What will Turkey's cooperation cost us?

[BOBDN]

"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

Oh well, just another $8.5 billion. A drop in the bucket compared with $87 billion, right?

WTF, we can afford it, right? After all, we have to bail out George and Tony, right?


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7497778%255E1702,00.html

 

[Lonyo]

It could be that spending 8.5 billion getting Turkey to help could save the US some $$$ in the long run in terms of keeping troops out there etc.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
It could be that spending 8.5 billion getting Turkey to help could save the US some $$$ in the long run in terms of keeping troops out there etc.

Or it could be we're just adding another $8.5 billion (that the Bush administration will admit to) to the hundreds of billions of dollars we've already wasted in Iraq to end the "threat" Saddam posed to the USA. LMFAO

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

Oh well, just another $8.5 billion. A drop in the bucket compared with $87 billion, right?

WTF, we can afford it, right? After all, we have to bail out George and Tony, right?


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7497778%255E1702,00.html

Maybe you should answer the question, what will using Turkish forces save the US.
I would imagine keeping 10,000 turkish troops in Iraq would be far cheaper than 10,000 US troops in Iraq.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN
"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

Oh well, just another $8.5 billion. A drop in the bucket compared with $87 billion, right?

WTF, we can afford it, right? After all, we have to bail out George and Tony, right?


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7497778%255E1702,00.html

Maybe you should answer the question, what will using Turkish forces save the US.
I would imagine keeping 10,000 turkish troops in Iraq would be far cheaper than 10,000 US troops in Iraq.

Not when you consider the problems they will cause with the Kurds. We should keep Turkey out of Iraq.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN
"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

Oh well, just another $8.5 billion. A drop in the bucket compared with $87 billion, right?

WTF, we can afford it, right? After all, we have to bail out George and Tony, right?


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7497778%255E1702,00.html

Maybe you should answer the question, what will using Turkish forces save the US.
I would imagine keeping 10,000 turkish troops in Iraq would be far cheaper than 10,000 US troops in Iraq.

Not when you consider the problems they will cause with the Kurds. We should keep Turkey out of Iraq.

I dont think we would be required to station them around the kurds.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Not when you consider the problems they will cause with the Kurds. We should keep Turkey out of Iraq.

I dont think we would be required to station them around the kurds.

In theory, that might work. However, it will still inflame the Kurds, and the Turks will almost certainly travel through the Kurdish part of Iraq to get to wherever they're stationed. While we could use the help, I think this is an unreasonable risk.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Not when you consider the problems they will cause with the Kurds. We should keep Turkey out of Iraq.

I dont think we would be required to station them around the kurds.

In theory, that might work. However, it will still inflame the Kurds, and the Turks will almost certainly travel through the Kurdish part of Iraq to get to wherever they're stationed. While we could use the help, I think this is an unreasonable risk.

Does it inflame the kurds to trade with the turks? or should we just seal that border and cease that trade that is occuring now?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Not when you consider the problems they will cause with the Kurds. We should keep Turkey out of Iraq.

I dont think we would be required to station them around the kurds.

In theory, that might work. However, it will still inflame the Kurds, and the Turks will almost certainly travel through the Kurdish part of Iraq to get to wherever they're stationed. While we could use the help, I think this is an unreasonable risk.

Does it inflame the kurds to trade with the turks? or should we just seal that border and cease that trade that is occuring now?

No, it would inflame the Kurds to have Turkish military forces operating in their country. That was a straw man.

 

[Gaard]

I suppose any help is good...for us anyways. It's just a shame that we have to buy the help. I remember in the thread(s) dealing with America's refusal to relinquish any control in order to garner enough support to get another resolution passed, someone said (I think it was you Charrison) that if anyone wants to help, they'd do so out of a sense of what's right. Now are those who were up in arms over France's seemingly act of putting financial gain over what's best for Iraq feeling the same sense of disgust over Turkey? Granted, it's a loan and not a gift, but it's still money over humanity...so to speak.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I suppose any help is good...for us anyways. It's just a shame that we have to buy the help. I remember in the thread(s) dealing with America's refusal to relinquish any control in order to garner enough support to get another resolution passed, someone said (I think it was you Charrison) that if anyone wants to help, they'd do so out of a sense of what's right. Now are those who were up in arms over France's seemingly act of putting financial gain over what's best for Iraq feeling the same sense of disgust over Turkey? Granted, it's a loan and not a gift, but it's still money over humanity...so to speak.

Money over humanity and the chance for Turkey to get a foothold in Iraq. A foothold they haven't had since the end of the Ottoman Empire.

None of the members of the US appointed Iraq Governing Council want Turkish troops in Iraq. As a matter of fact none of them want ANY of their neighbors troops in Iraq.

I wonder what they know that Bush and Co. doesn't.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

In theory, that might work. However, it will still inflame the Kurds, and the Turks will almost certainly travel through the Kurdish part of Iraq to get to wherever they're stationed. While we could use the help, I think this is an unreasonable risk.

Actually, the Iraqi Governing "Puppet" Council is uniformly opposed to the presence of any troops from neighboring countries. Turkey already has troops in northern Iraq but have pledged not to move any more troops into the region. It will be interesting to see how many casualties the Turks will tolerate before they feel a need to "modify" their presence in Iraq.

Ultimately Turkey's cooperation will likely cost them EU admission . . . but that probably wasn't going to happen anyway.

 

[Lucky]

In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition.

