- Thread starter
- #101
I am working for no "group", you?
You live in a small world if you think Turkey is defined by its decision not to allow US soldiers on its territory. Maybe you are confuseing the issue, Turkey is no US dog relying on US security guarantees or being dictated policies to follow. We brew our own beer and as Turkey gets more involved in regional politics, everyone (includeing the US) has to be cautious and must sleep over the issue of follow-up damage by provoking Turkish reaction. We have witnessed this between US and Turkey the last years and the outcome of this is that US decided not to push too much against Turkey. Despite Iraq war has been catastrophic for region and Iraq issue will be a conflict zone between regional powers even when US redeployed to a non-relevant presence in this region, Iraq issue is now being shaped by US in compliance to Turkish interests, and US gets word Turkey will not occupy North-Iraq in a large-scale. In practical this means US giving up policy of Turkish blockade into Iraqi realpolitics. US for itself does not need to follow policy of strengthening centralist Iraq, geo-political reality of Turkey ensures other regional powers of not following policy to divide Iraq up. Namely Iran.
I only speak for myself. Thank you for your response, it is very hum, Turkish and expected. Further it supports my worries about the US giving too much in that direction, it will come back to bite us. No one asked you to be their dogs, but, they did expect a fair agreement considering what has been done for Turkey. Seems you forgot who aided in all of that industry building. Washington needs to learn from this.
I am expectant in hearing your theories of how USA did build-up Turkish industry.