- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Turkey clears way for Finland, Sweden to join NATO
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:19 pm to kingbob
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:19 pm to kingbob
quote:
I don't know, maybe they would have to take some troops from Cyprus to shore up a defense of Anatolia since that's where the Russian army would be fighting?
But the armed forces are made up of more branches than just the army, you realize. Why would Turkey spend money and resources to have a presence in Cyprus to immediately abandon it in the event of an invasion? That makes absolutely no sense. Countries don't spend resources lightly.
Not only that, the actual geography of Turkey matters, as it is mountainous and there is no direct land border with Russia, which means it requires amphibious landings from the Russians or the Russians to move through Georgia, Azerbaijan and/or Armenia, or through Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria. An invasion by Russia would again be a massive undertaking, and even if it were successful, it would be extremely slow-going.
And it isn't as though the Turkish Armed Forces are some pushovers. They have a well-trained military and a burgeoning defense sector. And they have the Russian-made S-400, which makes the air superiority battle moot.
This scenario doesn't make any sense.
This post was edited on 6/28/22 at 5:22 pm
1
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Better question is what the hell would the 10,000 UK military personnel on Cyprus do in that event
Probably stay there and reclaim Cyprus as a British protectorate lol.
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:22 pm to Madking
quote:Well, we know Biden does, or check that, his handlers do.
NATO wants to put on a world war
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:25 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
But the armed forces are made up of more branches than just the army, you realize. Why would Turkey spend money and resources to have a presence in Cyprus to immediately abandon it in the event of an invasion
I never hinted they would abandon it. However, it's entirely rational that during a war with Russia, Turkey would have to, at least at the offset before more reserves could be mobilized, send more active duty troops to where the fighting is. Those active duty troops wouldn't all come from Anatolia. I would imagine a major Russian invasion of Eastern Turkey would be an "all hands on deck" level event.
I could also see Greece watch this happen, see that there are fewer troops in Cyprus than normal, and then use that as an opportunity to attempt to retake the northern half of the island while the British are taking tea time.
Is it likely that any of this actually happens? No. Because the odds of a Russian invasion of Western Turkey are incredibly low at this time. The Russians seem to be getting all they can handle in The Ukraine, atm.
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:25 pm to AggieHank86
And per a diagram presentation I seen a while back when Trump was trying to level the “payment structure”, the USA was paying more than our obligation and all others were not meeting their obligations.
So what part of NATO is good for the USA again?
Why do liberal morons think it’s ok for the USA taxpayers to bear the brunt of International Security?
We are bankrupt, what part don’t y’all get? $35T’ish in fiat/printed money debt, not counting long term gov’t social entitlement and social security obligations that is beyond bankrupt.
But yeah, let’s continue to do the heavy lifting.
You people are straight up insane, while at the same time, use big words in your arguments to give some sort of educated posturing to your idiotic global positions.
We are bankrupt, the CIA is playing war games across the globe! Sell the weapons, destroy countries landscapes and then print money to “rebuild the country’s” They’ve destroyed!
NATO
Climate hoax
War
It’s all money laundering and these liberal idiots keep trying to justify it!
Some wars have been justified, but many have been purposely instigated and supported by the global banking cabal who runs the Fed!
Period
End of Story, there is no educated answer to this fact!
So what part of NATO is good for the USA again?
Why do liberal morons think it’s ok for the USA taxpayers to bear the brunt of International Security?
We are bankrupt, what part don’t y’all get? $35T’ish in fiat/printed money debt, not counting long term gov’t social entitlement and social security obligations that is beyond bankrupt.
But yeah, let’s continue to do the heavy lifting.
You people are straight up insane, while at the same time, use big words in your arguments to give some sort of educated posturing to your idiotic global positions.
We are bankrupt, the CIA is playing war games across the globe! Sell the weapons, destroy countries landscapes and then print money to “rebuild the country’s” They’ve destroyed!
NATO
Climate hoax
War
It’s all money laundering and these liberal idiots keep trying to justify it!
Some wars have been justified, but many have been purposely instigated and supported by the global banking cabal who runs the Fed!
Period
End of Story, there is no educated answer to this fact!
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:30 pm to Bearcat90
quote:
What you and others fail to understand is I don't give a flying frick about this war other than it endangers the planet.
