Putin warns Turkey there will be "serious consequences" for "stabbing Russia in the back"(Shortened)

DailyMail.co.uk ^ | November 24, 2015 | Sarah Malm And Will Stewart

[Biggirl]

President Vladimir Putin has accused Turkey of funding ISIS, and using its military to protect the terrorist organisation, after a Russian fighter jet was shot down near the Syrian border on Tuesday morning. The two-pilot Sukhoi Su-24 jet was shot down by F-16 fighter planes just after 9am this morning, after it violated Turkish airspace and ignored nearly a dozen warnings by the military, Ankara officials said.

[AndyJackson]

No-one shoots down intruding aircraft unless it is a serious threat, or perhaps to teach a lesson and make a provocative point

Exactly my point, e.g. Gary Powers' U2, which the Soviets finally figured out how to shoot down after years of provocation, leaving Ike with egg on his face.

[FreeReign]

"Seems Turkey and Obama are working for the Jihadist."

"Seems like Putin is working for the Ayatollahs."

Seems like it takes two posters to describe the entire situation.

[dragnet2]

If you think Putin is taking his orders from the sultans of sham in Tehran, I can’t help you guys.

[dragnet2]

The Russians are bombing the sh*t out of ISIS

No, they are not.

You work at the Dial an Argument call center?

[kabar]

Once you begin with the view that Putin, the former KGB agent, is taking us back to the Cold War your mind is closed and you are incapable of subjecting the situation as it actually exists to rational analysis.

LOL. You don't need no stinkin' facts. Putin invaded Ukraine and took over part of the country--Crimea. He is approaching Cold War numbers when it comes to sending military planes to the edges of our airspace. About a month ago, he buzzed the our carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, less than a nautical mile away at 500 feet while the US was conduction joint naval operations with South Korea. Putin is siding with Iran in Syria.

Again you show your cluelessness. Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a mutual defense agreement when a member state is "attacked." Turkey was not attacked by any definition of the word. Armed aggression was not perpetrated on Turkey; no property was destroyed, no lives taken, no extortion against Turkey committed. Turkey in this instance was the attacker, shooting down a Russian aircraft. Pentagon backs Turkey’s version of events, blames ‘incursion’ of Russian jet

Calling Putin a thug does nothing to attack the validity of his goals vs our goals.

There is no moral equivalency between Putin and the US. Putin's goals are to keep Assad in power and restore Russia to the power and influence of the former Soviet Union. He is an ex-KGB agent who has ruled Russia for almost 15 years. Why anyone who is a Freeper supports this thug is a mystery to me. You must really hate this country.

[AndyJackson]

There is no moral equivalency between Putin and the US. Putin's goals are to keep Assad in power and restore Russia to the power and influence of the former Soviet Union.

And the US goals? Let us assume that our position is to establish freedom and democracy in Syria, and let us assume that that is a "moral" goal? How is that working out for us in Iraq? Well it isn't, actually, and how many people should die so that we can impose your moral view on the world?

[Longbow1969]

This is utter nonsense. In times of economic contraction a Keynsian expansion through government expenditures works - over and over again

Yes, except the Russian economy has not reacted the way you suggest it should have - even though they have fairly dramatically increased military spending. 2nd quarter saw a 4.6% contraction, and the 1st quarter wasn't much better at 2.2% contraction. So basically, at least at this time, the military buildup has not helped the Russian economy at all.

I understand what your getting at, but I think you underestimate the number of factors working against the Russian economy right now. And with that in mind I return to my point which was Russia really can't afford a dramatic military buildup for too much longer unless these other factors are mitigated (ie, higher oil price, sanctions dropped due to Russian military adventures in the Ukraine, etc).

You know Russia's been down this road before - recently. Trying to keep up with Reagan's defense buildup is one of the factors that led to the destruction of the USSR. Different reasons I know, but just the same this issue has bit Putin in the behind in the not so distant past.

[FreeReign]

If you think Putin is taking his orders from the sultans of sham in Tehran, I can’t help you guys.

No, Russia is arming Iran.

[dragnet2]

And the US has armed nearly everyone so what’s your point? In fact, we just negotiated the worst deal in history with Iran and gave them billion$ to boot.

The problem is with American leadership. America is broke and needs to be fixed.

[FreeReign]

And the US has armed nearly everyone so what’s your point? In fact, we just negotiated the worst deal in history with Iran and gave them billion$ to boot. The problem is with American leadership. America is broke and needs to be fixed.

BOTH Russia and the US are facilitating Iran and that's a problem.

[Neoliberalnot]

Not following you.

[PotatoHeadMick]

I tend to ignore comments that use the adolescent term “lol” and then imply I said something I didn’t. I am not saying Iran is “wonderful”, go back and read what I said.

I said if the US chooses to pick a dog in the 1500 year fight between the Shiite Persians and the Sunni Arabs, and it is beyond my comprehension why the US would choose to step into that conflict but it clearly has, then Iran would be a better choice than Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.

You seem to have a blind spot for Saudi Arabia, what causes this I have no idea. Iran is not a pleasant place, nor was Assad’s Syria, but compared to the barbaric, medieval, intolerant, backward desert kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula they are positive nirvanas (remember I said these things are relative, we are not discussing Sweden versus Switzerland here).

If it was me I would stay out of that fight, let them kill each other to their hearts’ content and then buy the oil off whoever is left standing. I see no need whatsoever to intervene in the Islamic civil war that started a thousand years before the US ever existed and will continue for another thousand years.

