Hooah Orange Country Register: The hard truth is Turkey should be kicked out of NATO

Here:

[T]he U.S. should, quietly, plan out both Turkey’s exclusion from NATO and the destabilizing consequences to follow. Enacting the plan is so fateful a move that it must be done with as much care and forethought as possible. It should also, if and when it happens, be a turnkey operation.

Turkey defies NATO and the West again over Iranian oil

Turkey vows to keep buying Iranian oil: 'We will not obey'

Trump fires Comey from FBI, let's hope he fires Turkey from NATO next

Erdogan, our supposed ally, calls on Muslims to occupy Jerusalem.

NATO member Turkey on the brink of an elected dictatorship under Erdogan

Crazy. Ataturk set the country on a course of secularization. Erdogan is doing the reverse, in the style and guise of Ataturk.

From the story here:

Bulent Turan, a whip from the Islamist-rooted AK Party, which Erdogan co-founded, rejected opposition claims that the amendments would create an elected dictatorship, saying they sought to allow for greater government oversight and to speed up decision making. ... Turkey’s parliament was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1920 as part of a secular and Western-oriented revolution that replaced the theocratic Ottoman Empire. Should Erdogan succeed, Turkey is set to a have a president who will basically concentrate as much power as Ataturk.

Another reason to throw Turkey out of NATO: age of consent for sex lowered to 12

Story here.

Kick 'em out of NATO: Coup in Turkey staged by Islamist Erdogan, had at the ready a prepared list of 6,000 people to arrest

Reported here:

Following a failed coup attempt on Saturday, Turkish authorities on Sunday rounded up nearly 3,000 suspected military plotters, ranging from top commanders to foot soldiers, and the same number of judges and prosecutors.

Meaning of a military coup in a NATO country: The country shouldn't be in NATO

Stories everywhere.

Try here.

Sounds like the military is actually in favor of being a secularized state instead of the late Islamicized state the current government is sympathetic toward.

In which case, OK, but that's not how it's done in NATO.

Turkey is not an honest player, whether as a member of NATO or in the fight against ISIS, funneling extremists to Syria

From The New York Times, here:

"Turkey wants Mr. Assad gone, and has allowed its border with Syria to be an easy crossing point for Syrian rebels, including those the West regards as terrorists or radical Islamists; Russia wants to prop up Mr. Assad and his government. While Moscow says it is attacking the Islamic State, for the most part Russian planes and troops have been attacking the Syrian rebels, some of whom are supported by the United States and the West, who most threaten Mr. Assad’s rule."

Obama is a complete hypocrite defending Turkey's right to secure its border against air incursions by Russia. Turkey's border is deliberately porous, feeding fighter after fighter into the flames of the conflict. Turkey is a main point of entry for ISIS volunteers.

No wonder it appears to Putin that the whole of NATO is in support of ISIS.

And to others it will appear to be a grand anti-Semitic conspiracy orchestrated by a pro-Islamic American president, with the notorious Jens Stoltenberg at the helm of NATO defending Turkey's downing of the Russian SU-24:

"At a huge demonstration in central Oslo to protest Israel's independence on April 20, 2002, former Labor Party prime minister Jens Stoltenberg addressed pro-Palestinian groups waving Nazi flags. Without blinking, he endorsed their cause. 'There is one occupant, and one occupier,' he told them."

Obama is derelict in his duty, snubs new head of NATO

And the irony is Norway's Stoltenberg hates Israel as much as Obama does. Maybe Stoltenberg is too much of a right wing socialist for Obama.

Reported here by Josh Rogin:

"President Barack Obama has yet to meet with the new head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and won't see Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg this week, even though he is in Washington for three days.  Stoltenberg’s office requested a meeting with Obama well in advance of the visit, but never heard anything from the White House, two sources close to the NATO chief told me." 

America pushes NATO right up to the Russian border, the EU confiscates Cyprus' assets, and the Economist calls Putin paranoid

Proving once again that the West completely disrespects Russia. They could easily be our friends, if America were still a Christian country. That, dear friends, is the root of the problem.

The story "As ye sow, so shall ye reap: The collapse in the rouble is caused by Vladimir Putin’s belligerence, greed and paranoia" is here, in the ever arrogant Economist.

The expansion of NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries under Bill Clinton was a huge mistake

Jack F. Matlock Jr., former US ambassador to the USSR, in the Washington Post, here:

President Bill Clinton supported NATO’s bombing of Serbia without U.N. Security Council approval and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. Those moves seemed to violate the understanding that the United States would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. The effect on Russians’ trust in the United States was devastating. In 1991, polls indicated that about 80 percent of Russian citizens had a favorable view of the United States; in 1999, nearly the same percentage had an unfavorable view.

NATO Is Listing Badly To Starboard

David Warren says as much for The Ottawa Citizen here:

What use is NATO? This was the unexamined background question in Chicago, where the 28 member states and a couple dozen with “observer” status gathered for the summit ritual . . . the grand question of what NATO has been doing as the institutional face of western intervention, both realpolitik and humanitarian, in trouble spots far away from the North Atlantic. The U.S. has needed NATO as diplomatic cover for what otherwise might look like “American imperialism.” They’d use the UN if it wasn’t so full of vetoes; and “coalitions of the willing” are passé.

By increments, NATO has been transformed from a hard and necessary Eurocentric alliance against a pointed Soviet threat into a prism for political and diplomatic “optics.” ...

I have argued before that if we must have summits — and I have yet to see why — they should be held on cruise ships. (And may I recommend Costa Cruises.) ... NATO does not know what it is for. Its member governments are unable to formulate a common purpose. Its use as a flag of convenience, for exotic foreign adventures that may be popular for a brief time, subverts its function as a military alliance. It has lost the luxury of a common, public enemy.