That's really not accurate. The loan was converted from a 1 billion dollar grant that was given some six months ago. The additional 7.5B loan was not directly tied to this military action, but it is tied to approval and aherance to an IMF approved recovery plan. If this was just about turkey and money then they would taken a six billion dollar grant and 24 billion dollar loan to simply let us use them as a staging area for northern iraq in the beginning of the war.

also, from what i can tell this is a fairly accurate current story on the governing council, its stance on the turkey troops issue, and its relations with washington: link

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

This loan IS tied to "cooperation" with US efforts in Iraq.

 

[Lucky]

where do you read that? also edited post to add a link

 

[Gaard]

"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Gaard
"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

and i said i dont think that is accurate. its a story from an australian newspaper and it does not even have a named sourced byline.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Gaard
"In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, Washington has granted Turkey a loan of $US8.5 billion ($12.42 billion) in a deal that was criticised by the opposition."

Seems pretty cut and dried.

So as Lucky suggested if it was about money alone why would Turkey have not taken the greater amount earlier just to let the US use their bases as a staging point?

Maybe they were more uncertain then about the outcome of the invasion. Maybe the political climate changed in Turkey.

Or if it isn't about the money maybe Turkey is dying to have a military presence in Iraq to tip the balance in their favor regarding their problem with the Kurds.

If that is the case Bush bringing Turkey into Iraq is just lighting another fuse on another time bomb.

 

[Gaard]

Ok. You just asked "where do you read that?"

 

[LunarRay]

Well I'd hope we wouldn't give money to elicit opposition..

Seems like this meets the test of 'the best made plans of mice...' as we venture into the land where the good guys wear a large red cross on the covering of their chain mail armour.

I remember years ago seeing Crusader Rabbit battling the bad guys.. and they like the Road Runners Wolf are dumb... such is life..

 

[BOBDN]

Here is the perspective from Arab News regarding Turkey's proposed involvement in Iraq.

Does anyone think Turkey will either bend under pressure from other Muslim states or just squeeze the Bush administration for more cash as they tried prior to the invasion?

 

[Gaard]

A little OT...

(from your link BOB)
Mahathir said he suspected the Israeli raid on a Syrian target was a ploy to encourage Washington to harden its already tough line against Damascus.

?Israel has been urging America to invade Syria and America seems to be reluctant,? Mahathir said. ?So in order to force the hand of the Americans, Israel invades Syria and the Americans will have to support it. Otherwise the candidates for presidency in the US will lose the Jewish vote,? Mahathir added.

Does this guy have a valid point?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Gaard
A little OT...

(from your link BOB)
Mahathir said he suspected the Israeli raid on a Syrian target was a ploy to encourage Washington to harden its already tough line against Damascus.

?Israel has been urging America to invade Syria and America seems to be reluctant,? Mahathir said. ?So in order to force the hand of the Americans, Israel invades Syria and the Americans will have to support it. Otherwise the candidates for presidency in the US will lose the Jewish vote,? Mahathir added.

Does this guy have a valid point?

I think Bush has absolutely no interest in invading Syria at this moment.

Let's assume the worst regarding his character, and state he would like to do so. Well, he wants to get re-elected more than anything else. Bush was no doubt suprised by the level of resistance to the $87 billion installment payment on Iraq. Now, if he loses every single Jewish voter (which would not happen, but lets assume so), that pales in comparison to him announcing that there is another bill in the mail in the form of a Syrian war. People may love to wave a flag and kick a butt, but only if it's free.

Now if Bush gets returned to office, all bets are off, since he could crush the world, and not have to worry about running again. That prospect is among the more frightening out there.

 

[LunarRay]

That last sentence, Winston, scares the heck out of me..

 

[KGB1]

Originally posted by: Gaard
A little OT...

(from your link BOB)
Mahathir said he suspected the Israeli raid on a Syrian target was a ploy to encourage Washington to harden its already tough line against Damascus.

?Israel has been urging America to invade Syria and America seems to be reluctant,? Mahathir said. ?So in order to force the hand of the Americans, Israel invades Syria and the Americans will have to support it. Otherwise the candidates for presidency in the US will lose the Jewish vote,? Mahathir added.

Does this guy have a valid point?

Jewish vote? Is there such a thing? Didn't the 2000 cencus show how few Jewish American's there were? I mean politicians go after minorities, middle america, where does that leave the Jewish vote? Lieberman? Even with ALL the Jewish vote, he wouldn't be president. Don't look at the jewish vote for america to do anything. Unless you mean by that there is a greater jewish "influence" in the white house/govt then thats a different story.

Also before the war started when Turkey was offered $9Billion to let american troops use their bases and they refused, a HUGE uproar came-about people protesting of the BuyOut of Turkey. However couple weeks later US GRANTED Israel $10 Billion dollars and NO-ONE said anything. Why does Israel deserve that Money? And NO-ONE said a peep.. double standard

However Turkey just wants part of any oil deal they can claim as their's if their have balls to say it. Also a good loan from IMF and a grant from the US. Many old settlers in Iraq call themselves TurkMen, so Turkey is actually trying to give safety and protection from the Kurds who are more likely to going to drive them out of their land.

Also the Kurds want their own piece of land, (Part in Iraq, Iran and Turkey) The US is reluctant to help them gain it. The US leaders try to categorize the Kurds, Turkmen etc.. as ALL IRAQIS.

This however is untrue and the Kurds have their own well equipped army. While most of American/British efforts will go into Baghdad and lower regions of Iraq, the Northern part is largely being left alone. America really doesn't have the resources to look after it. Given that it is very calm there for now. We'll see in the coming months how this will tape out.