-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Turkey rejects U.S. troop proposal
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oric
Senior member
If I were you, I would not be so sure ...
If there is a planned future for the region, Turkey's involvement or staying out won't change a thing. We are here to stay here folks. Not helping someone harm our neighbour (I am not talking about Saddam himself) just because the motives are for self interest rather then pure humantiarian will have its own plus points in the next 100 - 500 years to come 🙂
Ever read about history of the Middle East under Ottoman Empire rule ? The single time line of tranquility in between 1514 - 1914. I am not suggesting a new empire etc but outside interventions such as French and British annexation and "divide and make them enemies" approach of 1918 are not helping the peace. That same strategy is going to be deployed for Iraq (again)
Take a look at what the Turkish market and currency are doing today. The turkish economy just went in the tank.
They don't want to host our troops, good for them. They just tossed away $30 Billion in cash and loan guarantee's and the right to have anything to say about the post Saddam Iraq.
Someday people will learn.
Oric
Senior member
I mean WHO asked "Come and remove Saddam from power, destroy all missles and WMD (missles can reach only the neighbours) and seize all the oilfields in Iraq, the second largest (potential) producer in the world because he burned a couple of oil wells in 1991"
The last time I checked Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Iran ( who fought Iraq for 10 years) Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have made no such point.
What is United States' interest ?
You MAKE YOURSELVES LOOK LÝKE CRUSADERS.
The difference is substitute Holy Land with Oil and Energy ..
I believe turkey's decision to not house US troops is not a good one. If there is a war, turkey is going to be hurt regardless. If US troops are able to go into iraq from Turkey, the war will definitely be shorter and thus, it'll be better for both sides. Turkey also get the aid package as well. So why did they turn down US troops?
Heifetz
Heifetz
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Because they do not like the idea of war to begin with and do not want to support it.
Do you think they're really that idealistic and support what they actually believe in, in the face of financial incentive? I don't think we've yet seen the conclusion to this decision. They might have voted against it just to make US increase its aid package. I'm sure there are still negotiations going on behind closed doors.
The U.N., In 17 different resolutions over 12 years.
Nobody anywhere really believes this is about the US controlling mideast oil. It's a specious argument.
How many of Kuwaits oil wells does the US control now? Zero, zip, nada.
The Kuwaiti's want Saddam gone as do the Saudi's, the Jordanians, the Iranians, everbody in the region.
This is about making sure none of Saddams WMD's end up in the hands of a terrorist group with the bank account to buy them.
Taking Saddam out personally is just a fringe benefit the the rest of his neighbors want as much as we do. The only difference is they don't have the guts to actually do something about him.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
So where is the support of people in the region for this? In case you havent checked the Turkish population and others are way way way against this. Who cares? They do, and you are going to see us having to deal with that.
Hmmm......i may be wrong but AFAIK no US troops are protecting Turkey from Iraq. The turkish military is suffeciently strong to face what ever is left of Iraqi army and probably would have been strong enough even before most of iraqi army was trashed.
I dont like to generalize so i wont but more and more americans posting here seem to show a belief of over blown role US Armed forces play in this world. And here i mean in the physical on the ground sense. Most of US Armed forces role in this world is of 'projection of power' not actual display of power (With some noteable exceptions ofcourse 😛 )
Akaz
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Have you checked the polls in Turkey?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
These are not the same arguments. It was the original that was being addressed
Exactly. It's hilarious that Tiger has spoken authoritatively for billions of people worldwide, including for the Bush administration and military planners that actually matter. He must be really tapped into an omnicient intelligence network that I can't begin to imagine.
Few Americans would say the U.S. is expressly interested in "stealing" Iraq's oil (although some of the Bush-supporting conservatives in ATOT strongly hope the U.S. uses Iraqi oil proceeds to "rebuild" the country since few allies will chip in $$). However, to dismiss Iraq's completely underutilized oil reserves as a motive or strategic interest is laughable at best. U.S. officials can blame France for having lucrative oil interests in a post-sanctions Iraq, but the U.S. (which consumes 25% of the world's oil) has ZERO interests?
YEAH, riiiiight Tiger. I wasn't trying to be demeaning, but that statement was pretty funny (and it certainly piqued Hayabusarider's interest as well). You've completely reframed the argument anyhow; you initially claimed nobody anywhere had a certain belief and now you're demanding proof of official U.S. policy on Iraq. Two entirely different things.
Oric
Senior member
Good question Heifetz ...
Here is an answer with another question
"Knowing all this very well, (The Iraq incident is #1 news in Turkey for the last 2 months and endless debates have been made) why have we (Turks) decided to say NO?"
Hint : No moral or international law support like 1991, Saddam being quiet with hands tied down ...
Look, I am a very much pro-West, pro-American person ... I have been to US for 2 years and I understand how you feel or how everyting is presented to you, but it is all deception to fool the general public. Things are not as simple as good guys & bad guys.
What should USA do (my opinion)
Using the war threat as a leverage try to get rid of any WMD or tactical war power Saddam has and let everyting ran in its own course
Could you do that ? No ... because European, Russian and chinese oil companies have an interest in Iraqi oil ... It may be too late tomorrow
TURKEY JUST WANTS TO STAY OUT OF THIS DIRTY WAR ... LEAVE US ALONE
In a news analysis, the L.A. Times asserts that the Turkey vote did not pass because the Bush administration once again dropped the ball in selling the war to an ally. The subtitle is:
Ultimatums and other perceived insensitivities may have doomed access for ground forces.
Personally, I find this argument fairly compelling. Like James Carville (no snickers please) said on CNN, how in the heck can the Bush administration be losing a PR war against Saddam Hussein? Sure Saddam has been shifty and uncooperative (and much worse) for over a decade, playing the U.N. for a fool, but why should this even be a split decision? Really, unilateral invasion shouldn't even be more than an afterthought with all the allies and a target that few people actually love or support.
Saddam's craftiness aside, there's almost no question the Bush administration has done a marginal job at convincing key allies, and particularly popular sentiment worldwide, that war is the only remaining option. Bush's own careless cowboy rhetoric in speeches and the heavy-handed tactics cited by the L.A. Times had an important influence on foreign leaders.
I still think the administration has already decided on forceful removal of Saddam, UNSC approval or otherwise, and that the odds of an ugly, protracted conflict are not likely. Even so, the true costs diplomatically and otherwise won't be tallied for years to come. Without Security Council approval, the political careers of both England's Tony Blair and Spain's prime minister become significantly more threatened.
Ultimatums and other perceived insensitivities may have doomed access for ground forces.
Personally, I find this argument fairly compelling. Like James Carville (no snickers please) said on CNN, how in the heck can the Bush administration be losing a PR war against Saddam Hussein? Sure Saddam has been shifty and uncooperative (and much worse) for over a decade, playing the U.N. for a fool, but why should this even be a split decision? Really, unilateral invasion shouldn't even be more than an afterthought with all the allies and a target that few people actually love or support.
Saddam's craftiness aside, there's almost no question the Bush administration has done a marginal job at convincing key allies, and particularly popular sentiment worldwide, that war is the only remaining option. Bush's own careless cowboy rhetoric in speeches and the heavy-handed tactics cited by the L.A. Times had an important influence on foreign leaders.
I still think the administration has already decided on forceful removal of Saddam, UNSC approval or otherwise, and that the odds of an ugly, protracted conflict are not likely. Even so, the true costs diplomatically and otherwise won't be tallied for years to come. Without Security Council approval, the political careers of both England's Tony Blair and Spain's prime minister become significantly more threatened.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
