PDA

View Full Version : NATO to Defend Turkey


Stelliform
Feb 16, 2003, 08:13 PM
NATO envoys break deadlock (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2769905.stm)

Les Kern
Feb 17, 2003, 12:17 AM
If NATO does not defend Turkey in a war, no matter the reason or rationale for the war, then NATO is dead. And then, my friend, it's everyone for themselves and whomever wants to join them.

Sol
Feb 17, 2003, 12:49 AM
While I do not think Turkey should be supporting any American led invasion of Iraq I do think that Nato should provide defences in the event of war. If Nato does not support Turkey now then what assurance does Greece or Cyprus have that Nato will support them if Turkey invades either country again?

groovebuster
Feb 17, 2003, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Stelliform
NATO envoys break deadlock (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2769905.stm)

I thought this was silly. Turkey is in NATO, and Turkey asked to defended. NATO only has to agree to defend them, not use their country for a war launching platform.

I was kinda upset against Germany, Belgium and France for Turkey's sake.

Try to see the whole picture. Those three countries didn't say they wouldn't defend Turkey at all, they just said that the time isn't there to do a decision like that. And the reasons are obvious!

In case the USA are going to invade Iraq alone, without the backing of the UN there is a big problem then. Turkey already agreed on letting the USA to install troops on their ground for a war, no matter what. So there would be activities from another NATO member's territory against Iraq. Without an UN resolution the war would just be an invasion that would be against the UN charta and questionable considering international law.

But that way the USA are blackmailing the other NATO members to agree with a war in any case.

Or let me put it another way... The defense of Turkey becomes a subject as soon as the USA are attacking Iraq. But the NATO is an alliance to defend the member countries, not to attack other countries. The question now is how to deal with a situation when one member (with the help of anlother) is doing an attack (totally on its own) on a country and causing that country to attack another NATO member.

Just imagine France would attack Russia (for reasons of "national interest") and Russia would respond by attacking Germany. Therefore the NATO would have to defend Germany even though maybe the reasons why France attacked Russia in first place were wrong, giving France the legitimation through the back-door for the war it started.

Think about it before you become too emotional about it.

To take defensive measures in Turkey by NATO at the given time is the wrong signal, because NATO would be dragged into an attack (right away) even though it is an alliance for pure defense. At the moment there is no indication that Iraq would atack Turkey. Period! And even if, it would be just because Turkey allowed the US to invade Iraq from their territory, it would be just normal that Iraq maybe will try to attack the military bases of the invader, being US bases on turkish territory. The USA are trying to use NATO for their own purposes and it is their own fault that NATO is in danger to fall apart now. The allies are not just there to support the adventures of the USA without asking any questions or to have an own point of view.

Don't believe all the propaganda that the US media is spitting out to prepare the people for an "inescapable" war. The rethoric used by the US administration and the US media reminds me a lot of the propaganda that was used in Nazi-Germany. And since I am German, I guess I know what I am talking about...

Just my 2 Eurocents! ;)

groovebuster

DannyZR2
Feb 17, 2003, 04:45 AM
:cool: and here... :cool:

Stelliform
Feb 17, 2003, 12:42 PM
...

spony
Feb 17, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Why is it the US's responcibility to give so much?

Why is it the US's privlige to take so much?

mattmack
Feb 17, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by spony
Why is it the US's privlige to take so much? This is great OK the US will stop "taking" arabian oil (oops no more money in middle east). We will stop taking whatever we take from Europe (withdawl of all military and support staff) and you all can pay us back the money you owe the US for digging you out of WWII and for defending Europe against the former USSR.
While we're at it Lets not send any more money to Africa Asia or South America.
Come on people we are all not that much different can't we all just acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes and forgive and forget
(but still learn from) the past

(in case you don't understand the first part of this post is sarcasm)

Sol
Feb 17, 2003, 11:14 PM
It amazes me how you Americans can wash your hands of any responsibility in the Middle East. In the world that exists in your heads Israel is just another ally, the Arabs are all rich because you buy their oil and Europeans have some kind of personal grudge against you. This is not the real world. Israel is bigger liability in the region than Iraq ever will be, the Arabs have endured oppresive governments which you support and Europe has its own interests which would be compromised by your thirst for war. Your president once talked of an Axis Of Evil. Starting a war now would confirm that you are the head of that axis.

mattmack
Feb 17, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Sol
It amazes me how you Americans can wash your hands of any responsibility in the Middle East. In the world that exists in your heads Israel is just another ally, the Arabs are all rich because you buy their oil and Europeans have some kind of personal grudge against you. This is not the real world. Israel is bigger liability in the region than Iraq ever will be, the Arabs have endured oppresive governments which you support and Europe has its own interests which would be compromised by your thirst for war. Your president once talked of an Axis Of Evil. Starting a war now would confirm that you are the head of that axis.
I believe the statement Geo. Washington so profoundly said was to avoid entangling alliances in Europe. We didn't do that.
Arabs are rich because we all buy ther oil.
Who set up Israel as a State. (England)
Who had the rest of the Middle East under there control? (France)
Isreal is a target because they took a worthless strip of land that no one wanted and in 50 years turned it into a modern country. Name me one Arab oil nation that is not Kingdom or a dictatorship and is taking the money that is spent on oil and is putting it to the furthering of its people and its country.
Oil is drilled with western technology manned by western engineers and paid for by the west. The fact is all the nations of the "first" world are guilty of screwing this situation up and no one wants to take responsibility. Ignoring the situation is not going to make it go away and niether is blaming Americans

macfan
Feb 17, 2003, 11:53 PM
It amazes me how you Americans can wash your hands of any responsibility in the Middle East. In the world that exists in your heads Israel is just another ally, the Arabs are all rich because you buy their oil and Europeans have some kind of personal grudge against you. This is not the real world. Israel is bigger liability in the region than Iraq ever will be, the Arabs have endured oppresive governments which you support and Europe has its own interests which would be compromised by your thirst for war. Your president once talked of an Axis Of Evil. Starting a war now would confirm that you are the head of that axis.

We aren't washing our hands of responsibility. We, with our allies, are going to dispose of the biggest threat in the region because no one else has the ability or the willingness to do so.

Arab countries are, in fact, rich in large part because of American money (and others' money as well). Were it not for the oil, they'd still be riding around on camels and living in tents.

The oppressive governments you reference have been supported by every major power, not just the United States, and yes, Europe (particularly France) has its own interests that involve keeping Saddam in power, and would be compromised were he to fall.

Thanks to Australia for standing against Saddam.