Time to get out.

[Annie]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it wasn't ALREADY happening.

"NATO tactics?" You mean organize that rabble of murdering scumbags into a "real" army and have them execute actual battlefield strategy and tactics? Separate them from the population centers and women's skirts and daycares they hide behind to actually face off against the US military on a battlefield?

Please DO.

You're too brainwashed in your own nationalism to comprehend the reality of some of the junk you suggest.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again."

Exactly, it's interesting to me how much of the 'world' doesn't understand the US people. All these years we've been blaming ourselves for not being more sensitive, I think it may behoove the rest of the world to begin trying to understand us.

 

[Gunny]

I would recommend you to read better the caucasus.
Armenia is a satellite state of Russia and is Iran's proxy in the caucasus.
The russian bases and soldiers in Georgia are moved to Armenia where Russia operates some bases and at that time is expanding its base in Armenian city of Gyumri.

The axis on the caucasus are Azerbaycan-Georgia-Turkey and on the other side
Russia-Armenia-Iran.
You can not threaten us with Georgia. Turkey has extensive cooperation with Georgia and train their soldiers and officers. In Georgia there is being built 2 Nato-compatible bases. One is built by Turkey, the other by France.
Turkey is one of the strongest lobbyist og Georgian membership into NATO.

And Turkey every year gives Georgia 40 Mio Dollar for its military budget.
Georgia's military budget

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=10904641&PageNum=0

In 2006 it was 340 Million. So in 2006 Turkey financed about 15 % og Georgia's military budget.
OIn previous years, before Georgian Military budget grew fivefold, this was relatively more.

I don't get your Americans point of always mentioning Incirlik.
As if Turkey would go down, when Turkey would not rent that base any more to USA. Surely not.

The US is ALL that stood between Turkey and becoming another Soviet satellite; which, just adds proof to a point I keep trying to make....

We need to get rid of all are so-called "allies" who just hid behind our skirts during the Cold War and toos those treaties on the bonfire where they belong. Most of you are about as helpful as tits on a boar.

Nobody has suggested Turkey would "go down" ... its' more like we pull our stuff and all the money that goes with it out, and WHO CARES what impact it has on Turkey?

 

[Gunny]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again."

Exactly, it's interesting to me how much of the 'world' doesn't understand the US people. All these years we've been blaming ourselves for not being more sensitive, I think it may behoove the rest of the world to begin trying to understand us.

Or at least if they don't want to try and understand us, we quit bothering to concern ourselves with their well-being. Let all of those countries that think being allies is a "take-take" relationship take care of themselves.

 

[Annie]

The US is ALL that stood between Turkey and becoming another Soviet satellite; which, just adds proof to a point I keep trying to make....

We need to get rid of all are so-called "allies" who just hid behind our skirts during the Cold War and toos those treaties on the bonfire where they belong. Most of you are about as helpful as tits on a boar.

Nobody has suggested Turkey would "go down" ... its' more like we pull our stuff and all the money that goes with it out, and WHO CARES what impact it has on Turkey?

I agree. When it comes to 'trade' that is of non-military areas, I say we should trade with any that will do the same with us.

When it comes to 'allies' and 'interests' it should be with those that have a Western outlook, which precludes most of Western Europe, most of the Middle East, certain areas of the East, and several Central and South American countries. Those that 'are Western in outlook' should be beneficiaries of our investments, foreign policies, bases, etc. Those that are not, we should not harm, but see no reason to help in foreign aid, including public $$$ or use of our military in diasters. There should be no bars raised regarding private donations, etc.

 

[Gunny]

I agree. When it comes to 'trade' that is of non-military areas, I say we should trade with any that will do the same with us.

When it comes to 'allies' and 'interests' it should be with those that have a Western outlook, which precludes most of Western Europe, most of the Middle East, certain areas of the East, and several Central and South American countries. Those that 'are Western in outlook' should be beneficiaries of our investments, foreign policies, bases, etc. Those that are not, we should not harm, but see no reason to help in foreign aid, including public $$$ or use of our military in diasters. There should be no bars raised regarding private donations, etc.

