Tweet
"POLICYMIC" POLITICAL NEWSPAPER REFERRED TO THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
http://lurer.com/?p=68030&l=en
2013-01-11 12:55:32
American soldiers are on their way to Turkey to precariously close
locations to the Turkish-Syrian border. While the official explanation
is that it is for the protection of Turkey (a fellow NATO member)
amid Syria's ongoing civil war, some are skeptical about the claim,
and think something more may be occurring - for all the right reasons.
Four hundred U.S. soldiers are being sent to man the anti-missile
batteries along the Turkish-Syrian border. Whether it truly is for
defensive purposes or for an impending conflict, there are a few
issues that should be discussed beforehand.
First and foremost, Turkey itself is an issue. Geopolitically, having
Turkey in NATO provides the organization with a strategic foothold
in the Middle East. Turkey is also a perennial EU hopeful that for
the past 40 years consistently fails to meet EU requirements, and
will probably never attain EU membership. Like a good NATO member,
Turkey's government, headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
had some very harsh words for the Syrian government and accused
President Bashar al-Assad of "attempted genocide."
The hypocrisy of such an accusation, however, is unknown to some.
Turkey, and its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, had managed
to go through with no less than three genocides in the past century.
Pontic Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians were all but virtually wiped
out, while the Turkish state adamantly refuses to admit they had any
direct involvement. Twenty-one countries have recognized the Armenian
massacres as genocide, while the U.S. Government has failed to do
so as to not hamper relations with Turkey, despite 43 U.S. states
recognizing the genocide. The Kurds also deserve an honorable mention
as a group that have been persecuted on-and-off for the past century,
while other ethnic and religious minorities such as the Alevis face
occasional attacks.
Going back to the issue of whether it is to defend Turkey or launch
an attack, it is probably the latter. Turkey, being a NATO member, is
guaranteed by the NATO charter that any attack on them is an attack
on NATO, and consequently all other member states. Whether Turkey
would be able to handle it themselves (and they would be), is then
irrelevant. However, would Syria even attack Turkey? Other than stray
missiles, the chances of Syria attacking Turkey are very low. It would
be very strange for a state that is on the brink of collapse, with
the central government losing control, to attack a neighboring state.
When looking at the picture as a whole, defending Turkey seems to
appear more an excuse to begin an intervention in Syria. Turkey's
involvement in the compassionate "We need to champion human rights"
discourse is a mockery to the very principle. The West must also take
into account the Vietnam scenario, and the lesser discussed Lebanon
civil war that NATO had to pull out of during Reagan's administration.
Let's not forget, Iran is a player in the Syrian fiasco as well, and
it seems that the U.S. is merely buying time until their intervention
is a "secure" one.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://lurer.com/?p=68030&l=en
2013-01-11 12:55:32
American soldiers are on their way to Turkey to precariously close
locations to the Turkish-Syrian border. While the official explanation
is that it is for the protection of Turkey (a fellow NATO member)
amid Syria's ongoing civil war, some are skeptical about the claim,
and think something more may be occurring - for all the right reasons.
Four hundred U.S. soldiers are being sent to man the anti-missile
batteries along the Turkish-Syrian border. Whether it truly is for
defensive purposes or for an impending conflict, there are a few
issues that should be discussed beforehand.
First and foremost, Turkey itself is an issue. Geopolitically, having
Turkey in NATO provides the organization with a strategic foothold
in the Middle East. Turkey is also a perennial EU hopeful that for
the past 40 years consistently fails to meet EU requirements, and
will probably never attain EU membership. Like a good NATO member,
Turkey's government, headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
had some very harsh words for the Syrian government and accused
President Bashar al-Assad of "attempted genocide."
The hypocrisy of such an accusation, however, is unknown to some.
Turkey, and its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, had managed
to go through with no less than three genocides in the past century.
Pontic Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians were all but virtually wiped
out, while the Turkish state adamantly refuses to admit they had any
direct involvement. Twenty-one countries have recognized the Armenian
massacres as genocide, while the U.S. Government has failed to do
so as to not hamper relations with Turkey, despite 43 U.S. states
recognizing the genocide. The Kurds also deserve an honorable mention
as a group that have been persecuted on-and-off for the past century,
while other ethnic and religious minorities such as the Alevis face
occasional attacks.
Going back to the issue of whether it is to defend Turkey or launch
an attack, it is probably the latter. Turkey, being a NATO member, is
guaranteed by the NATO charter that any attack on them is an attack
on NATO, and consequently all other member states. Whether Turkey
would be able to handle it themselves (and they would be), is then
irrelevant. However, would Syria even attack Turkey? Other than stray
missiles, the chances of Syria attacking Turkey are very low. It would
be very strange for a state that is on the brink of collapse, with
the central government losing control, to attack a neighboring state.
When looking at the picture as a whole, defending Turkey seems to
appear more an excuse to begin an intervention in Syria. Turkey's
involvement in the compassionate "We need to champion human rights"
discourse is a mockery to the very principle. The West must also take
into account the Vietnam scenario, and the lesser discussed Lebanon
civil war that NATO had to pull out of during Reagan's administration.
Let's not forget, Iran is a player in the Syrian fiasco as well, and
it seems that the U.S. is merely buying time until their intervention
is a "secure" one.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress