Oh for fuck sake. You can post anywhere you want to. You know that and I know that. I was pointing out that there’s a thread called May 5, 1945 - we shall remember. and it was probably a better place than a Pit Thread to talk about relations who dies in WWII and how you feel about it.
Oh and the whole apples and oranges thing.
I hungry now.
Absolutely correct. This isn’t about the U.S., this is about slapping Turkey in the face – something the EU has turned into an art form.
When a member country invokes Article 4, there is no option. Regardless of politics, you rally round and provide the reassurance and support necessary. There is no question that Turkey feels threatened. There is also no question that Turkey is correct to feel that there is a significant risk of an attack on its territory by SCUD-equivalents with chemical or biological warheads. Yet, rather than stand with Turkey against this very real threat, France, Germany and Belguim offer this,
**
So there it is: France & Co. want to “send a signal” by potentially putting Turkish lives at risk. Beautiful. The Turks must just love this. Do you think the Turks wonder if maybe, just maybe, the French wouldn’t be quite so cavalier if those SCUDs could reach Paris?
This isn’t about “kowtowing” to the Americans because of WWII. It’s about backing up a faithful ally – Turkey. The Turks have every right to be disgusted at French, German and Belgian perfidy. They say that what goes around, comes around. Someday, Europe will need Turkey’s support very badly. If it’s not forthcoming Europe has no one to blame but themselves.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the response the OP of this thread really deserves. Class act as always, Spiny.
While I don’t fully agree with the stance Germany, France, and Belgium are taking right now (I feel they are playing a game of hardball using their NATO membership to further a cause better served by UN and EU diplomacy), they are NOT dishonouring their NATO responsibilities. They’re merely saying “reinforcing Turkey’s defense systems is a step towards war, and we’re not ready to make it”.
Argghhh. What an insult to all thinking people out there who had to read those lines.
First of all, we’re not talking about a defensive action here. Unless Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuweit a decade ago qualifies as well, of course. :rolleyes:
Secondly, your country’s military and intelligence budgets would be better spent on the thing it has proven not so capable of defending itself from: terrorism.
No, I know the potential war on Iraq is not just about oil. But for God’s sake, don’t stick your head in the sand and swallow the propaganda that it’s just about overthrowing a Big Bully and liberating those poor Iraqis, either.
Why? Because the EU advised Turkey that there are a lot of human rights issues to be worked out before their application for membership can be taken seriously? Because EU nations have used diplomatic pressure to get their citizens out of appaling conditions in Turkish jails? I’d like to see some examples of the EU “slapping Turkey in the face”, please.
There is also no question that Turkey is not under attack as of yet, and there is also no question that European NATO support can be flown into Turkey in a matter of hours.
Nonsense. If Turkey comes under attack, NATO will unite and back them up. Period. You are misrepresenting the facts here.
So, are the Turks going to lend support when the Netherlands are attacked, but not when the same thing happens to Germany? Despite NATO ties? Of course not.
“A matter of hours” doesn’t help a whole lot if the attack is a SCUD missile over Ankara, does it? AWACS and Patriot missiles, if in place beforehand, would.
Again, NATO has always provided defense against contingencies, but France, Germany, and Belgium are blocking the deployment of those defensive measures. Though they are within the letter of the treaty, their actions have hurt NATO’s credibility and forced Turkey to take an unprecedented step in invoking article 4. France, Germany, and Belgium are weasels.
What should NATO do if the US plans to invade Iraq with the backing of the UN? Send missile defense systems to Turkey. What should NATO do if the plans to invade Iraq with Turkish help, but without the backing of the UN? Send missile defense systems to Turkey. What should NATO do if the US is planning to invade Iraq unilaterally, without Turkish support? Send missile defense systems to Turkey. What should NATO do if the US plans to just keep rattling the saber at Hussein? Send missile defense systems to Turkey.
Right. “We won’t help put defenses in place before your aggressive neighbor attacks you, but don’t worry, we’ll be right there to pick you up after they do.”
Goddam shame when treaty responsibilities (not to mention Peace Prizes) are doled out based on a political agenda…
Oh, come on. I’ve already stated that I do think the three contries in question are being somewhat dishonest in using their NATO status in a primarily UN-debate. I merely add that I don’t think Germany, France, and Belgium will back away from their NATO duties when push comes to shove.
Your scenarios call for a first move by Sadam. When and if the US (by itself or in a UN mission) attacks Iraq, Turkey WILL have their NATO backing. Before that, I think a scenario of Iraqi missiles hitting Turkish soil before American bombers fly over Iraq is highly, highly improbable. Sadam is playing a dirty game, but he’s not stupid enough to make the first agressive move, especially not against a relative outsider like Turkey. He knows he’d get bombed to oblivion if he did, and his reign would be over for sure.
Also, bear in mind Turkey and Iraq both have a Kurd minority in their midst, and both countries have less than favourable track records with regards to those minorities. While Turkey never stooped to the level of Sadam (indeed, Turkey probably suffered a lot more than Iraq from what is considered Kurdish terrorism by some), it’s not unfair to say the two countries share enough common ground to make an attack on cities like Ankara unlikely.
