What's up with these countries not allowing NATO to protect Turkey? It seems to me, that France (who has been invaded by none other than the Germans twice this century) would be sympathetic to Turkey's situation. I can understand if these countries don't want to participate or even support the war on Iraq (I'm not thrilled with the idea, personally) but jeez at least allow us to PROTECT a fellow country from chemical and biological weapons.
What's up with Germany, France and Belgium?
- Thread starter themacko
- Start date
Cat
Registered
They all have stated that they do not want to take a decision regarding Turkey's request before the weapon inspector's report. AFAIK this is their point of view. They all have said they take their duties as NATO countries very seriously etc. but they simply don't want to get ahead of developments and provoke an attack by massing troops at the border with Iraq. I think it's a good thing, what they did. First the highest organ gets to make a decision: the UN security council. And it must be a well-informed decision, thus we wait for the final report. No need to get ahead of times. If NAVO was to take for granted that a war is coming, the whole buisness of inspections etc. would indeed have been useless.
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
actually the turks (ottomans) killed, enslaved and plundered a lot of people (like the greeks) for centuries before the kurds and armenians. -- history is history though, we cannot hold the germans responsible for something hitler did, and I do not hold current day turks for what their ancestor Sulleiman did to my people, the greeks, however if they are fanatic SOBs like some turks, I have no compasion for them. Fanatisism is where I draw the line, I only wish to talk to the educated people that use their heads.
As far as FR, DE, and Belgium go... they are a bunch of people that have their undies soiled by being in bed with iraq and their oil for the last decade, if they did not oppose this and other measures the dirt would come out.
As far as FR, DE, and Belgium go... they are a bunch of people that have their undies soiled by being in bed with iraq and their oil for the last decade, if they did not oppose this and other measures the dirt would come out.
toast
Gone !
So much posts, so little knowledge.
What the hell are you insinuating ? That Turkey is likely to be invaded by Iraq ? Not only this theory is completely absurd and fictitious, it also shows a great lack of information and knowledge about how international relations work in the Middle East.
You should know Turkey has its weapons of its own, no need for NATO weapons.
2) The first ever genocide was Japanese (1905), although it's not mentioned nor reckoned by your occidental education.
European undies are soiled just the same way American ones are. Of you don't understand this, why don't you:
1) read the OPEC fundation chart ?
2) read the damn news about BP ? Do you know the US part of BP's initial budget and shares ?
Back to initial question. France, Germany and Belgium are not refusing any help to Turkey, which they are planning to accept in the European Union. What a paradox it would be if they were refusing help !
No, FR, GER and BEL are refusing to deploy armament, as "it would look too much like a preparation to war", to quote my own President M Jacques Chirac.
Plus, if you knew the history of your own country a bit more, you would knew that Turkey has bought anti-Patriot missile heads from the 70s to the US (because of the SALT treaties), and that those heads are still valid today.
What the hell are you insinuating ? That Turkey is likely to be invaded by Iraq ? Not only this theory is completely absurd and fictitious, it also shows a great lack of information and knowledge about how international relations work in the Middle East.
You should know Turkey has its weapons of its own, no need for NATO weapons.
1) Turks aren't genocidal scum any more. Show respect, please. Brits have been genocidal scum too.
2) The first ever genocide was Japanese (1905), although it's not mentioned nor reckoned by your occidental education.
European undies are soiled just the same way American ones are. Of you don't understand this, why don't you:
1) read the OPEC fundation chart ?
2) read the damn news about BP ? Do you know the US part of BP's initial budget and shares ?
Back to initial question. France, Germany and Belgium are not refusing any help to Turkey, which they are planning to accept in the European Union. What a paradox it would be if they were refusing help !
No, FR, GER and BEL are refusing to deploy armament, as "it would look too much like a preparation to war", to quote my own President M Jacques Chirac.
Plus, if you knew the history of your own country a bit more, you would knew that Turkey has bought anti-Patriot missile heads from the 70s to the US (because of the SALT treaties), and that those heads are still valid today.
toast
Gone !
Originally posted by Pengu
While we're handing out slander.
What about nuking small pacific islands? Is that a preparation for war?
