Stay the course or not stay the course ?

[ekrem]

I am not that familiar with US inner politics, as you are Americans.
But i know that Rumfsfeld was one of the big "makers" of US foreign policy.
He defended many times the US course in the region and especially Iraq-war.

Now his department as defence minister was long overdue, as he and his plan failed when we see what is going on in Iraq.
150.000 Soldiers, as a dwarf-army was not enough and dissolveing Iraqi army and police was a big fault.
Politicians who fail their policy have to be fired from their position. So it is in every country. Now it is the point where it happened in the USA.

So the USA accepts there is a failure and now fires Rumsfeld. Is George Bush despite his "staying the course" quotes now accepting that what is going on in Iraq is a failure?
And what do you think what will come next, how the USA will act in the Mid-East and what it will do in Iraq especially?

Firing Rumfsfeld is a sign, that USA will not stay the course much long in Iraq anymore. Or do you interpret firing of Rumfsfeld in an other way, i am just asking.
And which options has the USA to improve situation in Iraq.
I know that this Forum is mostly Republican, so please answer not in past but in present (based on Rumfsfeld firing as defence minister and planner of Iraq-war).

 

[ekrem]

As i see it, US policy was under 2 terms of George Bush made of a inner circle of some elite people (Bush-Cheney-Rumfsfeld clique). And they gave not much about other views. Even if the course of this elite was wrong they were stolid as they had the only power in Washington and therefore were able to form foreign policy like they wanted.

Now the Rumfsfeld-clique, picture them as a walnut, was broken up.
Will now come a time, where George Bush has to make compromisses and listen to others in Washington, too? Like Democrats or Republicans in his own party, who are not to be classified as Neocons and were therefore not in that power-elite so far under Bush government?

Senator John McCain, friend of Turkey:

U.S. Republican senator who supported the invasion of Iraq has warned the Bush administration that the disintegration of Iraq would lead to regional chaos while strongly noting that Turkey would never accept the presence of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq
(...)
Furthermore, Turks will never accept Kurds having an independent state of their own. Iraq being split into three can only be a formula for chaos,� Senator John McCain of Arizona was quoted
(...)
while also criticizing the administration for not seeking more international support for the U.S. military effort in Iraq from allies such as Turkey.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=30010

For example, there are some positive words from Richard Lugar and others, too, who were quoted as saying to intensify cooperation with Turkey in reliance to Iraq in last months.
Off course Rumfsfeld-clique did not listened, as power structure in Washington gave them no reason to listen.

I know of Baker commission and that the results will in the near future made public. So far i read from Baker-commission that Kirkuk should fell to Sunnite Arabs, if Iraq would be partitioned, which we, as Turkey, could live with.
But our first position is not to split Iraq. And if USA splits Iraq in a way which would be a disadvantage for Turkey, like integration of Kirkuk to Kurdish regional government, Turkey would off course intervene. No matter what.
Because such partition plans are long time, even in effect when US Soldiers are home by their family.
Turkey would have to live with such a situation and there is no need to live with a situation which is against Turkish interests. Agree ?

Maybe US policy within Washington itself will become now multi-polar and away from Bush-Unilateralism.
Form my standpoint this is good, as current US government is stolid. From outside view.
But better is to abolish unilateralism of US policy in Mid-East, too. And make over-regional cooperation to improve situation in Iraq, for example with Turkey like John McCain said. For such thing to happen Washington has to get multi-polar and away from Bush-unilateralism.

 

[ekrem]

JOHN MCCAIN TO EUROPE
April 28, 2006

And we must not overlook Turkey. Competing visions for Turkey's future have been a source of some friction between the United States and Europe in recent years, so let me be clear about where America stands. There are some in Europe who resent our strong support for Turkish membership in the EU. But I hope these skeptics would see that the benefits of Turkish integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions far outweigh the alternative. Our vision is one of a democratic, secular Turkey, a westward looking member of both NATO and the EU. It is a vision the vast majority of Turks share. But there is another possible outcome -- a Turkey turned away from Europe, rejected by and alienated from Euro-Atlantic institutions, a country that could give rise to extremists, whether inside or out of government. None of us wants this. By further integrating Turkey, we send a strong message to the Islamic world that the West is not a closed club, but rather is open to all those who share our values.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,413817,00.html

Reality is, that Turkey intensified during Bush era cooperation with Iran and Syria because of Bush-government's Kurdish policy. Which was a uniting factor between Turkey, Iran and Syria. And boosted cooperation from zero to never before dimensions within 3 years.

