Hibijibi wrote:
> "Declan Murphy" wrote...

>>Hello? HELLO? Exactly how clueless can you be? Why should any Turk give
>>a damn if the average sepponian in the street (90%+ of whom couldn't
>>locate Turkey on a map even if their thanksgiving face-stuffing depended
>>on it) thinks Turkey hasn't bent over and been shafted far enough by
>>your lot? Why should any Turkish politician care about anything other
>>than the preferences and opinions of Turkish voters?
> 
> I wasn't talking about Turkish politicians, I was talking about Haluk's
> incorrect perception that Turkey has been an ally to the U.S.  Although I
> wish they would offer more support, I do commend the Turkish government's
> backbone in following the wishes of the Turkish public.

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.

>>As was the case in February, you are still making the same incorrect
>>assumptions.
>>http://tinyurl.com/xc6x
>>
>>1) No nation in the NATO alliance was attacked by Iraq. No NATO member
>>is under any obligation whatsoever to assist the US with unilateral
>>invasions. All of the NATO countries gave and continue to give full
>>assistance in fighting Al Queda (remember them?) Iraq's dictatorship was
>>contained, and no threat to anyone outside its borders. There was no
>>risk from NBC weapons. Put simply, the US fuckup in Iraq has nothing to
>>do with NATO.
> 
> All I was saying is they have one big-ass military, and if they're not going
> to use it now, what other situation will warrant it?  Turkey is facing the
> possibility of a very non-secular Shiite-controlled country on its border.
> Is that really what it wishes?  Would the recent terrorist attacks have
> occured if there were no Iraq conflict going on?  I don't think so.  So it's
> really in their best interest to get involved even if they didn't support
> the US war effort early on.

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. CNN etc may have you believe otherwise, but 
bombings, ambushes and assassinations in Turkey did not start this past 
week. That insurgency, not a possible Shiite regime in Iraq, is a far 
bigger threat to Turkey's national interests, as is well understood by 
the Turkish government and electorate, and already over-stretched armed 
forces. You do know where Kurdistan is don't you?

>>2) Full-scale conflict? Turkey's advice (along with most of the NATO
>>membership) was quite simple - DO NOT invade Iraq. If your government
>>had listened, your soldiers would not be in the shit that they are in
>>now. The US invaded a place without the reason, support or consultation
>>required by NATO, and overestimated the limitations of US military
>>power. Instead of trying to drag allies into the quagmire, the US should
>>be trying to find a way out. Best solution? Probably to find and
>>establish a strong secular dictator.
> 
> Unfortunately, although the US is a member of NATO, the other members don't
> really regard American territory or interests as NATO interests.

Absolutely. Unilateral US moves reflecting what the US gov perceives to 
be US interests in Iraq 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.

> This
> conflict will work itself out, give it some time.  I'd say the war is going
> relatively well in historical terms -- in 1968 the U.S. lost 14,594 men and
> many of those were draftees (which makes a hell of a difference in my mind).

The number of casualties is irrelevant. 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. Fighting Al Queda/JI is.

> Let's see, it has gone even better for Australia:  zero killed (until you
> count the journalists and 200 civilians killed in Bali). I'm not sure what
> you're complaining about.

You are continue to confuse two different wars as being one. They are 
not. One war is against Al Queda/JI - which had and continues to have 
the support of almost all Australians, likewise the French, Germans, 
Turks and many others. The other war is against an Iraqi regime. I 
personally would have preferred to have Australian security and 
intelligence resources continue to concentrate on eliminating the 
perpetrators of the attacks on NYC, Bali etc, instead of this 
unnecessary diversion. As I wrote earlier, good 'ol Osama Bin Laden must 
be laughing his arse off.






-- 
"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