The argument you bring seems similar to what people say about the Crimea-Crisis (that 'the west' isn't allowed to complain because of Bosnia). Just because 'the west' interfered illegally in Bosnia, doesn't give Russia a free pass to do so as well.

Not really. The particular concern about limiting future expansion of European colonialism at its center (inasfar as the part of it that might justify US action is concerned) hasn't really been a concern really since the early 20th Century, though the name was dusted off by some (misleadingly) in the Cold War for applications of the Kennedy Doctrine within the Western Hemisphere, and the doctrine was explicitly described as being dead by Secretary of State John Kerry last year.

> It allows for the invasion of foreign country's when the us feels threatened right?

Not as actually articulated by Monroe (in fact, if the country was in Europe, its specifically negated some justifications for involvement).

The problem with Syria is that the government is in the right. Or at least, it's less wrong. The rebels want to do religious cleansing of the country and the government wants to survive, and it's own ethnic group to survive. Of course Iran, equally being the target of the sunni muslim religious cleansing, supports their not-quite-brothers. Erdogan wants to "help" the rebels because he's on the side that wants to do ethnic and religious cleansing in Syria, and presumably because it would distract from his local problems. The problem in Iraq is the same basic thing. The good thing is that sunni muslim attacks in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are mostly their actions out of western nations.

But please don't be so stupid as to think they're ok with the US and generally the rest of the world just because they don't want to turn a 5-front war into a 100-front one. And also don't make the mistake of assuming they don't have support in America or don't have massive support in Europe. Both from local muslims living there, and from the governments that are afraid of these mad attacks.

As for Turkey, what do you really expect the leader of a sunni muslim religious party to do, except declare himself caliph and behave like he owns the world ? What exactly do you think he means when he says that "some" parts of sharia should be introduced ? You think he means to stop at "some" ? Really ? Religious freedom ? Sadly there are hundreds of millions of people who believe doing this is the answer to all the world's problems.

Please keep in mind that before Kemal Ataturk, Turkey, then the Ottoman empire, effectively the state of sunni islam that so many muslims are trying to recreate, had waged a 1500-year long war against the Europe, Asia and Africa. Then in WWI allah's caliph was overthrown, all but declared illegal (you wouldn't believe the number of imams killed and threatened in the 1918 - today period), and the war stopped, to be replaced with the cold war. The nightmare scenario is that this original war resumes.

[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/19/turkeys-abru...

Pearl Harbor? What are you smoking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

By late 2003 it was already clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods DoD proposal that "called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere... public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts..."

Also see "Gulf of Tonkin incident." Any others?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/turkey-shoots-d...

Also interesting how there has been very little action about the blackouts from the State Dept talking heads (beyond the toothless shaming), if this had been a country not doing the bidding of tptb we would probably hear of sanctions against turkish corps in the us.

Who are you quoting? And is "conspiracy" just a pejorative word for 'intervention' or 'decision?'

>That their people did not have serious grievances with a regime that tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people for political reasons even before the current conflict started?

Are you suggesting that your first statement and your second statement are equivalent? That people did have serious grievances before the current conflict would lead me to ask 'why now?'

Some of those interests have been well stated by the CFR[1] and RAND years…

Besides, "the west" didn't step into Iraq until the beginning of the 90's (and even then didn't dispose him until the 00's) while Saddam who was being bankrolled by the west was doing their bidding as well as torturing and murdering tens of thousands of people in the 80's… and even now, thousands more continue to die in northern Iraq and I don't hear people parroting that around, so lets not try to evoke the knee jerk emotions and remember all "sides" have blood on their hands in pursuit of their self interests…

[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-syria-crisis-sa... [1] http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mi...

Also, Assad left any shred of legitimacy when he started decimating his population with artillery, and I don't how care how many "legitimate targets" where among the hundreds of thousands of civilians that were targeted.

For me, the only tolerance a democracy can have towards the governments in Syria, North Korea and some other countries, is that nobody can or wants to depose them. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not mean regime change works all the time, it just means there cannot be any apologetics for mass these murderers any more.

I ask because, well, after weeks knowing that their conversations were being intercepted, it would be utterly stupid to still discuss sensitive matters on the phone.

If on the contrary, they're old recordings, this seems like a strategy by the spies to slowly release damning evidence. Nice.

What you can do is to change phones and to loudly complain with your counter-espionage and police arms that this stuff shouldn't happen. Except Erdogan has lost most of those constituencies already, which is why these leaks are happening in the first place.

Recently ISID threatened Turkey to attack Sulaiman Sah and after that government started to think about a military attack to that area.

You can't just say "they want to attack Syria to strength Erdogan's position."

http://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/21i3u1/turkish_forei...