I'm just tired of the blanket, one-size-fits-all "Well protect your ass while you do nothing for us" treaties. They were bad enough on that level. Add to that they want our protection and $ for free while criticizing the Hell out of everything we do and it spells "ungrateful" to me.

We have an invasion on OUR border that I'd like to seem some of the time, attention and assets currently propping up some weak, Third World wananbe's diverted to.

 

[Annie]

I'm just tired of the blanket, one-size-fits-all "Well protect your ass while you do nothing for us" treaties. They were bad enough on that level. Add to that they want our protection and $ for free while criticizing the Hell out of everything we do and it spells "ungrateful" to me.

We have an invasion on OUR border that I'd like to seem some of the time, attention and assets currently propping up some weak, Third World wananbe's diverted to.

Seems more than the 'ungrateful' on their part, rather stupidity on ours.

 

[onedomino]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it wasn't ALREADY happening.

"NATO tactics?" You mean organize that rabble of murdering scumbags into a "real" army and have them execute actual battlefield strategy and tactics? Separate them from the population centers and women's skirts and daycares they hide behind to actually face off against the US military on a battlefield?

Please DO.

You're too brainwashed in your own nationalism to comprehend the reality of some of the junk you suggest.

Good point Gunny. The murdering slimes in Iraq do not have the courage to adopt the tactics of a real army. They would rather kill unarmed women and children, and then run away and hide in a mosque.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why would Turkey want Saddam to be defeated? He kept the kurds in line thus making it hard for them to be unified (even as it is they are not the most unified of people). It was not in Turkey's interest for Saddam to be defeated. Also, perhaps, like a lot of us, they saw the reality of the Iraqi situation before it happened...

 

[onedomino]

Why would Turkey want Saddam to be defeated? He kept the kurds in line thus making it hard for them to be unified (even as it is they are not the most unified of people). It was not in Turkey's interest for Saddam to be defeated.

You make a valid point. The Turks probably liked what Saddam was doing to the Kurds. Early in the 20th Century, they did similar things to the Armenians. However, knowing that the US was going into Iraq, it was maladaptive of Turkey to lose any hope of influencing the situation in northern Iraq by blocking the 4th ID. Anyway, I do not think that a strategic geopolitical call was made one way or the other in Turkey. If you will recall, it was not the Turkish Administration or military that made the decision to block the 4th ID. Instead, it was the Turkish Parliment that voted to block the US Army. There, visceral anti-Americanism holds sway. In all candor though, why is it in America's interest to continue the US-Turkey relationship that existed in the cold war? I suggest that it is not. Where are the Turks going to go? The French? The Russians? Hardly. I think that it would be adaptive for America to pull out of Turkey and use those resources to block the new Soviets in Georgia, and to open doors in Armenia.

 

[Annie]

You make a valid point. The Turks probably liked what Saddam was doing to the Kurds. Early in the 20th Century, they did similar things to the Armenians. However, knowing that the US was going into Iraq, it was maladaptive of Turkey to lose any hope of influencing the situation in northern Iraq by blocking the 4th ID. Anyway, I do not think that a strategic geopolitical call was made one way or the other in Turkey. If you will recall, it was not the Turkish Administration or military that made the decision to block the 4th ID. Instead, it was the Turkish Parliment that voted to block the US Army. There, visceral anti-Americanism holds sway. In all candor though, why is it in America's interest to continue the US-Turkey relationship that existed in the cold war? I suggest that it is not. Where are the Turks going to go? The French? The Russians? Hardly. I think that it would be adaptive for America to pull out of Turkey and use those resources to block the new Soviets in Georgia, and to open doors in Armenia.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to onedomino again." On this we are in 100% agreement. Unless something drastic were to occur, I think Turkey, France, Russia, have used up the good will most of us had. Personally I could not give a fig for Turkey's or France's opinions on any issues, other than cooperating with each other about internal terror threats. That level seems to be working well.

On the same plane, if either suffered some sort of disaster, we should give the same sort of level of relief-not equal to what UK, (under Blair), or Austalia, etc would receive. But more than we should do for Syria, etc.

 

[Dr Grump]

Where are the Turks going to go? The French? The Russians?

The EU. That aside, it is in Turkey's best interest to show others in the ME that they do not support America. They are right in the middle of it..

