| Author | Message | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3908 Registered: 5-2001 |
Jon, I disagree that the US should be leaving NATO. It is after all called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO in itself is good. It had a purpose and still has a purpose. However I would be the first to say that countries like Germany, Belgium and my friend the French should be immediately removed from NATO, since they did not lend aid to Turyky on their request. Look at it form the question who will profit from a post Saddam Iraq? Yes sir, the US of A in a majority. Should we guarantee the loans for Turkey so they can ensure their own weak economy does not crash while the US is raging war to profit? I think they have every right to ask for these guarantees. We will not send them $$$ but only guarantee them their loans, sort of a co-signer. The war on Iraq is nothing but money. It becomes more and more clear. Saddam has tried for the past 12 years to build a bomb and has not succeeded becasue of the inspections and him having to move his stuff around the country. This is why he had kicked them out in 1998 to have peace and quiet to build his bomb. He still does not have it, nor is he near. So lets look at why the US should go to Iraq? 1. GWB sn actually owns part of corporations that supply the military with supplies, when they are overseas. Hm 200,000 in the Persian Gulf today.... He sends everything from toothpaste to food all at inflated prices. The well known $500-toilet seats come in mind. GMB himself has interest in several oil producing companies that all want to take the contracts for production, pipeline building and soforth. If the US "liberates" Iraq will a non-US company get a contract there for building these multi billion $$$ pipelines? Hardly. The money trail is sickening, while blatantly a real threat to the world is being disregarded. North Korea. They have the bomb and they will produce more and are capable of finishing their task by this summer. Besides they DO have long-range missles that can reach CA! | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 464 Registered: 8-2001 |
Art, I don't disagree with your point #1. I don't think at present Turkey feels an immidiate threat from Iraq, though I don't know much about the subject to be honest. Maybe Homer can shed some light on this subject. As for NATO being a useful tool against the Chinese 20 years from now, I am not convinced that China will be the big bad communist state in 20 years. Two great unknowns about China exist. 1) Will their slow moving reform policy of communism mixed with capitalism eliminate most of their communist architecture? 2) Will they be an economic powerhouse in 20 years? I think we can deal with China as seperate nations should they become a threat to peace and stability. I don't want the US being put in the position of having to finance the huge cost of military action in Europe when the Chinese decide to go real estate shopping. Past history has shown us the Europeans will either sit on their asses and wait for us OR if they do take action take the French path and wait until it's way too late. WWI and WWII are perfect examples. In each instance we had to clean up the mess and we didn't need a NATO agreement to do it. I am not saying that NATO should be disolved only that the US should drop out. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 463 Registered: 8-2001 |
Homer I agree with you view of the negative impact on the Turkish economy should we go to war. If you look at GDP figures for 2001 it's actually 3 billion below where it was in 1991 (150 vs 147). However, that being said, many of Turkey's problems are due to other factors including an economy badly in need of reform (rest of Europe as well). Turkey has for years wanted to be part of NATO, part of the EU and have made some good steps toward reform. However, none of this has any relevance on the NATO charter they signed. The charter states "an attack agasint one is an attack against all" and clearly outlines the assistance measures (which include the use of military bases) that each NATO member should provide in the instance a member is attacked and needs to defend itself. Turkey made the decision to joing NATO and therefore has to suffer the consequences of doing so. If I were Turkey I would be arguing that there is no clear evidence that links Saddam to the attack on 9/11. I think this case can be legally made in international court. There are also some who think that we have a right to attack Saddam because he has violated the surrender agreement of 1991. That may be true but he did not attack a NATO member in 91 and we don't have enough proof that he had a hand in 9/11 so I am not sure that NATO members that are supporting the war can really claim the charter has been invoked. My opinion is that Turkey knows Bush is going to war, with UN and NATO support or without. Either way Turkey sees an opportunity for a handout. If you join NATO to reap the benefits than you join them to make the sacrifices as well. My point is that the US has been sacrificing way too much withing NATO while the rest sit around and enjoy the beneifits. It's time we let Europe clean up its own messes. For 20 billion we could have a lot of bases in non NATO countires and a heck of a lot of aircraft carriers to launch from. