of or are resistant to knowledge of the Persian Empire, be advised that I decline the opportunity to write you a tutorial.

Iran, aka Persia, has been the economic, cultural and military power for all these millennia. Saudi Arabia is only as much of a power as it is (however much that is) as a result of them blowing much of their recently gained oil money on western military hardware. This hardware gives them the ability to attack Iran, but it in no way gives them ability to invade or subdue Iran. Their money and western weapons leaves them the ability to become vandals, no more. Even that will dissipate as soon as their oil runs out. They have no hope of eclipsing Iran. Israel has sold them a lie.

This comment is very imperialistic.
- Arabia were still quite advance throughout its different age in the past compared to e.g. Europe.
- There were significant countries like Ottoman Empire being established around the Arabic region compared to Persia.
- What happened in the past do not determine future. America never dominated the world until recent centuries yet this is what we are seeing now.

And how do you define it as subversive when it is what the ruler of those countries want, to have a target that they don't have to face military setback against, such that those rulers can gain support from their population?

As I said, this is just another example of the tactic used in the ME (and all over the globe) by colonial powers as long as there have been colonial powers; they promise one faction, religion, tribe or now in this case nation, support. The colonial powers use all sorts of deceitful messages to gain compliance from the 'mark'; the colonial power's intention is never as it is presented to the mark, the goal was and is to subjugate both the mark and the victim. Operating in this deceitful manner is the very definition of subversive.

Are you suggesting that American diplomatic policy is manipulated by Israel for Israeli interest?

Yes

Make up your mind. Is it foreogn "colonial power" meddling regional affair in the area, or whether it is local government manipulating foreign power into conflicts?
In any case, those are topics that should be discussed in conspiracy theory internet discussion board instead.

c933103 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The current Kurdish plight is also blowback from the Iraq war. Turkey is taking advantage of the fact that the Kurds are all on their own after they attempted to separate themselves from Iraq.

You get the country wrong
Turkish force is now going to be in Syria not Iraq

You don't seem to understand that the US invasion of Iraq created instability throughout the region. You also don't seem to understand the Kurd concept of Kurdistan. I don't believe it is my obligation to teach you from square one about the politics of the ME, so if you still have questions on this, you'll need to do your own research.

The instability is caused by the earlier Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
As for concept of Kurdistan, it do not grant any nations power to invade others. It would be as absurd as saying China should invade Myanmar to crack down Tibetan separatism across border while seeing Tibetan activity in India.

c933103 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

A short explanation for the SA Qatar conflict is that this is due to Qatar's continued relations with Iran and Yemen in opposition to the SA / Israeli war aims.

Yes you nailed it that it was done due to it being against the Saudi
But Israel didn't even involve themselves into this.

You are ignoring the fact that Saudi war aims against Iran and Yemen are the result of Israel's subversive meddling.

Are you trying to suggest Saudi wouldn't want to be a geographical power if not for Israel "subversive meddling"?

Vintage wrote:

For the last 3,000 years, the Arabic peninsula has been populated by tribes people who eschewed education and lived in a primitive state culturally and materially....................

c933103 wrote:

This comment is very imperialistic.
- Arabia were still quite advance throughout its different age in the past compared to e.g. Europe.
- There were significant countries like Ottoman Empire being established around the Arabic region compared to Persia.
- What happened in the past do not determine future. America never dominated the world until recent centuries yet this is what we are seeing now.

I merely stated history. You seem to have Islamic and Arabic mixed up, while there were Islamic centers of culture and learning, those centers weren't in Arabia (other than Yemen). And the Ottoman empire wasn't "Arabic", the Ottoman were Turks and although the Ottoman did rule Syria/Iraq, they did so after the Islamic golden age.