Every time John McCain speaks of Turkey, be it general or special on Iraq, it is very positive and i think, if he will run for president in 2008 that USA-Turkey relations will improve again significant.
What now remains is: Waiting for Bush to pack his bag and leave White House and Senator John McCain announcing his candidature for 2008.
The first step with Rumfsfeld was done.

So you recognized so far, that i am no fan of unilateralist Bush.
Be it Clinton woman or John McCain, we can live good with both and both will make good relations to Turkey again like in pre-Iraq war.
So counting the days. Tic-Tac.

 

[ekrem]

George Bush in a long 6 years in office was just 1 time in Turkey.
And that even in 2004. A long 4 years after he got into White House.

Even in pre-Iraq war negotiations with Turkey small politicians only came to Turkey.
And that visit in January 2004 was combined with the Istanbul-NATO Summit.
Maybe this Summit was not in Turkey, Bush would have not come to Turkey.
He stayed, made some good propaganda photos in front of a mosque and went away. So this visit was neutrally speaking "neutral" to both relations:

McCain is completely other, in 6 years he was multiple times in Turkey.
The last time in August 2006, together with Lindsay Graham.
But most times he came alone, or with him were only unimpressive Senators so that Turkish press was not reporting over them.
But the last visit they reported about Lindsay Graham from Carolina besides John McCain, too.

 

[Gunny]

I am not that familiar with US inner politics, as you are Americans.
But i know that Rumfsfeld was one of the big "makers" of US foreign policy.
He defended many times the US course in the region and especially Iraq-war.

Now his department as defence minister was long overdue, as he and his plan failed when we see what is going on in Iraq.
150.000 Soldiers, as a dwarf-army was not enough and dissolveing Iraqi army and police was a big fault.
Politicians who fail their policy have to be fired from their position. So it is in every country. Now it is the point where it happened in the USA.

So the USA accepts there is a failure and now fires Rumsfeld. Is George Bush despite his "staying the course" quotes now accepting that what is going on in Iraq is a failure?
And what do you think what will come next, how the USA will act in the Mid-East and what it will do in Iraq especially?

Firing Rumfsfeld is a sign, that USA will not stay the course much long in Iraq anymore. Or do you interpret firing of Rumfsfeld in an other way, i am just asking.
And which options has the USA to improve situation in Iraq.
I know that this Forum is mostly Republican, so please answer not in past but in present (based on Rumfsfeld firing as defence minister and planner of Iraq-war).

Rumsfeld resigned. He was not fired.

 

[Gunny]

George Bush in a long 6 years in office was just 1 time in Turkey.
And that even in 2004. A long 4 years after he got into White House.

Even in pre-Iraq war negotiations with Turkey small politicians only came to Turkey.
And that visit in January 2004 was combined with the Istanbul-NATO Summit.
Maybe this Summit was not in Turkey, Bush would have not come to Turkey.
He stayed, made some good propaganda photos in front of a mosque and went away. So this visit was neutrally speaking "neutral" to both relations:

McCain is completely other, in 6 years he was multiple times in Turkey.
The last time in August 2006, together with Lindsay Graham.
But most times he came alone, or with him were only unimpressive Senators so that Turkish press was not reporting over them.
But the last visit they reported about Lindsay Graham from Carolina besides John McCain, too.

I don't see your point.

 

[ekrem]

Rumsfeld resigned. He was not fired.

Yes, obiously in diplomatical circles this term is used.

 

[Annie]

I don't see your point.

I think it's that Graham and McCain are recognizing that Turkey should be considered a major power?

 

[William Joyce]

As i see it, US policy was under 2 terms of George Bush made of a inner circle of some elite people (Bush-Cheney-Rumfsfeld clique).

These men were the white gentiles whose strings were pulled by a group of Jews who wanted Iraq invaded to secure Israel's peace. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, etc. They made their intentions clear in a paper written for the Israeli government years before 9/11.

Your own nation finds itself heavily influenced by crypto-Jews who ally with Israel for certain war games and water, but torn in the other direction by Islam.

