: Thanksgiving Turkey

Mar 25th, 2003, 05:05 AM
Macnutt, Libya has been suggested as one of the few places on earth to take Hussein and his sons should they go into exile. After all, Libya is the current Chair of the UN's Human Rights Committee........which I personally feel is a travesty.

Re the Suez, shades of the Suez Crisis come to mind and there is no Lester Pearson to help end this conflict should it ever develop.

Mar 25th, 2003, 10:30 AM
Actually I was kind of joking about Libya...and it says a lot about how bizarre the UN has become when countries like Syria and Libya are actually on the UN "Human Rights Committee". Foxes guarding the henhouse? Yassir Arafat with the Nobel PEACE Prize?? What next? Robert Mugabe as chaiman of a UN commission on democratic rights?

We are living in a loonie bin. :eek:

Mar 25th, 2003, 12:08 PM
Riddle me this.

If Turkey does go after Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq (people they claim are terrorists) and the U.S. attacks Turkish forces, what is NATO and then Canada to do?

Canada is bound by NATO that any attack on a NATO member is an attack on NATO.

Does NATO then declare war on the U.S.?

I agree that Turkey is certainly a very serious "X" factor in all this. :eek:

used to be jwoodget
Mar 25th, 2003, 12:19 PM
The next three days requires the US move 60,000 marines and heavy equipment from their base in Turkey, via the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal and down the Red Sea around Saudi Arabia past Yemen. Not the sort of forced transit any force would like to make, especially in time of war. There is air superiority (if not airspace) but it must also be a very nervous time for the naval commanders and they'll be giving thanks once "safely" in the Arabian Sea.

Turkey has created a very risky situation for the US. If the Turks try to grab Kurdish-held territory (the oil wells in Kirkut?)we might have the first instance of two NATO allies firing at each other.

Mar 25th, 2003, 12:36 PM
No doubt about it Jim, Turkey is a big question mark right about now. The US is rather choked at them and all of those previously mentioned grants and loan guarantees have been pulled from the table.

If they make any further moves into Northern Iraq or against the Kurds, then we will have a very serious hairball on our hands in rather short order.

NATO may very well fall apart, and the UN is already losing some of its signifigance. It might just go the way of the League of Nations as well.

NATO had sort of outlived it's original reason for being (since the Cold War ended) and the UN seems to be less effective at actually doing anything every year. Those two bodies could end with both a bang and a whimper, if things go strange all of a sudden.

If some Nation or group were to consider the mass movement of US forces through the Suez as a "window of opportunity" then we will have a full scale rhinocerous of a war on our hands.

The bovine excreta will definitely hit the rotating blades of the air redistribution device. Nobody knows what will happen then, but it will likely be rather chaotic...at best.

A delicate moment in world history, to be sure.

We live in interesting times :eek:

used to be jwoodget
Mar 25th, 2003, 12:48 PM
NATO is dissolving. I can't see how the alliance has a long term future, unfortunately. We may see it replaced by a European Protectorate Organisation and slow distancing from the US. Not good.

I just hope Osama bin Liner is tied down in some hell hole and unable to take advantage of the trap that the US is currently sailing through.

used to be jwoodget
Mar 25th, 2003, 12:49 PM
macspectrum, methinks Turkey was waaaay down on the Bush's "to-do" list but, like some hockey teams, their play-off chances just got a big boost. Turkey is teetering. Let's just hope that it doesn't become the second nation to declare a preventative war.

Mar 25th, 2003, 12:58 PM
I think that Usama is either dead or reduced to an advanced state of irrelevance these days. Especially since the arrests of his top guys and the siezure of their laptops and address books, cellphones, etc. Much of their monetary reserves have been frozen, as well and I bet that donations are not exactly pouring in these days to replenish the lost cash.

I could very well be wrong, but I think that the threat...if it comes...will be from someone we have not heard of before. Or had written off several years back.

Say...we haven't heard much from Col.Quadaffi lately, have we? Naaa...he wouldn't...would he? :eek:

Mar 25th, 2003, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
Riddle me this.

If Turkey does go after Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq (people they claim are terrorists) and the U.S. attacks Turkish forces, what is NATO and then Canada to do?