Nope. It's called showing off nuk. disuasion. There you are
. Obviously the Papeete nuking was awfully stupid, we do agree. But it did not threaten human lives, BTW.
Ugg
Registered
Hmmmm, what a mess the world is today. Whatever the outcome, I do believe this is the beginning of the end of the American century and it is about time
The US wants to show that it doesn't believe all Muslims are bad, only those that disagree with its policies. The fact that the EU voted NOT to allow Turkey entry into the EU is a large part of this equation. The reason they voted no was due in large part to Turkey's flaming violations of human rights.
Iraq will probably not invade Turkey, they don't have the weapons for one thing and the US is currently controlling the northern territory and has been systematically bombing northern Iraq for the last ten years. Of course northern Iraq is where the Iraqi Kurds live. So by insisting that Turkey will be bombed by Iraq, the US is able to force NATO into a showdown and Turkey will be able to arm the border with Iraq even more than it is now. Also Turkey has been granted by the us the permission to commit genocide against not only the Kurds in Turkey but the Iraqi Kurds who will surely show up as refugees. A greater border threat by far is Iran.
dubya, rummy, arschcroft and now even Colin Powell want us to believe in a fundamentalist christian world of unrelenting severity. Where only the righteous shall rule the world and only the FCs shall be the righteous. Obviously, I disagree.
The US wants to show that it doesn't believe all Muslims are bad, only those that disagree with its policies. The fact that the EU voted NOT to allow Turkey entry into the EU is a large part of this equation. The reason they voted no was due in large part to Turkey's flaming violations of human rights.
Iraq will probably not invade Turkey, they don't have the weapons for one thing and the US is currently controlling the northern territory and has been systematically bombing northern Iraq for the last ten years. Of course northern Iraq is where the Iraqi Kurds live. So by insisting that Turkey will be bombed by Iraq, the US is able to force NATO into a showdown and Turkey will be able to arm the border with Iraq even more than it is now. Also Turkey has been granted by the us the permission to commit genocide against not only the Kurds in Turkey but the Iraqi Kurds who will surely show up as refugees. A greater border threat by far is Iran.
dubya, rummy, arschcroft and now even Colin Powell want us to believe in a fundamentalist christian world of unrelenting severity. Where only the righteous shall rule the world and only the FCs shall be the righteous. Obviously, I disagree.
Joung (6-10) children in Switzerland have been asked what they think about a war in Iraq. Many said they were afraid. Afraid of what ? Afraid of USA attacking Europe.
It may sound strange as USA never spoke about that, but in the head of children here, they remind several economical conflicts with the USA and they don't understand why USA want to attack Iraq... therefore they are afraid that the next target of USA may be Europe. They are more afraid of the USA than of the mulsim extremists (that already committed several terrorist attacks in Europe in the 90's).
It may sound strange as USA never spoke about that, but in the head of children here, they remind several economical conflicts with the USA and they don't understand why USA want to attack Iraq... therefore they are afraid that the next target of USA may be Europe. They are more afraid of the USA than of the mulsim extremists (that already committed several terrorist attacks in Europe in the 90's).
Ugg
Registered
I remember a trip to Canada in the early 80s and talking to a bunch of people about how many Canadians were afraid of the US taking over Canada. It seemed ludicrous then as it does now. The US I think if nothing else, has learned the lessons that Europe is still paying for. Colonies are expensive, messy things to have. France is still paying the price in Cote d'Ivoire.
Having said that, I think that there is no doubt that the us wants nothing more or less than the entire world to dance to its tune and will let nothing stand in its way. The rest of the world has seemed to take a passive approach to the US desire for control these past few decades, as long as the US was the world's policeman. Now that it is clear the the policeman is morally corrupt, we will all pay the price for such a laisser faire attitude.
If even children from Switzerland fear the destructive force of the US then it can only be too apparent that the US has gone too far.
Having said that, I think that there is no doubt that the us wants nothing more or less than the entire world to dance to its tune and will let nothing stand in its way. The rest of the world has seemed to take a passive approach to the US desire for control these past few decades, as long as the US was the world's policeman. Now that it is clear the the policeman is morally corrupt, we will all pay the price for such a laisser faire attitude.
