Turkey to send troops to Iraq

[Crossbow]

Well it has taken a while, but the country of Turkey has officially ruled that it will be sending some of its troops to Iraq in order to help stabilize the situation. However, the details as to just how many troops will be going, where they be going, and when they will be going has not been established.

What has been established, is that Turkey will get $8.5 billion (USD) in loans from the USA for their cooperation in this noble effort and that the Turkish troops will be in Iraq for no more than one year.

Not a bad deal considering that Turkey will be getting about $850,000 in USA aid for every soldier they send in (assuming they send the full 10,000 requested by Washington).

Isn't that sweet?

By the way, I expect this is yet another of shady war accounting since this aid money will not be coming out of the direct appropriations made to support the war. After all, the public is already having enough trouble choking down the recent $87 billion request, so I doubt that the Bush Administration would want that figure to be $93.5 billion. But on the bright side, no one was under oath when this deal was done and there was no illicit sex involved so the successor to George Washington will not have to worry about anything being wrong with it.

Turkish Parliament OKs Troops for Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=721&e=7&u=/ap/20031007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_iraq

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's parliament voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to give the government permission to send troops to Iraq (news - web sites), a move that could lead to the first contingent of Muslim peacekeepers being sent to Iraq.

...

Turkish lawmakers voted 358-183 in a closed-door session in favor of dispatching troops. The motion gives the government the authority to send troops for a year, but does not specify how many troops would be deployed or when. Washington has asked Turkey to contribute some 10,000 soldiers.

The vote does not mean that soldiers will immediately be dispatched. The government is still negotiating the terms of deployment with the United States, which could take weeks or even longer.

...

The United States agreed to lend Turkey $8.5 billion to support its economy, but has made clear that the loan hinges on Turkey's "cooperation in Iraq."

...

[Mr Manifesto]

How ironic. The US is funding Turkey, a country that kills and oppresses Kurds. Just like... now who was that villian we were overthrowing again..?

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/europe/turkey.html)

Turkey press releases

[Jon_in_london]

I sure the Kurds are going absolutely frantic with relief!!

[Richard G]

If we went in and wiped out the Turk for that, I'll bet you'd find a reason to bitch about it.

[Landis]

During the first stages of this "ongoing" war, the Kurds probably gave the US more military assistance than anyone. They effectively helped us gain control of the Northern Provinces of Iraq with minimal US troop involvement. Now we thank them by bringing in 10,000 armed Turks - their arch enemies!!!! Yeah, that
's a smart strategy!!!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Richard G
If we went in and wiped out the Turk for that, I'll bet you'd find a reason to bitch about it.

Yes, I would. Because you're an idiot and you'd kill civilians. Not only that, but you'd probably go in without UN support and use some bizarre pretext like, "Turkey has killer fairies".

After you 'wiped out the Turk', Turkey would fall into a state of anarchy, and just as many Kurds would be dying as ever. Meanwhile, you'd be padding the wallets of your cronies in large American companies with reconstruction contracts.

The truth is, world diplomatic functions shouldn't be left to inbred pinheads like yer g'd self.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The truth is, world diplomatic functions shouldn't be left to inbred pinheads like yer g'd self.


he's right, they should be left to inbred pinheads like this:

http://www.peacesites.org/kofi%20annan.jpg

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



he's right, they should be left to inbred pinheads like this:



That 'inbred pinhead' is a decent principled man of peace, and is more of a man than you, your daddy and grandaddy put together.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


That 'inbred pinhead' is a decent principled man of peace, and is more of a man than you, your daddy and grandaddy put together.

Hear! Hear!

[Jon_in_london]

Its also interesting to note that the Iraqi government council DOESNT WANT THEM IN IRAQ!!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3172228.stm

A Kurdish member of the council, Mahmoud Othman, described the deployment as "the wrong thing to do", saying "it does not add to security, it is not useful".

But thats fine, because as Tony knows, we can't let a bunch of sand-negroes rule their own country.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony



he's right, they should be left to inbred pinheads like this:



Tony, the cowardly e-warrior strikes again from behind the safety of his PC fortress.

[corplinx]

Beleive it or not, forcing the Turks and Kurds to cooperate might not be a bad idea.

At some point, these peoples are going to have to learn to live next to each other or else risk future Iraq with a hostile northern border.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


That 'inbred pinhead' is a decent principled man of peace, and is more of a man than you, your daddy and grandaddy put together.