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 991 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jon: You are one of the smartest guys here, your comments are always well thought out, researched, and make sense. Having said that I disagree with some of your points: 1. Despite the economic aspects, if Turkey really thought that removal of Saddam would cause less trouble in the area, then I believe that they would indeed feel the action was necessary. Apparently they don't. The Turks are now insisting that we allow them to literally occupy the Kurdish area, and that will cause war between them and the Kurds. We'll pay them to do this. This, I believe is not an economic issue, but it sure doesn't mean that they believe the potential war is needed at this time. The whole issue boils down to a pay off, buying their co-operation. As to Huffington, I don't know her, but someone gave her that MBA, or perhaps she earned it. Only her classmates and teachers know the reality. Having said that, it's irrelevant: she cites two very important facts: 1. Chaney's firm got substantial money from Saddam after the Gulf war, and 2. Apparently contracts have been let for the rebuilding of the oil fields in Iraq, including companies with connections to Chaney and Bush. Those facts are either true or not. If they are, her commentary makes good sense, and is a direct accusation against those in power here in the US. If they are false, then she's a liar, and should be disregarded. I have heard no denials from anyone about her facts, and I would, given the nature of her charges, expected strong denials. Maybe she got lucky and is right about the money. As to NATO, I disagree: we are going to need NATO with all of Europe including Russia to offset the Chinese in the next 20 years, when China finally does become a major economic power in the world. We already have the mechanism in place, why disolve it, and then have to start all over? I say leave it in place, give it a little less money, time, and equipment, and have it ready when we need it. Art | ||
| Homer P. Hampton (Homer_h)
New member Username: Homer_h Post Number: 6 Registered: 2-2003 |
John: I mistakenly implied that Turkey had to shell out the full 50 billion. I apologize. After reading my post, I realize where you could assume that. After the last gulf war, there was an estimated 1.8 million refugees that left Iraq with a conservative estimate cost of 50 billion to care for these refugees. Not a few thousand but half a million of these refugees went to Turkey. If you figure out the cost per person, you can see that it still cost Turkey a huge chuck of change. The refugee problem is only part of the equation. Their economy was also slammed pretty hard. Their deficit and inflation rose immediately after the war and have yet to recover. Tourism revenue dried up and their trades with Iraq, of course, ceased. Yes, they will suffer quite a bit if another gulf war is going to happen. Is it wrong for them to protect themselves in the meantime? What would you do if you were in their position? | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 2849 Registered: 9-2001 |
I think most of the money is in the form of loan guarantees - which helps lower their funding costs - of course they might default  | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 462 Registered: 8-2001 |
I think its still of value just because it keeps countries in contact, as long as countries are on speaking terms, hopefully they wont be on shooting term William: that's what email and phones are for. Cold war is history and so should NATO be. While is sounds terrible in the end these things all come down to money Tom, totally agree but $20 billion. If the estimates of war (not the costs after war) are correct at 50-60 billion I can't see why Turkey feels they need 1/3 of that. We all know that political models predict that a group of people (congressman, states, nations, etc) will engage in "logrolling" which is the act to secure a majority decision by trading votes or resources. Goes on all the time but 20 billion is off the map. I guess what I mean is we will promise France that their companies will get to keep the cushy oil contracts they have in place with saddam etc etc As I mentioned in earlier posts my only justification for war is clear evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11. If that takes place and we go to war than France made a business contract with a party that was responsibly for over 3000 US lives. I am sure morally those cowards in France would have no problem with this since Chirac is a old friend of Saddam but I don't think you will find on American who can accept this as a valid business contract. Huffington's column last week spelled it all out: money, more money for Bush's allies. Art: I value your educated, well thought out responses and stands on most issue, even ones I don't agree with you on. Please don't tell me you read or listen to anything Arianna has to say. How she got an Masters of Economics from Cambridge is beyond me. She should stick to writing books about Greek mythology and Picasso. Turkey had to put up with the costs of care/security/admin/etc. for these refugees (some estimates pegged as high as 50 billion). The US promised Turkey that they would provide financial support but they never did. Also, by allowing US to use their bases, Turkey opens itself up to attacks (both direct and from terrorists) from pro-Iraq supporters Homer: I have nothing to refute your claim of 50 billion to house Iraq refugees but that seems way too high. Can you provide a source for such estimation. Turkey's GDP in 1991 was 150 billion. You're trying to tell me that it took 1/3 of their GDP to take care of a few thousand Iraqi's. Obviously the Turks don't think its needed, and therefore we have to buy them Art: Of course they don't think it's needed. If we control the oil in Iraq, guess where it's headed? To the US. That means it won't be going through Turkey on to Europe and instead will be loaded onto US tanker bound for America. Money does make the world go around and whether the war is just, needed or the right thing to do, everyone wants a handout. $20 billion isn't a small handout, it's extortion. Regards, Jon | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 2843 Registered: 9-2001 |