You on the other hand seem very keen to get involved and to act as ally and arms supplier to the hateful people who funded and carried out the 9/11 attacks (you can pick and choose which state-sponsored terrorists to condemn and pretend that only one side is doing it, I am not so naive, the Qataris and the Saudis are flooding cash to their Wahabist proxies and have been doing so for decades, the world and his aunty knows that only you seem to be unaware of it) and who are funding and supporting dreadful Islamist groups throughout the Middle East.

My opinion is stay out of the fight but if you have to get involved the shiites and alawites of Persia and Syria seem a lot more attractive than the head-chopping ghouls of the desert kingdoms. You disagree but seem incapable of giving a sound reason why the head choppers get your vote.

[kabar]

And the US goals? Let us assume that our position is to establish freedom and democracy in Syria, and let us assume that that is a "moral" goal?

Our foreign policy should be based on what is in the best strategic interests of the US. It should govern our investment of blood and treasure. Syria is important because the current civil war threatens the stability of the region. For years, the refugee population has been increasing to the point now where almost half the population have been uprooted. They are contributing to a mass migration to Europe and eventually the US.

ISIS is a threat to our interests and must be destroyed. The longer we wait, the bigger the problem. Assad is the lesser of two evils.

Well it isn't, actually, and how many people should die so that we can impose your moral view on the world?

Another phony strawman.

[Paul R.]

While that may be true, the big risk is that Russia will use its trump card. A limited nuclear war over Turkey is not a pleasant thought.

Especially since, most likely, the prevailing winds will blow a lot of the fallout straight to Russia. (One can investigate further at the site windfinder.com.)

[Paul R.]

No disagreement here, but, as far as leadership of NATO goes, Obummer is a disaster for everyone except, maybe, Putin.

[Paul R.]

Again, a lot of that is poor leadership on our part.

Still, I doubt Turkey really wants to be in the middle of a fight between Russia and the West. They just dislike being pushed around, more. Perhaps they’ve noticed the results of letting Putin do the pushing.

[kabar]

I said if the US chooses to pick a dog in the 1500 year fight between the Shiite Persians and the Sunni Arabs, and it is beyond my comprehension why the US would choose to step into that conflict but it clearly has, then Iran would be a better choice than Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.

I lived two years in Iran during the fall of the Shah and five years in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, i.e., Desert Shield and Desert Storm.. Iran is our enemy. The Iranian mullahs aren't interested in being an ally of the US. We are the Great Satan. Iran is in the process of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Why?

85% of Islam is Sunni and some other sects other than Shi'a. The Saudis are not our enemy.

You seem to have a blind spot for Saudi Arabia, what causes this I have no idea. Iran is not a pleasant place, nor was Assad’s Syria, but compared to the barbaric, medieval, intolerant, backward desert kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula they are positive nirvanas (remember I said these things are relative, we are not discussing Sweden versus Switzerland here).

How much do you know about Saudi Arabia? Do you understand the depth of our current and historical relationship militarily and economically?

If it was me I would stay out of that fight, let them kill each other to their hearts’ content and then buy the oil off whoever is left standing. I see no need whatsoever to intervene in the Islamic civil war that started a thousand years before the US ever existed and will continue for another thousand years.

It is not an Islamic civil war.

My opinion is stay out of the fight but if you have to get involved the shiites and alawites of Persia and Syria seem a lot more attractive than the head-chopping ghouls of the desert kingdoms. You disagree but seem incapable of giving a sound reason why the head choppers get your vote.

You should read the links I provided to you on human and religious rights in Iran. You have no knowledge of the region.

[Paul R.]

So what some here almost seem to be doing is saying that the since Turks allegedly warned the Russians therefore they had it coming. This is similar to how the Soviets and their American fellow travelers tried to minimize the KAL murders. But it fails since the plane was no threat to Turkey. They were not going to bomb Istanbul ( I mean Constantinople, sing it with me ) No-one shoots down intruding aircraft unless it is a serious threat, or perhaps to teach a lesson and make a provocative point ( Reagan F14's splashing Libyan Russian fighters in the Med ). The disinformation from Turkey and/or Obama is just as much a strawman as it was with KAL-007. There is just no sound reason for shooting it down. You might light him up. You might throw up some flak. You might launch some missiles closeby. You might scramble interceptors. You might escort him down. You might mess up his electronics. You could just point a laser pointer in the cockpit. Anything short of a shootdown, unless there is a different, more provocative reason instead. It sure is starting to smell like a power play, and the hypothesis that Obama wants to change the focus back to Assad and stop Russian action in his defense, and is willing to use NATO as a pawn is very provocative indeed. It is also reckless.

Well, of the few Turks I've known... I'd say this was mostly the Turks. One must keep in mind that Turkey had repeatedly warned Russia about these incursions. One can only warn so many times before either taking action, or being proven "talk only". Risky? Perhaps. But it's a risky world, and weakness is riskiest of all.

[Paul R.]

Tally up all the targets the Russian have hit (the various factions) and draw your own conclusion. I have little time today for unobservant people.

[Zhang Fei]

Especially since, most likely, the prevailing winds will blow a lot of the fallout straight to Russia. (One can investigate further at the site windfinder.com.)

While that might restrain the Russians, it's also the case that Chernobyl put out hundreds of times the fallout generated by Hiroshima. And Hiroshima was repopulated starting pretty much right after the rubble was cleared away.