Yeah! Annan is a great guy! He saved Rwanda from genocide!

Oh wait, my mistake. He didn't.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda4.htm

[Chaos]

Originally posted by corplinx
Beleive it or not, forcing the Turks and Kurds to cooperate might not be a bad idea.

At some point, these peoples are going to have to learn to live next to each other or else risk future Iraq with a hostile northern border.

I agree they will have to learn that. However, I disagree that doing it that way is a good idea.

Firstly, Turkey sends in troops to free up U.S. troops. That means that no U.S. troop will be in the areas where Turks and Kurds are together. As things are now between Turks and Kurds, I don´t think they will cooperate. At the best, they will ignore each other, at the worst, they will work against each other, perhaps fight each other.

Secondly, once this non-cooperation or rivalry or fighting starts, the U.S. will have to take care of it to avoid it getting worse and worse, up to open war. The current U.S. administration has not exactly been known for unbiased, impartial mediation, so it is very, very likely they will take sides in this conflict - probably with whomever is more useful to them at that moment. This will ruin the U.S.´s standing with the side they do not support, probably for a very long time, and it will deteriorate even more the relations between Turks and Kurds - because "these [insert "Turk" or "Kurd" here] bastards have turned the Americans against us".

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
Beleive it or not, forcing the Turks and Kurds to cooperate might not be a bad idea.

At some point, these peoples are going to have to learn to live next to each other or else risk future Iraq with a hostile northern border.

Well, dream on (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s962017.htm).

Oh, and Ziggurat, I'm so glad you can do Kofi Annan's job better than him. Why don't you run for head of UN?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx
Beleive it or not, forcing the Turks and Kurds to cooperate might not be a bad idea.

At some point, these peoples are going to have to learn to live next to each other or else risk future Iraq with a hostile northern border.

I think it is really great that we can sit here, thousands of miles away, and issue pronouncements on how other people should get along with each other.

Can anyone come up with some more social experiments to try out on these people?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Oh, and Ziggurat, I'm so glad you can do Kofi Annan's job better than him. Why don't you run for head of UN?

You're missing the point (no surprise). Either Annan is incompetent (you suggest he is not) or he is impotent. Either way, he is not the one to look to for leadership in world affairs, because he cannot provide that leadership. Tony's personal insult towards Annan was unnecessary, but the point that we shouldn't just leave things to him stands quite firm. Your juvenile retort (just a variation on "if you love it so much, why don't you marry it?") in his defense is irrelevant.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You're missing the point (no surprise). Either Annan is incompetent (you suggest he is not) or he is impotent. Either way, he is not the one to look to for leadership in world affairs, because he cannot provide that leadership. Tony's personal insult towards Annan was unnecessary, but the point that we shouldn't just leave things to him stands quite firm. Your juvenile retort (just a variation on "if you love it so much, why don't you marry it?") in his defense is irrelevant.

What I'm trying to say is that Annan isn't just running a company that sells Barbie dolls, he's running the entire UN, which includes fifteen countries which at any one time have the right to veto- especially you-know-who, who weren't keen on commiting troops after losing 18 men in Moghadishu.

Remember that the UN had over a dozen peacekeeping operations running at the same time. Countries weren't knocking themselves out to commit troops for any of them. That's why I'm suggesting you're a back-seat peace-keeper.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yeah! Annan is a great guy! He saved Rwanda from genocide!

Oh wait, my mistake. He didn't.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda4.htm Without a mandate from the Security Council, it doesn't matter what Annan or any other UN personnel wanted or didn't want to do.

Chronology of the Rwandan genocide (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html)

Some excerpts:
Rwandan President Habyarimana and the Burundian President are killed when Habyarimana's plane is shot down near Kigali Airport. The Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Hutu militia (the interahamwe) set up roadblocks and go from house to house killing Tutsis and moderate Hutu politicians. Thousands die on the first day. Some U.N. camps shelter civilians, but most of the U.N. peackeeping forces (UNAMIR--United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) stand by while the slaughter goes on. They are forbidden to intervene, as this would breach their "monitoring" mandate. The International Red Cross estimates that tens of thousands of Rwandans have been murdered. The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270. State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelley is asked whether what is happening in Rwanda is a genocide. She responds, "...the use of the term 'genocide' has a very precise legal meaning, although it's not strictly a legal determination. There are other factors in there as well." The U.N. Security Council passes a resolution condemning the killing, but omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators. And on and on.