 

[onedomino]

The EU. That aside, it is in Turkey's best interest to show others in the ME that they do not support America. They are right in the middle of it.

This thread is wandering far from the original point. And that’s mostly because of me. Anyway, the EU is in the process of rejecting Turkey, or at least keeping it at arm’s length for as long as possible. The French voted down the EU Constitution essentially over the fear of job loss to low-price immigrant workers. Does the EU really exist? Maybe it will someday, but it is the figment of elitist imaginations right now. The average worker in Lyon does not want his job threatened by an immigrant worker from a closed airbase in Turkey. If there are western Euros who thought there were Muslim integration difficulties before Turkey, they will need cultural Kevlar after Turkey enters the EU. Yeah, it is in Turkey’s interest to show that they do not support America; especially regarding the mollification of home grown radicals. However, it is arguably even more in their interest to support America. Had Turkey been a dependable American ally, they would be influential in northern Iraq today. Instead they are on the outside looking in, hoping that Kurdish nationalism does not stream across the border. But inevitably it will.

PS. A larger and more interesting question (and not one for this thread) is: what is the long term American impact of a successful completion of the EU constitutional process? Thirty years from now, will the competition between the US and EU be confined to trade, or will it also include political and military confrontation?

 

[Dr Grump]

This thread is wandering far from the original point. And that’s mostly because of me. Anyway, the EU is in the process of rejecting Turkey, or at least keeping it at arm’s length for as long as possible. The French voted down the EU Constitution essentially over the fear of job loss to low-price immigrant workers. Does the EU really exist? Maybe it will someday, but it is the figment of elitist imaginations right now. The average worker in Lyon does not want his job threatened by an immigrant worker from a closed airbase in Turkey. If there are western Euros who thought there were Muslim integration difficulties before Turkey, they will need cultural Kevlar after Turkey enters the EU. Yeah, it is in Turkey’s interest to show that they do not support America; especially regarding the mollification of home grown radicals. However, it is arguably even more in their interest to support America. Had Turkey been a dependable American ally, they would be influential in northern Iraq today. Instead they are on the outside looking in, hoping that Kurdish nationalism does not stream across the border. But inevitably it will.

PS. A larger and more interesting question (and not one for this thread) is: what is the long term American impact of a successful completion of the EU constitutional process? Thirty years from now, will the competition between the US and EU be confined to trade, or will it also include political and military confrontation?

I'd put money on it the Turks end up in the EU. I disagree re Northern Iraq. That situation would have been far to volatile. Even the Bush admin would have realised that. Remember, to the Kurds those borders don't exist. They are porous. Kurdish nationalism is alive and well in Turkey.

As to your final point, I think China is more of a worry than any EU/US antagonism...

 

[ekrem]

(...)
Please DO.

You're too brainwashed in your own nationalism to comprehend the reality of some of the junk you suggest.

Was only the reply to your "America should bomb Turkey" junk.

Please do and hope there will be no outcome that American mothers wished there sons never left the country.

 

[Gunny]

Why would Turkey want Saddam to be defeated? He kept the kurds in line thus making it hard for them to be unified (even as it is they are not the most unified of people). It was not in Turkey's interest for Saddam to be defeated. Also, perhaps, like a lot of us, they saw the reality of the Iraqi situation before it happened...

So now you can predict the future? GMAFB. WHAT did YOU see "before it happened?" Nothing, is what. You have just jumped on the bandwagon after-the-fact, based on the hype you and the rest of the left via your MSM mouthpieces are attempting to pass off as fact.

 

[glockmail]

.... GMAFB. .....

Git-Mo Air Force Base?

 

[Dr Grump]

So now you can predict the future? GMAFB. WHAT did YOU see "before it happened?" Nothing, is what. You have just jumped on the bandwagon after-the-fact, based on the hype you and the rest of the left via your MSM mouthpieces are attempting to pass off as fact.

nope. I have plenty of posts on other messageboards stating exactly what would happen PRIOR to the invasion. While all the I have said has not panned out, yet, a lot of it has. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, just a bit of knowledge about the area and the geopolitical ramifications of an invasions. Something Bush failed to take into account. Nothing new there, he doesn't see anything outside of his own borders...