america's relationship with turkey

[spillmind]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3176144.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2870705.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3187682.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/14/sprj.irq.main/index.html

it's obvious to see why they are our 'war on iraq buddies':

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9902/19/ocalan.turkey.01/index.html

with this kind of hatred between the two demographics, it is easy to see why the unrest is being perpetuated in the region.

bush will never admit his mistake of disbanding the iraqi army -WHOM WE NEVER ENGAGED - and instead insists on keeping the turkish troops as 'peacekeepers'.

i have yet to find a REALISTIC optimistic view on the stabilization of iraq, and this is not a step in the right direction.

if the US didn't participate in the support of countries with our tax dollars in many of their 'terrorist' attacks on other people, we wouldn't have to fear terror on the level we do today.

 

[jimnyc]

Guess who's back, back again
Spillmind's back, tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back!

The board has been "amiss" without you, welcome back.

 

[eric]

Hey spill, where have you been?

Welcome back !

 

[janeeng]

haha! and I thought he wasn't coming BACK!

 

[spillmind]

we'll see just how 'welcome' i am-

just waiting for NT to downplay our terror sponsorship with turkey-

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
it's obvious to see why they are our 'war on iraq buddies':

with this kind of hatred between the two demographics, it is easy to see why the unrest is being perpetuated in the region.

bush will never admit his mistake of disbanding the iraqi army -WHOM WE NEVER ENGAGED - and instead insists on keeping the turkish troops as 'peacekeepers'.

i have yet to find a REALISTIC optimistic view on the stabilization of iraq, and this is not a step in the right direction.

if the US didn't participate in the support of countries with our tax dollars in many of their 'terrorist' attacks on other people, we wouldn't have to fear terror on the level we do today.

First, of course the Kurds and Turks don't like each other. Do the Turks have designs on northern Iraq? Probably. But I don't think anyone would be so foolish as to put the Turks in northern Iraq - in fct, yesterday on the radio, I heard they were going to southern Iraq.
As far as the army goes... why would we not disband the Iraqi Army? Who knows how many soldiers, who fought for the Hussein regime, would try to subvert the new Iraqi government, or attempt to kill American soldiers? And yes, we did engage the Iraqi army - in and around Umm Qasr, Basra, and on the march to Baghdad. It wasn't a great battle like those we saw in Gulf War I, but they were there, and we defeated them.

 

[NightTrain]

Attaboy, Spilly, I'm floored that you posted legitimate news services. You da man!

it's obvious to see why they are our 'war on iraq buddies':

You must not be aware of this, but Turkey didn't make things easy on us because they decided not to allow us to open a Northern Front during the war by denying us the use of their ports and access to the Northern Iraq border. American troops & pieces of equipment sat out on transport vessels off the coast of Turkey for weeks, finally they were diverted to other ports. Consenquently, the plan was adjusted and the bulk of our Military came up from the South, allowing Saddam to position the bulk of his forces on the Southern Front - which made things difficult.

'War on Iraq buddies'? Umm... No.

Jeff summed it up nicely :

As far as the army goes... why would we not disband the Iraqi Army? Who knows how many soldiers, who fought for the Hussein regime, would try to subvert the new Iraqi government, or attempt to kill American soldiers?

That's about as logical as it gets. After WWII, did Japan, Germany and Italy maintain their standing armies? I think not; that would be utterly foolish.

And yes, we did engage the Iraqi army - in and around Umm Qasr, Basra, and on the march to Baghdad. It wasn't a great battle like those we saw in Gulf War I, but they were there, and we defeated them

Yep. They were there, the ones that didn't see the writing on the wall. They were annihilated. The rest knew from experience or from war stories what was in store for them, should they choose not to heed the warnings given to them in the weeks prior to combat.

Where did you get the idea that the Iraqi military wasn't involved in resisting the invasion??

 

[spillmind]

NT:

pick yourself off the floor. just because i don't archive all of my news stories, don't make things not true.

oh i am sure that turkey didn't make it easy on us as to using their air fields, and why not? could it be the strained relations existing with their neighbors? i noticed you said nothing about the turkey's slaughter of the kurds, and how they were our forsty allied neighbor against iraq. why? i know this obvious to you, i just really wonder why you choose to ignore points that are not exactly flattering and then go off on tangents of little things that you know are already proven?

as for them making it tough for us, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3130504.stm show we rewarded them for them making it so difficult, indeed

it may be too large a generalisation to say that we never fought with the army itself, but instead we were engaging SADDAM'S IMPERIAL GUARD. here's an illustration of how the army bailed out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2966007.stm

this is even a self serving article for you bushie loving backslappers! my main point was that these people are best served as iraqis to help guard and stabilize iraq. turkish 'peacekeepers' are not going to help!

jeff: please post any links you can find showing exactly where these troops are deployed. and why should turkey have ANYONE in there, considering the recent conflicts?