And you're so concerned that you would let an aggressor regime run roughshod over any country it wants to. Where, exactly, do you think that would end if everyone just bent over and took it in the arse every time Putin got pissy?
Peace? Yes, but only after Russia had taken back at least the former USSR countries, but likely also most (if not all) of Europe.
quote:
I've repeatedly asked what possible end game is there for us to keep sending pallets of cash and missiles to Ukraine?
The endgame is to keep Russia from taking over another country by force. Perhaps you missed stories about how World War 2 started? Generally speaking, allowing an aggressor nation to run rampantly through Europe hasn't worked out too well for the rest of the world.
quote:
Having a hard time understanding why peace talks aren't being done now.
They've tried talks, multiple times. The stumbling block continues to be...
...wait for it...
...just a little longer...
...don't give up now, you're almost there...
...waaaaaaait...
...that Russia demands to keep various Ukrainian lands. You would know this had you looked into it before posting such a ridiculous statement.
Your stance is exactly the sort of appeasement thinking which would only enable more attacks like this.
quote:
Every time we keep putting more pressure on Russia, the unimaginable keeps getting more and more realistic.
No, it doesn't. Russia isn't going to fire off nukes. Period. If they do, they know they just signed their death warrant. No single country in the world, not even us, can survive an attack by the majority of other countries (which is what would happen if Russia were to send a nuke into Finland or Sweden).
This post was edited on 6/28/22 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 6/28/22 at 5:32 pm to kingbob
quote:
However, it's entirely rational that during a war with Russia
It really isn't.
quote:
Turkey would have to, at least at the offset before more reserves could be mobilized, send more active duty troops to where the fighting is. Those active duty troops wouldn't all come from Anatolia. I would imagine a major Russian invasion of Eastern Turkey would be an "all hands on deck" level event.
How is Russia supposed to get troops in position to invade Eastern Turkey? A troop build-up is impossible to hide, especially when there isn't a direct land border. Turkey has conscription, as well as reserve personal equivalent to the size of its active personal. Why would they move anyone from Cyprus when they have the 2nd and 3rd Armies, both comprising more than 100k troops, already in Eastern Turkey, which would be used before they move anyone from Cyprus? 200k troops in that sector is more than Russia had when they invaded Ukraine. How many Russian troops will there be? 10 million? Even in this hypothetical, this doesn't make sense.
quote:
I could also see Greece watch this happen, see that there are fewer troops in Cyprus than normal, and then use that as an opportunity to attempt to retake the northern half of the island while the British are taking tea time.
This won't ever happen.
This post was edited on 6/28/22 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 6/28/22 at 6:13 pm to Bard
quote:
The endgame is to keep Russia from taking over another country by force.
Our record of invasion over the last 60 years gives us NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN
Posted on 6/28/22 at 6:37 pm to Madking
Another world war is coming.
Posted on 6/28/22 at 6:46 pm to Realityintheface
Suck it Vlad.
You KGB communist war criminal.
You KGB communist war criminal.
Posted on 6/28/22 at 6:49 pm to jonnyanony
What would stop them from doing it?
Posted on 6/28/22 at 6:53 pm to Realityintheface
Potential to spiral out of control. Russia has been exposed in Ukraine as being inept so probably not.
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:07 pm to Indefatigable
So it would never happen?
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:08 pm to dchog
quote:
So it would never happen?
That NATO would invade Russia?
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:13 pm to crazy4lsu
It is certainly a possibility in the future with more members joining, would you think so?
It may never happen but it could.
It may never happen but it could.
This post was edited on 6/28/22 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:16 pm to dchog
quote:
What would stop them from doing it?
That's not a very good reason, but ... I don't know, death, nuclear war? Little benefit in doing so?
It's nonsensical
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:16 pm to dchog
quote:
It is certainly a possibility in the future with more members joining, would you think so?
It's unlikely, because what would those members gain? Invading Russia is difficult and wouldn't really serve much purpose. I can see it in an extremely small number of scenarios, but even then, an invasion from the European Plain is extremely remote.
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:23 pm to dchog
quote:
So it would never happen?
I cannot imagine a single realistic scenario where any NATO member would invade Russia offensively as a first strike in an armed conflict. You can?
Posted on 6/28/22 at 7:23 pm to dchog
quote:
It may never happen but it could.
Anything “could” happen. What’s the point of even making that statement?
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News