Canada is bound by NATO that any attack on a NATO member is an attack on NATO.

Does NATO then declare war on the U.S.?

I agree that Turkey is certainly a very serious "X" factor in all this. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if Turkey does attack another NATO country, wouldn't they have their NATO cards revoked and their NATO decoder rings repossessed? Then the US would be able to stomp all over them too.

As for Canada, I like to think that we are capable of clearer thinking. Providing a way to resolve a crisis without the needs of heavy artillery.

Unless they insult our hockey teams and our beer. Then I say "Nuke the %^#%@$s!!!" tongue.gif


used to be jwoodget
Mar 25th, 2003, 05:24 PM
Strongblade, macspectrum posited a scenario where Turkey attacked the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Iraq isn't a NATO country (yet).

Another interesting scenario: What if any other country decides to pick a fight with, or is attacked by, a member of the coalition of the willing/billing/swilling/killing. What does the US do?

This is kinda like Scruples Extreme.

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:40 PM
I believe that the way the NATO charter works is that if any country (not necessarily military forces in a foreign country) is attacked, then all of NATO is obliged to declare war on that country.

So back to my "hypothetical" scenario.

Turkey invades northern Iraq to rid Turkey of a "terrorist threat" in the Kurds.
The U.S. then attack Turkey to repel this invasion.

U.S. forces are attacking a NATO member.

If you aren't confused or concerned enough the way it is, now mix Iran into this scenario. Will they try a pre-emptive strike before the U.S. can solidify their hold on Iraq and turn it into a base of operations from which to attack Iran?

Even, I'm getting a headache.

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:47 PM
Macspectrum, is it not a NATO nation under attack requires a response from the NATO nations? In that Iraq is not a NATO country, why would the US need to attack Turkey if Turkey moved south into Iraq to stop any Kurdish state from forming in that region?

I'm sorry, but I just read up the thread and jwoodget said basically what I just said. Sorry for the duplication, but I guess as the old saying goes, "Great minds think alike."

Mar 25th, 2003, 08:05 PM
Turkey wants into EU - I think that's going to be the biggest barrier to gettingout of hand.
I think they are poised more as a stance to keep their own Kurds under control.

Bin Laden apparently is travelling somewhere along the Afghan/Pakistan border with a large caravan.

Nato needs to be re-written but the US is busy re-writing the world power structure anyway so who knows what the future "alliances" will be. tongue.gif

Re Libya - Inviting barbarians to the table has long been a popular method of civilizing them. Rome and Birtain were very good at it.

I'm just starting Woodwards "Bush at War". I'll let you know what I glean from it. tongue.gif

Mar 25th, 2003, 08:29 PM
I heard on the CBC that the Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world that does not have a country of its own. This might be a source of conflict for years to come.

Mar 25th, 2003, 09:21 PM
Rumsfeld and Bush have both stated that Turkish forces are not to engage Kurdish forces in N. Iraq.

However, Turkish forces are in N. Iraq. They have crossed the border to, in their words, monitor the exodus of Iraqi nationals into Turkey.

The Turks have an huge problem with the Kurds in Turkey. More Kurds live in Turkey than Iraq. As I have said before the Kurds are not welcome in Turkey and Turkey could be looking at this as an opportunity to 1. take some iraqi oil fields 2. get rid of some kurds

Scary situation.

Mar 26th, 2003, 02:18 AM
A scary situation, indeed macspectrum. And one that has consumed some midnight oil at Bush headquarters, I'll wager.

And I agree with you when you say that Turkey and their intentions re: the Kurds, is a serious "X" factor here. No question about it at all.

The US/Coalition forces would have been able to mount a Northen Front against Saddam, if it weren't for the recalcitrance of the Turks. Now they have to go around the long way...while the Turks make their own moves in this area.

This could be a history-changer, if they're not careful.

I think that the US has pulled out all the stops to explain to the Turkish government...in no uncertain terms...just exactly what any aspirations in this area might actually mean to everyone, in the long run. The Turks are on hold. for the moment.

But it is certainly a big question mark. Anything could happen. A delicate moment in world history, to be sure.

