 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO1003
Let's see what the get if they hold out for 32 BILLION dollars and the deal collapses:
1.) Pissed off US
2.) Freindly French people wanting to become tourists( Uh yeah....)
3.) NO trade with Iraqui military government
4.) NO support from Brits to enter EU
5.) US military protecting Kurds from Turkish incursions into Northern Iraq.
Looks like the Turks got it all figured out. |
A few issue with this list: 1. If the Turks go into northern Iraq on their own, I fail to see what the US could do against them. We are allies, you know, with obligaitons to defend each other, while the US has no obligation to defend a third party (the Kurds).
As long as the Turks keep their HR records, their chances of joining the EU are slim, and I don't see the UK that willing to carry the torch for them anyway, even if they do go along with the war.
Lastly, all these notions that the US can somehow keep France, or Russia, or turkey, out of "our Iraq" make a total mockery of the "moral" argument for war. If we are there to 'liberate' the iraqi people, then we have no moral authority to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If we start acting as if Iraq is a new fiefdom that we can rule, then the objections of all the most far out anti-war protestors come true. You can't claim to be oing in to do the right thing, by threatening all sorts of horrors and vendettas for those who don't go along.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DuncanK
|
 |
Evil Empire
Dec 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Part of what's going on is explainable by Turkish culture. As a friend of mine, and American who works in the corporate sector here, puts it: "In America, you know you've struck a good deal when all the participants walk away happy; in Turkey, you know you've struck a good deal when all the participants walk away equally pissed off."
But also, let's face it: Turkey is the only US ally that stands to get really screwed by a war in Iraq, just like last time. The combination of losing Iraq as a trading partner and having to cope with the flood of Kurdish refugees cost Turkey far, far more than it did any other member of the coalition; their economy still hasn't recovered. That's why so many Turks are against the war. And that's why, if I were Prime Minister Gul, I'd be asking for the moon, too. |
You mention only short run costs. A Saddamless Iraq should be very beneficial to Turkey in the long run. I think they are trying to stick it to us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
A few issue with this list: 1. If the Turks go into northern Iraq on their own, I fail to see what the US could do against them. We are allies, you know, with obligaitons to defend each other, while the US has no obligation to defend a third party (the Kurds).
As long as the Turks keep their HR records, their chances of joining the EU are slim, and I don't see the UK that willing to carry the torch for them anyway, even if they do go along with the war.
Lastly, all these notions that the US can somehow keep France, or Russia, or turkey, out of "our Iraq" make a total mockery of the "moral" argument for war. If we are there to 'liberate' the iraqi people, then we have no moral authority to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If we start acting as if Iraq is a new fiefdom that we can rule, then the objections of all the most far out anti-war protestors come true. You can't claim to be oing in to do the right thing, by threatening all sorts of horrors and vendettas for those who don't go along. |
1.) Turkey will not send an uninvited armed force into a zone controled by US military. At the very least, some unfortunate accidents could happen. Also, Turkey is not willing to sacrifice its NATO relationships, which would surely be endangered by an incursion into a US controlled military zone.
2.) I have to admit that your position on Turkish entrance into the EU is probably correct. Upon further reflection, I think that it might even enhance their chances by holding out on the US. I'll give ya that one.
3.) France, Germany, and Russia are being invited to the table now. It is they that refuse to come. In my opinion, they lose their voice in a post war Iraq by their current actions.
4.) Iraq, by its action, provides the moral argument for war. No other reason is necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DuncanK
You mention only short run costs. A Saddamless Iraq should be very beneficial to Turkey in the long run. I think they are trying to stick it to us. |
No argument, but I'm sorry to say that short-term thinking is pretty much all I've ever seen in Turkey; Ataturk seems to have been the last guy to grasp the bid picture, and he's been dead for nearly 70 years.
I haven't seen the exact numbers, but I'm willing to bet that honoring the Iraq embargo -- at the US's insistance -- has cost Turkey way more than $32 billion. Note what that means: Turkey suffered massively after Gulf War I, even though they were on the winning side. I don't think they can be blamed for wanting assurances that that situation doesn't repeat.
Finally, though, I think what you're seeing here -- as in Turkey's EU bid, Arafat's' thumbing his nose at Oslo, Saddam d*cking the inspectors around, etc. -- is a culture clash between what "negotiating" means to Euro-Americans vs. what it means in Middle Eastern cultures. bassed on everything from geo-politics down to my own experiences bargining for carpets, I'm beginning to think that in the Middle East, there's no such thing as a "final answer."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
1. Turkey already has forces in northern Iraq, and how well the Us could secure Northern Iraq with the light troops we could get there is highly questionable.
3. What right do we have to say who gets a voice in post-war Iraq? That was my point. Supporters of this war want to claim we are doing this for the world's benefit. Acting then not like a liberator, but a jelous conqueror trying to control his new fiefdom invalidates such a position.