If even children from Switzerland fear the destructive force of the US then it can only be too apparent that the US has gone too far.
Cat
Registered
Depending exactly on how an attck is launched, with or without UN support, the 'muslim extremists' could be a problem exclusively reserved for Bush and Blair... If america goes on a solo tour with britain as sidekick, there are going to be also a lot of less fundamentalist people that are really pissed off...
I can understand a childs fear when warmongers are warming up their guns...
I can understand a childs fear when warmongers are warming up their guns...
You're right, we learned the leason. That leason started in 1939 and involved the whole damn world, because of similar attitudes about a dictator. We learned in the last 10yrs Iraq has no respect to abide by it's agreements, and will pose a threat to us...maybe not now, but in the future. Bush learned what happens when his predecessors didn't have the brains, or guts, to hold Sadam to his agreement.
We've seen this all before, sad thing is some people didn't learn a damn thing from History.
Do I want war, no. I have 3 family members in the services. One is a Marine who was just called to Kuwait a month ago. Is it time to make a stand, yes...WAY OVERDUE. And, I would go if called.
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
I want to make it clear that I don't like the idea of war. However, I seem to see that the rest of the world wants "peace in our time".
If you are given a ticket for speeding/etc. and were told to go to court on a certain date, you would be held responsible for your actions. Then why should we wait 10+ years for Saddam to hold to his agreement to disarm? How many chances should the world give him to account for his known poison gasses. Also what about the 300+ Kuwait citizens who were kidnapped in the early 90's? Where does the world draw it's line in the sand with this dictator? It seems nowhere.
Plus, give me one historic example when sanctions worked.
If you are given a ticket for speeding/etc. and were told to go to court on a certain date, you would be held responsible for your actions. Then why should we wait 10+ years for Saddam to hold to his agreement to disarm? How many chances should the world give him to account for his known poison gasses. Also what about the 300+ Kuwait citizens who were kidnapped in the early 90's? Where does the world draw it's line in the sand with this dictator? It seems nowhere.
Plus, give me one historic example when sanctions worked.
Cat
Registered
What an interesting idea! Let's make war on Saddam! It's 1991 again, the allied forces come within sight of Bagdad, the internal opposition insurges, ready to overthrow the dictator, and then ... nothing happens ... the allies drew a line, in the sand, and didn't get over it ... what a good idea: let's make a war on someone end then not defeat him. Instead we pester him the following 10 years with inspections, sanctions and embargoes. Who suffers? The citizens, not the dictator. America knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, because they supplied them to him in the first place! Now the USA is going to war again. Inspectors are getting increasing results and collaboration from the regime and are definitely up to something. If the USA invade Iraq, how are they going to find all the missing weapons? Is this in fact the real goal they have? The USA say they want regime-change to stabilize the Middle-East. I cannot imagine aything more disruptive to peace in the Middle-East than a war that nobody wants. Some European leaders may seem favorable to the idea, most of the population is not. All the Middle-East countries will be asking themselves who is next, first and foremost the Saudi's and Iran. The USA intend to establish a miitary regime, because no reliable opposition leader is available, like Kharzai was in Afghanistan. Do you think they can enforce peace and democracy this way? I remember someone accusing the Romans: "They make a desert, and call it peace" Is this the American dream, insofar it concerns foreign nations?
Okay, okay, okay. But how do we solve the America-Problem?
I have given it much thought, but I think a European/Russian/Japanese alliance alone is not enough. The USA have gone too far already and must be stopped immediately. What good is the UN if it can't be used to stop the USA from going to war all over the world, choosing its targets depending on where their money lies?
Something must be done about the America-Problem. To cite an old Roman: "Ceterum censeo, americam esse delendam."
I have given it much thought, but I think a European/Russian/Japanese alliance alone is not enough. The USA have gone too far already and must be stopped immediately. What good is the UN if it can't be used to stop the USA from going to war all over the world, choosing its targets depending on where their money lies?
Something must be done about the America-Problem. To cite an old Roman: "Ceterum censeo, americam esse delendam."