The bottom line is that the international community didn't really care. When the member countries of the UN don't have the will to do something, one can hardly blame the UN for not acting.

[P.S.A.]

Here's a more nuanced analysis of why the UN wasn't able to react to Rwanda;

"Few reformers are willing to admit that the UN's complex and inefficient machinery results from deep political disagreements among its members and between other contending forces in the global system. In a world divided by chasms between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, differences of interest are certain to shape all reform efforts and keep the UN a contradictory and divided institution. "

What the?! But there's more! This liberal source then goes on to single out specific targets for criticism!

"Business Critics

The business press is particularly critical of the UN, reflecting the common corporate distaste for public programs, taxes and regulation. Typical articles, editorials and opinion pieces complain that the UN is a bastion of regulation, and that it regularly imposes annoying new rules in the name of the environment, worker rights, species protection, peace and other wooly-headed ideals. A March 1996 issue of The Economist, noting the UN's financial woes, commented with satisfaction: "the doers of good are having a rough time." It described the International Labour Organization as "an oversized think-tank" and concluded that ILO is in trouble because "worrying about workers is out of fashion these days."

And then...!

"Conservative Think Tanks

The business-driven critique, especially strong in the United States and Britain, has been nurtured since the early 1980s by conservative think tanks like the Washington-based Heritage Foundation that see themselves as watchdogs of individual "freedom" against the tyranny of governments and intergovernmental agencies like the UN. Generously funded by grants from private foundations, wealthy individuals and corporations, these think tanks have vilified the UN as a rat hole of sloth, ignorance, foreign intrigue and -- above all -- collectivism. "The war against economic freedom, the free enterprise system and multinational corporations permeates the U.N. structure," affirmed a Heritage report in 1984. Heritage aimed a barrage of more than 100 policy papers at the UN during the 1980's. "

GASP! Who is this appallingly left-leaning source who summarises with "As the US financial sword continues to hang over the UN...," and even states that Kofi Annan was a US hand picked Secretary-General...?

Why... It's Ziggurat's own source.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/analysis.htm

Whether or not Ziggurat is left leaning we'll leave for him to state for himself. But certainly I think we can summarise that if his own source is claiming the UN is hindered for multiple reasons, not just Kofi Annan (spot that "part responsible") headline from the original link provided), he's done a wee bit of data mining there....

For those of you interested in just how many Countries were caught with their morality around their ankles over Rwanda, here's a time line of events;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

So let's see, Belgium and France were content to just airlift their own people out. The US waffled and waffled on whether or not genocide was occuring, rather than act to prevent it; then later refuses to allow the use of APC's. The 15 permanent members of the UNSC also waffle and complain too, about the cost of African peacekeepers in their case. And all the while, what was just one man, Kofi Annan, expected to be able to do? Inspire the countries with the ability to intervene, to actually do so? With what, fine words? Appeals to human dignity? As if those have ever been common currency in international politics.

But let's be fair to Mr Annan, and give him the final word on that matter;

"May 7, 1998; Kigali, Rwanda U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan apologizes to the Parliament of Rwanda

'... The world must deeply repent this failure. Rwanda's tragedy was the world's tragedy. All of us who cared about Rwanda, all of us who witnessed its suffering, fervently wish that we could have prevented the genocide. Looking back now, we see the signs which then were not recognized. Now we know that what we did was not nearly enough--not enough to save Rwanda from itself, not enough to honor the ideals for which the United Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their greatest hour of need, the world failed the people of Rwanda ...' "

Repeat that last line over and over again. The world failed...

[gnome]

I think we're jumping to conclusions here.

I would HOPE that the foreign policy genuises in the white house know that Turks and Kurds are a bad mix. But that's in Northern Iraq... in southern Iraq you have a large muslim population, who would probably get along with Turks a lot better. That's why they sent Turks to Afghanistan. They could be trying the same idea here.

Of course, that's just a quick opinion based on admittedly limited knowledge.

[DanishDynamite]

P.S.A.,

Great post. Seeing how you used the same link for the timeline as I did, one can only conclude that "great minds think alike". ;)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by P.S.A.

Whether or not Ziggurat is left leaning we'll leave for him to state for himself.


On social issues I do consider myself left-leaning, for whatever that's worth.


