Posted on 03/01/2003 6:06:48 PM PST by TheOtherOne
From their point of view, you can understand why they want ALOT OF MONEY and a gaurantee that we'd help them with refugees exc... We can send part of the blame for this to France, Germany and Belgium. Remember when they said they wouldn't give Turkey protection under NATO? It shocked alot of people and that had to make them(Turkey) skittish.
Now they go against us at the last minute? Why? I think I smell a 'RAT . Just a thought but: Picture that Turkey is seeing all these protests on TV and in their own country , (not to mention the Dan Rather interview with Saddam, where Dan treats him like he's a Nobel Prize winner). Then, say the government officials in Turkey get a call from some one, (or several people), from that other political party in the U.S.A ( whose best interest IS NOT SERVED by our having success in Iraq) and they tell them how they, the demac'RATS, don't want war, that our counrty is divided and in turmoil about it ,and that our ecconomy is in bad shape exc.., and that Turkey might lose out on any benefits because of this instability, and well; since they were already insecure because of the shocking NATO decision to not protect them, it kinda makes sense they'd back out.
If you add to this mix that the phone calls might have come from people very high up on the political ladder,(say an ex president or two maybe) they would really have a reason to not trust us. My imagination might be running away with me here, but considering all the things that we know went on in the previous administration, and all that was rumored to have gone on, it doesn't seem so far fetched. (Let's not forget that unauthorized visit to North Korea made by that representative of New Mexico (and former member of the previous administration) right about the time they started threatening us about their nuclear weapons and that OTHER party has used this in arguments against going to Iraq ever since then). But, maybe I read too many political intrigue novels. Then again maybe I just REALLY don't like demacrats, hence my tag line.
IOW, one side sees it as "Turkish oppression of the Kurds"; the other side sees it as, "we'd rather not have our country torn apart".
From a defensive point of view, Turkey might be judging the "economic issues" to be of less importance than supporting a US Invasion which could (theoretically) touch off a general Kurdish Independence war in Iraq, Iran, and... Turkey.
From an offensive point of view, OTOH, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Turkey has already run the numbers and decided that Turkish occupation of the Kirkuk and Mosul oil-fields is more profitable than the US offer.
Turkey has been acting awfully squirrelly lately, and it really would not surprise me a bit to see the Turks sieze upon the event of a US invasion of Southern Iraq to funnel an entire Corps of the Turkish Second Army into northern Iraq, on grounds of "pursuing Al Qaeda terrorists" (remember, Al Qaeda elements are known to be operating amongst the Iraqi Kurds).
Given the fact that the Turkish Army enjoys a unique de facto "Veto" over Turkish Politics ("We will not allow the Islamists to institute Shari'ah; we will remain a Democracy!! So says the Turkish Army"...), if the Turkish Army has deduced that control over the Northern Iraqi oilfields and suppression of Kurdish Insurrectionist elements is preferable to "$30 billion in Loan Guarantees" which they would have to pay back anyway, I would not be surprised if the Turkish Army decided to present the USA with a Turkish occupation of Northern Iraq as a fait accompli.
"We are your Faithful Allies; and as your Faithful Allies, we have instituted a rigorous Military prosecution of terrorist elements within Northern Iraq. Whadd'ya think about them apples?"
Rather, I suspect that they Turkey is comfortable with "the US projecting its power into the region", provided that it is commensurate with their own.
And one can hardly blame them, it being their back-yard and all.
Gotta luv Rummy, his press conferences are never boring, that's for sure.
This thread reads like a mob in the street. Yes, we (the U.S.) were depending on this approval, but a reading of what took place is that the measure did recieve a majority of votes and the support of Gul. The measure did not gain effect due to parliamentary rules. I don't see this as Turkey jumping ship as an alley (as I see France), I see it as the playing out of politics due to the party in power. It is an inexperienced party in terms of foreign affairs and is not looking at the benefits that participation would bring in terms of its own interests.
I, for one, will not be so quick to write off Turkey as an alley, or to denigrate their military. Turkey did not participate in GWI, but continued to be an alley of the U.S. When 94% of the public is against participation in a war right on its border, that voice must have its say. It isn't to say that that voice is an informed voice; there will be a lost opportunity to participate in the restructuring of post-war Northern Iraq. But people who misread this situation as anti-American in the same vein as France I believe (I hope) are wrong. We would never had had even a chance of assistance from such purported NATO allies as Greece, for example.
There' been a lot of demagogory on this thread Turk, and I apologize for it. Turkey and the U.S. will continue to be allies; those lacking political finesse on both sides will learn their lesson, I hope.
That has been my thought exactly. They will seize the oilfields and claim stemming Kurdish terrorism as the reason for their actions.
While we still have the most powerful weapons, we lack the will to overcome the unconscionable numbers of American Socialists (and their even more numerous "useful idiots") that our politicians feel some strong need to appease. This country has been starving for true leadership since the days of Patton. While JFK did give us a brief glimpse (man on the moon), Reagan is really the only man who that projected dynamic purposefulness.
While discussing Iraq with a friend, one of the hard-core liberals in my class (who owns her own business is surprises many from time to time with her pro-business stances) interjected her opinion and said that there was just one thing about GWB she couldn't stand. I braced for some talking-points insult, like "dumb". She stunned me when she said that he just couldn't be like Clinton because nobody on the world stage ever wanted to stand against him, and he wasn't being more like Reagan: just doing the right thing without waiting for permission. He was trying to play both sides, and it gave her the feeling of watching a politician, and not a leader. I was stunned, and could not find much room to argue. (It's rare when I can't thump her with a solid retort.) Maybe that thought is just playing up to my hawkish side, but I find myself in almost complete agreement.
The world truly and desperately needs a real leader today, who will ignore the nattering nabobs, and just do what is right. Why we feel the need to appease those who have proven, ad infinitum, that they will oppose anything that we propose, no matter how righteous, proper, or necessary?
Another totally misleading, stupid AP headline...
It wasn't the Turkish Parliament that rejected the plan, it was the speaker who cancelled a PRO vote!!!
Nukes are not the only way to increase the level of violence. The region is already unstable and has been since the British and French overthrew Turkish rule during the First World War. If the Turks want to prevent a federal Iraq under an American military umbrella, then there is no better way to achieve this outcome than to stop what amounts to movement in an Islamist direction. Germany may be gratified by this blow against American prestige, but will they, on reflection, be happy at the thought that the Turks among them might become less interested in assimilation? This revolt in the ruling party of Turkey shows cldarly that the religious influence is on the increase and it is a relgious influence that has no history of tolerance in the sense that we understand it. Is Kemalism be on the wane, and if so,what does this portend for Europe?
This will provoke the Turkish military to conduct another purge of Islamics.
BUMP
Useless imbeciles, falling of the old 'support your local Muslim tyrant because he is Muslim' trick ... they needed to here Aziz Al - Taee, from Iraq, speak the truth.
"Saddam has killed more muslims than any other man in the world." - Aziz Al -Taee, at the patriots rally.
"Be on the side of the iraqi people, not on the side of mass-killers and murderers like saddam Hussein." he said his own cousin was killed, a fellow member on the state was tortured by electrocution, and another man lost 157 fellow tribesman. he mention halabja in march 1988, where 10,000 kurds were killed by chemical gas in one day.
"The Iraqi people are ready for liberation, they will welcome the forces of liberation .. we are not pro-war, but we are pro-liberation. the Iraqi people want to be liberated. ..." ... "Saddam Hussein is the real warmonger"
It is amazing (and sad) that a protest of people to defend Saddam Husein brings thousands more than a protest that calls for liberation of Iraq *from* this tyrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.