4. If so, why does the admin. sell this war on the security issue, and not on the Moral issue? For every time the admin. speaks about fgreeing the Iraqi people, they state that this is about disarmament 20 times. Take the admins own words: Whether you think it will or won't happen, according to this admin. IF Saddam actually follows 1441, then the war is off. If the admin. were trying to sell the war on the moral reasons, then whether Saddam followed 1441 or not, the war would go on.
quote:
Are you trying to justify Turkey going into Iraq, just because they have the opportunity? They would have no justification. It can't be because of Saddam. It would just be a power grab. I think the US would be very justified if we tried to prevent Turkey from taking opportunity.
We should be able to get pretty far into Northern Iraq before the Turks no what is happening anyway. |
No justification? Iraq is not following the madates of 1441: Trukey would, be default, have the same justificationw we do, to enforce previous UN resolutions. Nowhere does 1441 limit those that can enact serious consequences to the US and UK. You can be a part of the "coolition of the willing" without having to coordinate battle plans with Wahsington, no? And don't kid yourself. The Turks already have troops in Northern Iraq and will eb massing forces there as the time of war egst closer. All they have to do is drive over aborder. Besides, we will be using turkish airbases to conduct air atatcks. The Truks will know when the war comes sooner that you, or me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
"The Soviets"? what time are you refering to?
And as for "pissing everyone else": Hardly. Anyone who would get pissed at this action will still view the Us as being ultimately reponsible for the whole mess. Besides, if turkey intervenes primarily to keep the Kurds down, and Iraq a centralized state, then Iraq's neighbors will cheer, since that is what they want. Its Pandora who gets blamed for opneing the box, not anyone who might have done something afterwards.
The Turks, by doing this, might piss of the Bush admin., but if the situation gets to the point were the Turks do come in, the time of this amdin. might be rather short.
As for your assetion of us going to liberate Iraq: lets say the turks give in,and they get 26 billion: in such a deal, the Kurds still get screwed, and we haven't gotten to the Shia yet. Yes, our glorious campaingn to liberate the Sunni middle class of Central Iraq will go beautifully.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DuncanK
You are looking at things black and white. True, most of the world are against the US invasion, but the invasion is not going to piss the world off too much. There is justification for the war, it's just that most of the world doesn't think the justification is quite good enough. The US will not damage its reputation much in this actions. On the other hand if Turkey just takes an opportunity to take Iraqi territory for no other reason but expansion its reputation will be hurt very bad, especially with its strongest ally  |
You are correct in one part, the admin. has a justification for this war that most states do not buy. But on the second part, I belieev you are incorrect. The US has already daamged its reputation greatly, and if the invasion does not go wonderfully, our reputation will be further degraded. Turkey might lose its reputation with the US, but: 1. Turkey would remain an crucial ally, and 2. what is expected of the Turks is far less. The star pupil who commits a crime suffers far more damage to their reputation than the slightly unsavory kid who does the same things suffers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
|
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
As for your assetion of us going to liberate Iraq: lets say the turks give in,and they get 26 billion: in such a deal, the Kurds still get screwed, and we haven't gotten to the Shia yet. Yes, our glorious campaingn to liberate the Sunni middle class of Central Iraq will go beautifully. |
GePap, you do have a point that integrating the three main divisions into one country will be a challenge. The Turks also have a point that the Kurds have been a major trouble spot for them and this deal will probably screw them.
But (you knew it was coming)...
1.) The Kurds have been promised a more representative role in the government that will emerge. They will have greater economic benefit as those US $$ pour in. They will not have to be worried about being gased by the government. Not to bad a way to be screwed. They just will not be allowed to continue launching terrorist attacks from Iraq into Turkey anymore. The major way they will really be screwed is that it will now be virtually impossible for them to form their own state.
2.) The Sunni's hold most of the wealth in Iraq. You are correct to assume that this part of an occupation will go smoothly.
3.) The Shia's in the south are currently far to tied in with the Iranians. I would venture to guess that they provide a major conduit for Arms from Iran to Hamas. This will be the most difficult part of the occupation. However, if they are the conduit that geography and logic suggest, this is all the more reason to "liberate" them.
As you know, I've never stated that this is a war of liberation. I feel that this is a good result that will be obtained from this action. I continue to state that this has become more of a power and influence struggle than even a war over WMD. Let me remind everyone that UNSCOM final report drew some frightening conclusions about Iraqi WMD. 1441 put the burden on Iraq to prove that they did not have them, not on inspectors to find them. The inspector's job was to verify their distruction, not to seek and destroy.
I also agree with your earlier point GePap, if 1441 is complied with then no war. Iraq is soverign and the world has not spoken (through the voice of the security council) on possible terrorist links, human rights abuses, or authoritarian control. It has spoken on WMD. It is time for the Security council to enforce their words. Turkey, being a UN member should co-operate.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-02-2003 16:57
|