Repeat that last line over and over again. The world failed...

Yes, the world did fail. That includes the US, under Clinton's watch, and the French as well. My point is that the UN failed in the past, and we should not depend upon it succeeding in the future. You can blame whoever you like for that reality, it may not be Annan's "fault" that he couldn't stop the genocide in Rwanda, but the fact remains that he couldn't. That's largely an inherent weakness of the position rather than him individually, but that still doesn't help any.

[Mr Manifesto]

From this...
Yeah! Annan is a great guy! He saved Rwanda from genocide!
Oh wait, my mistake. He didn't.

To this...



Yes, the world did fail. That includes the US, under Clinton's watch, and the French as well. My point is that the UN failed in the past, and we should not depend upon it succeeding in the future. You can blame whoever you like for that reality, it may not be Annan's "fault" that he couldn't stop the genocide in Rwanda, but the fact remains that he couldn't. That's largely an inherent weakness of the position rather than him individually, but that still doesn't help any.

In just two steps!

Zig- think first, then shoot mouth off. Understand?

[P.S.A.]

Sorry for the hit and run posting folks, issues in real life, not that I'm sure many people miss me!

Well Zig, I will admit that at least you probably would have read your link normally; one interesting thing to do when ever people post links is to cut off the unique part of the URL, and see what else is hosted at the same location. I've come across some amazing examples of obvious data mining that way before... where people grab an article from any old where that looks valid, to support a belief they already have. I must admit I thought you were doing exactly the same thing.
The funniest example I can remember was one guy arguing that Sweden's rules on fire-arm ownership proved the link between availability and low crime... he reffered to some general statistics on Guncite.com, a pro-arms page to back up his claims; but there was also a discussion on the Swedish example itself at that very page, which denied the claimed link between the two!

But anyway... as someone who states he is somewhat left wing, why do you believe that the complications which mean that it's not as simple as cause and effect, good and bad at the domestic level (which would be a rough guide to what is considered "left" politics) don't also complicate the international arena? Why focus on simple good and bad for single entities at the global level, which surely is less, not more individualistic in it's structure? Why curse the UN individually for it's inability to act effectively in what is collectively a selfish and unsympathetic world? Why slander Annan personally, when even Jesus himself wouldn't have done any good in such a world? Turn the other cheek, he said. Nail that bastard up, we said.

As for the Turkish/Kurd problem, to just raise another point... The Iraq war was, as it was for most of the rest of the world, fantastically unpopular in Turkey. And Turkey's army, unlike the UK or US's, has a large conscript component, many of whom will be part of that 10,000 troop deployment.
Even if (and let's hope this is true) the deployment of Turkish troops to Iraq is relatively harmonious with the people living there, it's just going to encourage all shades of Western-Rejectionism in Turkey itself.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by P.S.A.

But anyway... as someone who states he is somewhat left wing, why do you believe that the complications which mean that it's not as simple as cause and effect, good and bad at the domestic level (which would be a rough guide to what is considered "left" politics) don't also complicate the international arena? Why focus on simple good and bad for single entities at the global level, which surely is less, not more individualistic in it's structure? Why curse the UN individually for it's inability to act effectively in what is collectively a selfish and unsympathetic world? Why slander Annan personally, when even Jesus himself wouldn't have done any good in such a world? Turn the other cheek, he said. Nail that bastard up, we said.


I was being a little flippant. That happens sometimes when I'm debating Manifesto. I don't actually have much personally against Annan (though he hasn't impressed me), but leaving the Iraq situation to be handled by the UN alone is a recipe for the same sort of second-guessing and hesitation that doomed Rwanda. However swell you think Annan might be, that's the reality he's still stuck with, and he doesn't have the power to change that. What really irks me about people like Manifesto is this concept that the UN somehow has this inherent legitimacy, and that we are in the wrong merely by virtue of defying the UN. This is a seriously flawed notion, one that the left would be well-served to abandon.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I was being a little flippant. That happens sometimes when I'm debating Manifesto.

You mean you're different at other times? :eek:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Zig- think first, then shoot mouth off. Understand?