**
Coldfire, Just three months ago, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said Turkey should never be allowed to join the EU because Turkey has “a different culture, a different approach, a different way of life”. . . . “Its capital is not in Europe, 95 per cent of its population live outside Europe. It is not a European country.” Giscard d’Estaing words do carry a bit of weight since he’s currenty heading up the effort to draft an EU constitution. But you’re right, this wasn’t a slap in the face, it was more like a kick in the face.
**
I have doubts about this and I bet the Turks have doubts about this, too.
**
You’ve crossed a line, here Coldfire. I’m not misrepresenting anything. I supplied you with a quote from the current front page article from the NY Times.
The Turks want to beef up their air defenses against surface-to-surface missiles. NATO may be quick, but I doubt seriously they could deploy in the eight minutes or so they’d have after a SCUD launch. I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of horses and barn doors.
Wow! Talk about taking things for granted! Let me put it like this. If French and German foot-dragging results in Turkish deaths, especially the high number of deaths that would result from a biological attack, there will be a backlash in Turkey that you can’t imagine. The really ironic thing, is that this would probably also provoke a serious backlash on the general Arab street, as well, even though they are opposed to an attack on Iraq. “See, you can’t trust the West. They hate Muslims! It’s bad enough to go after Muslim “enemies”, but they won’t even take care of Muslims who are supposed to be their friends.”
** Poppycock. SH has worked out exactly what he will do in the event of an attack. If he’s elected the “stir the pot” strategy (which he probably has) he will strike out as hard as he can the second the first bomb falls. If Turkey is on that list, they’ll have already been hit before Chirac wakes up enough to answer Bush’s phone call.
The one and only reason that Iraq would make any attack on Turkey is if and when iraq is being attacked from Turkish territory. I call that “self-defense” I do not call that “an attack”. The NATO charter, as has been already mentioned, says " an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all" but I do not consider this scenario to fit the bill. If Spain suddenly decides to start shooting missiles at Morocco across the Straight of Gibraltar and then Morocco starts shooting back, should NATO come to the aid of Spain? I don’t think so. NATO was conceived as a defensive pact, not as an offensive pact. It was meant to deter agression, not to encourage it. Turkey is planning on participating in an agression and expects Iraq might defend themselves. To call self defense an attack is just false.
The point is that we don’t know what Iraq will do under increased geo-political pressure. That is why NATO should allow the deployment of missile defense units in Turkey. An Iraqi first strike against Turkey is an unlikely contingency, but NATO has deployed units before on less likely contingencies. When France, Germany, and Belgium veto the deployment based on political motivations rather than on terms of likelihood of attack, they are weaseling out of their agreement. I would like everyone to forget about the likelihood of an Iraqi first strike, and focus on the conceivability. That is what NATO is supposed to do - defend and deter.
The mere fact that a nation is in non-compliance with UN resolutions should be enough for NATO to deploy the purely defensive measures of AWACS and Patriots along a member’s border. NATO renders itself irrelevant on the world stage if it will not take these steps.
Look, I don’t care what position France has on war with Iraq. Chirac can stand up in front of the UN and bang his shoe on the table in protest of American agression for all I care. However, France, Germany, and Belgium are not acting in good faith as NATO members by vetoing the the purely defensive deployment of anti-missile systems in Turkey in order to play politics.
Its attitudes like this that let Hitler advance on Europe.
Europeans and Americans alike have always been reactionary rather than proactive.
And since history has taught us that if we do not learn from the past, that we are doom to repeat it. The US is now taking a proactive stance.
Its a shame that countries like Germany and France have to wait till more innocent lives are taken before stopping it before it starts.
A few innocent lives sacrificed now will make up for the million of lives lost if we don’t attack Iraq now.
All I have to say is, “Its Time To Kick Ass”.
Please tell me I’m being whooshed. Please. Because otherwise you are a moron.
WTF Are you this stupid or am I being swooshed.
It is the other way around : following a crazy idiot like George W. Bush and swallowing all his propaganda is what brought Hitler to power.
People thinking for themselves and making well-informed decisions is what is needed to make sure fascism never rears its ugly head again.
I disagree. The only reason Turkey is at risk from Iraq is because Turkey is participating in getting ready to attack Iraq. The only thing Turkey needs to do to be safe is to not participate in the agression. France and Germany believe coming to the aid of Turkey now is, in fact, participating in the preparations for the agression and they do not want to do that and it is their right.
I ask again, if Spain starts preparing an agression against Morocco and fears Morocco might retaliate is attacked, can Spain summon Nato to provide defense against a “Moroccan attack”? I don’t think so. If Morocco took the initiative of attacking that is very diferent.
If Turkey takes the initiative of participating in the attack against Iraq, then NATO should not be obligated to participate in helping with the agression.
I find it interesting that the same people who defend the right of the USA to unilaterally attack Iraq, even against the opposition of the rest of the world, Will deny France and Germany the right to vote what they want and what their peoples want.
The same people who say the EU is not democratic or representative are now defending the British government which is clearly going against the wish of the majority of the British people and are attacking the governments of France and Germany which are clearly following the wishes of their people.
Hurrah! We have a Godwin Event!
Wooo. We’re No. 1. Let’s Roll. Book’em Dano. Let’s be careful out there. Read my lips. If you’re not with us you’re against us.
Are you enlisted?
Lock an’ load !
USA! USA! USA!