BTW...I watched an interview with Winston Churchill the Third (great grandson of the Great Man himself) last week.

He noted that his great grandfather wanted to give the Kurds their own country back in the twenties...when the British Empire was laying out the borders for the countries that make up the current version of the Middle East. He wanted to call it "Kurdistan". It would have comprised parts of Northern Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Southern Turkey.

He felt...to the end of his life...that NOT creating a country for the displaced Kurds was a major mistake. He thought that it would come back to haunt us in the future.

How right he was.

Churchill was, in my mind, a man who was way beyond his time. A truly great man who could see the bigger picture, when many could barely see beyond their own little neighborhood.

A tactical and strategic thinker who was also one of the best political minds of the last century.

And I'll bet you anything he was dead right about the Kurds. They will have to have their own country eventually. One way or the other.

The Turks won't like it a bit. Neither will anyone else in the area. (Too bad we didn't do it last century...)

Fasten your seatbelts...I see turbulence up ahead. :eek:

Mar 26th, 2003, 05:18 AM
Macnutt, we are in agreement about Churchill, especially being ahead of his time. He was right about Hitler, and I feel that although it would have been difficult at the time to create a Kurdish country, it would have been no more difficult that attempting that feat today. We shall see.

used to be jwoodget
Mar 26th, 2003, 10:10 AM
The middle-eastern states are all in turmoil. The aspirations or each of these countries is difficult to predict and often opportunistic. The US invasion of Iraq simply adds salt to a wound that has been erupting continuously since the discovery of oil in the region. Although it was hardly a model of community spirit prior to oil, the situation was more balanced and did not command the attention of the rest of the world. Some form of peace may resume once the oil finally runs out (2103 - assuming the world is still around then?). The imbalances of riches and power will evaporate as fast as petroleum ether in the midday sun and the rest of the world will forget what all the fuss was about.

Mar 28th, 2003, 09:56 PM
I don't have any faith in predictions of "when the oil will run out" at all. I spent way too many years discovering new reserves, where none supposedly existed, to buy into any sort of statistics regarding known oilfields and their potential.

While at wellsite data logging school in Houston, back in 1978, our teachers told us that "we have only about twenty-five years worth of petroleum left".

And these were industry experts, employed by the oil companies!

I guess...according to them.. we should be just about out of oil right about now, eh?


And, to address the other part of your last post...

The Middle east has always been in a similar state of turmoil. We just didn't take notice until they became rich enough to buy really big weapons. Much of that turmoil is rooted in the fact that there is only one man, or a very small group, actually running each of these countries. If they get into a squabble with some other leader, then it seems as though whole countries are going at it hammer and tongs...when it is really just a few people, who actually run these countries with an absolute rule, who are causing all of the strife.

What they say is law. When they go to war... everybody in the land has to join in. Or suffer the consequences.

Imagine what it would be like if some of the biggest players in the region were deposed....and the countries were to be run as a free democracies? Self-determining, and quite wealthy? A largely happy population who can vote if they want to make war, or not.

What a change that would be.

And it won't happen as long as the status quo is maintained. Instead, we will have the same old internecine violence and terrorism against innocents that we have always had from this part of the world.

Time for a change.

That change may be happening as we speak.

Lets hope, eh?

used to be jwoodget
Mar 28th, 2003, 11:34 PM
I too remember thinking when I was a kid that we'd have to be driving electric cars by the time I was 40.... The supplies are not unlimited though and our consumption rate continues to increase. There will be a time of near complete depletion.

Macnutt, I don't buy the despot argument to explain the instability of the middle east. Iran, for example, is not a dictatorship. Moreover, there are quite a few countries in South America and Polynesia with similarly dictatorial control whih are not anywhere near as flammable as the middle east.

The problem is that in these countries, when one dictator falls or is deposed, he's (they're all frigging he's) replaced by a similar body or a junta that is just a dictator gang. I don't know the solution. Part of the problem is that the people know no better. They've been brought up in a wicked and unfair state. Instead of appreciating the advantages of democratic countries, they resent them. The G7 countries have an abysmal record in supporting new democracies.

We can live in hope but let's not dash it by exerting our own clumsiness and patronizing/McDonaldizing ways.