I hear you Art, but disagree Best | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 987 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tom: Not if the war was just, but if it was needed. Obviously the Turks don't think its needed, and therefore we have to buy them. Could be all that we are hearing is just BS to get us into a war, maybe not, but Turkey's behavior, and if there are additional countries who we have to buy to get them into this, leaves me to believe that questioning the foundation for the reason for war is appropriate. There is an advantage of being a little order, sometimes you see something being repeated, and I think I'm seeing the Tonkin lie being repeated, that's all. IMHO Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 795 Registered: 1-2002 |
I disagree, Homer. Turkey risks FAR worse from Saddam himself...just as they did in 1991. Had be gone unchecked, I am convinced that he would have invadad Saudi Arabia & probably Turkey. I would think the cost of refugees pales in comparison to losing your whole country... | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 54 Registered: 7-2002 |
$26 Billion to Turkey?? I think the US is only planning to spend $2B for all of homeland security. AND I think that has not even happened yet. | ||
| Homer P. Hampton (Homer_h)
New member Username: Homer_h Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2003 |
I think Turkey should be more cooperate but here�s something to consider. The last gulf war cost Turkey billions of dollars when a flood of refugees from Iraq came pouring into Turkey. Turkey had to put up with the costs of care/security/admin/etc. for these refugees (some estimates pegged as high as 50 billion). The US promised Turkey that they would provide financial support but they never did. Also, by allowing US to use their bases, Turkey opens itself up to attacks (both direct and from terrorists) from pro-Iraq supporters. Since they are in a more sensitive and exposed part of the world, they have more at stake here. I think they are also protecting themselves from all outcomes that may occur after the war is over. What they are asking for is not too outrageous in my opinion | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 793 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jon, I agree. I think we should tell our Turkish "allies" to pound sand. We should rescind the offer, and stage out of Qatar & Bharain. Just as good, albeit longer to Iraq's northern territories. But it would be a good lesson to the Turke: leave them hanging in the wind just as Saddam goes nuts. They's be BEGGING us 2 days later for protection--and they'll be offering to pay us! Just as it should be. Farcking Icehole Corksuckers. | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 2838 Registered: 9-2001 |
Art To say that if the the cause were so just we would not need to involve money is just silly. People are dying daily in Africa due to aids and lack of education about the way AIDS is spread - a just cause but money is a main reason it is not resolved. Unfortuatly or Fortuately - money makes the world go round | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 981 Registered: 6-2001 |
Guys: The issue of Turkey and this war is we are buying our "allies". If our cause was so good, why do we have to pay? Huffington's column last week spelled it all out: money, more money for Bush's allies. Art | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 2837 Registered: 9-2001 |
I guess what I mean is we will promise France that their companies will get to keep the cushy oil contracts they have in place with saddam etc etc. BTW interesting article in the WSJ about the Normandy area of France and their support for the US | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2026 Registered: 2-2001 |
Last time I was in france , last year maybe they didnt seem like they needed charity from the US. Paris looked better off than I have ever seen it | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 2834 Registered: 9-2001 |
While I agree with you, I might clarify - they want the money to allow us to use bases and airspace - not in a NATO sense but in a sense of carrying out the mission to rid the world of saddam. While is sounds terrible in the end these things all come down to money - if russia comes along it will be because we offer finanical incentives, same with the French - money makes the world go round | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2025 Registered: 2-2001 |
Jon, last I heard it was $26B. NATO is a leftover from the Cold War, it was meant to protect W europe from the USSR which doesnt exist anymore. I think its still of value just because it keeps countries in contact, as long as countries are on speaking terms, hopefully they wont be on shooting terms | ||
| Tyler (Bahiaau)
Member Username: Bahiaau Post Number: 549 Registered: 12-2001 |
I agree Jon. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 459 Registered: 8-2001 |
Reported this evening that Turkey wants somewhere between $15 to $20 billion in aid from the US in exchange for letting us use their bases. Apparently they started negotiations with the US at 30-40 range and are now down to $20 billion. What a bargain from a fellow NATO member. What a farce. Don't remember anything in the NATO charter about "...an attack against one is an attack against all if you pay us a sh*t load of money...." It amazes me that anyone in the US can see any relevance to NATO or the UN. We ought to negotiate the package with Turkey and then send them $20 billion in Iraqi Dinars right after we dollarize Iraq's economy and ban the Dinar. Send them a boat load of worthless paper......like the worthless paper the NATO charter agreement is printed on. I can see both sides of the Iraqi war issue but it confounds me that there are actually educated people in this country who support the UN and NATO as relevant organizations in world geo-politics. Ok, done venting now. Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 |