Hibijibi wrote:
>>Declan Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>Haluk's perception that Turkey has been fulfilling the role required of
>>>it by its NATO membership is 100% correct. End of story. If you commend
>>>the Turkish government's backbone in serving the national interests of
>>>Turkey, then there is no reason to complain about how they have refused
>>>to be bribed, bullied, threatened or cajoled into ditching those
>>>national interests in favor of the national interests of a foreign
>>power.
> 
> Fulfilling the role of NATO, well okay, I'll give you that I guess.  I just
> thought it was strange and somehow counterproductive for two peoples in a
> relationship to have completely opposite views of the status of that
> relationship.

While it is strange, it is perfectly understandable. Views are formed 
through the filter of media, media that reflects commercial and national 
interests, and I very much doubt that the average US and Turkish 
citizens watch/read the same media.

>>>In case you haven't noticed yet, Turkey has more than one border. In
>>>case you haven't noticed yet, Turkey has lived with one or more hostile
>>>neighbours for most of its history. In case you haven't noticed yet,
>>>Turkey has been fighting an armed internal insurgency against PKK
>>>guerillas for many years.
> 
> You're right!  (I never noticed).

Many others haven't either.

>>>are quite obviously *not* NATO interests. There
>>>was no attack *by Iraq* on the US or any other NATO member. The only
>>>attacks on/in NATO countries so far were *by Al Queda* in NYC and
>>>(possibly) Istanbul. You may regard this as unfortunate, but long may it
>>>remain thus.
> 
> There you get at the crux of the problem -- Al Qaida is not a country,
> therefore in your view, we can't attack it.

An enemy does not need to be a country for it to be targeted, monitored, 
infiltrated and hounded. What is needed to fight Al Queda is low key, 
time consuming intelligence resources, and unfortunately a lot of those 
human resources are currently tied up with the diversion in Iraq. It 
does need to be a country for it to provide ratings grabbing footage of 
high tech weaponry "look we are doing something" style headlines etc.

> In a way I understand Declan's comment, but I also need to add the 5,000
> children that were dying monthly in Iraq as a result of the economic
> sanctions. That's a severe kind of violence as well.

Indeed. Control of distribution during the food for oil program was not 
what it should have been.

>>>Compare US, Australian, and
>>>South Vietnamese losses (combined) in Vietnam during the whole of 1968
>>>with British and Australian losses on just one day - July 1st 1916. To
>>>the individuals losing a brother, son, husband etc, the total number of
>>>casualties in comparison to another ridiculous and unnecessary war 30+
>>>years ago is completely irrelevant. Exactly how many members of your
>>>family (extended or otherwise) are currently in Iraq, Kuwait or
>>>Afghanistan or have served in each/any of those zones in the last 24
>>>months? For those of us who have family serving, it makes no difference
>>>as to whether they are professionals or draftees. If they are to fight,
>>>it should be for a cause worth fighting for. "Regime change" in Iraq is
>>>not such a fight.
> 
> Thankfully, none of my family members are in those zones.

I'm glad to hear it.

> That's about it.  On the other hand, how many people did you watch die with
> your own eyes in your own city?  And how many were killed in your home town?
> All these pacifist counter-arguments to the idea that fighting war is like
> fighting someone in your home town, became rather deflated after three from
> my family's small village hundreds of miles away from NY _were_ killed.

I understand exactly what you are saying, you alluded to the effect the 
NYC attacks had on you in your posts earlier in the year. The desire for 
revenge is a powerful and understandable emotion, however I see no 
reason to blame Iraq for the losses in NYC or Bali.

I would also add that you should not make assumptions as to what other 
people have experienced in regard to terrorism, whether that be in 
Northern Ireland or through the loss of a friend in Bali, or the 
assassination of a family member's uncle in Kashmir.

(Back to the bar for another toasted sandwich, watch a bit of sport, 
drink a Murphy's stout, then bedtime methinks)



-- 
"Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the 
sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. 
The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige 
giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to 
conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be 
drained off in the attempt." - Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138