 

[ekrem]

I think it's that Graham and McCain are recognizing that Turkey should be considered a major power?

No it is, like Bush himself, we Turks vice-versa give a shit on him, too.
Other people, other image, other relations and trust that was my motive to mention McCain, as i there is a high chance that he will become next President of USA.
So easy, Kathianne.
I am an outsider, and that i write in a Pro-Bush Republican forum is just "luck".
But for me, as an foreigner, Pro-Democrat Pro-Republican thing is not important, it is inner american question.
For me counts Pro-Turkey or not.

 

[Annie]

No it is, like Bush himself, we Turks vice-versa give a shit on him, too.
Other people, other image, other relations and trust that was my motive to mention McCain, as i there is a high chance that he will become next President of USA.
So easy, Kathianne.
I am an outsider, and that i write in a Pro-Bush Republican forum is just "luck".
But for me, as an foreigner, Pro-Democrat Pro-Republican thing is not important, it is inner american question.
For me counts Pro-Turkey or not.

High chance for McCain? Okay.

 

[ekrem]

These men were the white gentiles whose strings were pulled by a group of Jews who wanted Iraq invaded to secure Israel's peace. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, etc. They made their intentions clear in a paper written for the Israeli government years before 9/11.

Your own nation finds itself heavily influenced by crypto-Jews who ally with Israel for certain war games and water, but torn in the other direction by Islam.

Dönmehs (crypto-Jews) defining themselves as Turks they are Turks.
There were Dönmehs who made great contributions to Turkey.

To Israel:
There were always strong relations between Turks and Jews.
But that is not the point.
The point is, that in the last 50 years Jewish-Turkish relations became a parallel relation to American-Turkish relation.

So American-Turkish relation after 2003 becoming sour automatically had an impact on Israel-Turkey relations.
But this lasted not long. Despite strong Jewish entanglement in American politics, Israel-Turkey relations were forced to mature and emancipate from American influence.
And i would say and could prove with examples, that Israel and Turkey succeeded in this maturing.
Today Turkish-Israel relations are very good again.
And so it must be to carry on Jewish-Turkish relations from past centuries to coming centuries. Separated from American impact.

 

[ekrem]

High chance for McCain? Okay.

enlighten me

 

[Annie]

enlighten me

I don't think I can. As you said earlier, the political/media/spin of American politics is complex, in the case of McCain it's very hard to explain why he is thought highly by all for his service. By some for his 'flexibility', why others think he's often a RINO, and some will never forgive either the bs known as McCain-Feingold or his '14 wisemen' reaction to judicial appointments.

Let it be said, more dems would vote for him in all likelihood than republicans. BTW, he is a republican.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, obiously in diplomatical circles this term is used.

Just as obviously those that wish to spin the truth to suit their agenda are going to call it something other than what it is. The man publicly announced his resignation.

 

[Gunny]

I think it's that Graham and McCain are recognizing that Turkey should be considered a major power?

Why?

 

[Gunny]

These men were the white gentiles whose strings were pulled by a group of Jews who wanted Iraq invaded to secure Israel's peace. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, etc. They made their intentions clear in a paper written for the Israeli government years before 9/11.

Your own nation finds itself heavily influenced by crypto-Jews who ally with Israel for certain war games and water, but torn in the other direction by Islam.

 

[Annie]

Why?

Because Canavar thinks so. He thinks McCain has a good chance to be President, or Ms. Clinton.

 

[Gunny]

No it is, like Bush himself, we Turks vice-versa give a shit on him, too.
Other people, other image, other relations and trust that was my motive to mention McCain, as i there is a high chance that he will become next President of USA.
So easy, Kathianne.
I am an outsider, and that i write in a Pro-Bush Republican forum is just "luck".
But for me, as an foreigner, Pro-Democrat Pro-Republican thing is not important, it is inner american question.
For me counts Pro-Turkey or not.

McCain's time in the sun is over. He doesn't stand a chance.

Turkey's like any other nation .... what can YOU do for US? Nothing? CYA.

 

[Gunny]

Because Canavar thinks so. He thinks McCain has a good chance to be President, or Ms. Clinton.

Canavar has a warped perspective on world events because he he allows his extreme nationalism to cloud any good judgement he might have.