Yeah, I was being a little sarcastic. But are you implying that I backtracked? Because I didn't. Note I never said it was Annan's fault. I said he didn't stop the genocide in Rwanda. That's true, regardless of whether it was a choice or an inability because of external constraints, and I didn't make any claim as to which it was. Regardless of whose fault it was, Annan does not have the ability to stop such disasters in the future. My point stands: do not look to Annan to guide the world.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yeah, I was being a little sarcastic. But are you implying that I backtracked? Because I didn't. Note I never said it was Annan's fault. I said he didn't stop the genocide in Rwanda. That's true, regardless of whether it was a choice or an inability because of external constraints, and I didn't make any claim as to which it was. Regardless of whose fault it was, Annan does not have the ability to stop such disasters in the future. My point stands: do not look to Annan to guide the world.

With your ability to twist words, you really should think about going into politics.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

You mean you're different at other times? :eek:

Sure. Come on over to my science posts, I'm much more relaxed there. ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


That 'inbred pinhead' is a decent principled man of peace,


That idiot is so dedicated to peace he let thousands be murdered. I wish I had that conviction; us warmongers would have tried to save some lives. That inbred piece of ***** is almost as inept as the democrap presidential candidates.

It's pretty funny you feel the need to defend that guy. How pathetic. :roll:

and is more of a man than you, your daddy and grandaddy put together.

Ohh really?? I'll remember that when Im pissing on Annan's grave. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Tony, the cowardly e-warrior strikes again from behind the safety of his PC fortress.

Always the troll.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony

Ohh really?? I'll remember that when Im pissing on Annan's grave. :)

That's really unnecessarily crass. You're inviting Malachi and Jon to start responding in kind, and there's really no point in heading down that road.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


That's really unnecessarily crass. You're inviting Malachi and Jon to start responding in kind, and there's really no point in heading down that road.

You're right, but Jon took the first shot. The responsibilty is his.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


You're right, but Jon took the first shot. The responsibilty is his.

Yes, moronic comments like the ones you usually make should be ignored.

[Mr Manifesto]

Another reason for Turkey to send troops (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4855.htm):

01 October 2003:(The Independent) Oil is slippery stuff but not as slippery as the figures now being peddled by Iraq's American occupiers. Up around Kirkuk, the authorities are keeping the sabotage figures secret - because they can't stop their pipelines to Turkey blowing up. And down in Baghdad, where the men who produce Iraq's oil production figures are beginning to look like the occupants of Plato's cave - drawing conclusions from shadows on their wall - the statistics are being cooked. Paul Bremer, the US proconsul who wears combat boots, is "sexing up" the figures to a point where even the oilmen are shaking their heads.

Take Kirkuk. Only when the television cameras capture a blown pipe, flames billowing, do the occupation powers report sabotage. This they did, for example, on 18 August. But the same Turkish pipeline has been hit before and since. It was blown on 17 September and four times the following day. US patrols and helicopters move along the pipeline but, in the huge ravines and tribal areas through which it passes, long sections are indefensible.

And something else to think about:

But it can't make the oil flow. The cost of making it flow could produce an economic crisis in the US. And it is this - rather than the daily killing of young American soldiers - that lies behind the Bush administration's growing panic. Washington has got its hands on the biggest treasure chest in the world - but it can't open the lid. No wonder they are cooking the books in Baghdad.

[evildave]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I think it is really great that we can sit here, thousands of miles away, and issue pronouncements on how other people should get along with each other.

Can anyone come up with some more social experiments to try out on these people?

Sure, let's lock 'em in a big jar together and see which one's still alive after a week!


Turkey has done lots of little military skirmishes across Iraq's border in the recent past to "spank" Kurds. A bit like Israel's visits into Palestine, and for similar reasons, in a very general sense.

It wouldn't seem like a great idea to put Turkish troops in a mostly-Kurdish territory, or anywhere that they might interact with Kurds routinely. It doesn't matter who shoots first, nobody will stop shooting in time.

The Turks might be usefully deployed patrolling a frontier or guarding oil rigs or something. Somewhere where everyone can see that 10,000 Turkish troops are not 20,000 or more, and that these troops of *undetermined* training aren't placed in a situation where they'll have to use razor fine judgment to decide just who to shoot at. That leaves the Turkish border and most cities out of the question.

[Tricky]

Hmmm... Maybe the idea is to let Turkey eventually annex Iraq. They're (nominally) our ally and they already have a government and everything. If they have to be a little brutal in welcoming their new state, well hey! It's intermural!

[Jon_in_london]

the salient point is that the Iraqi council doesnt want them. But the US wants them, so there!

[Agammamon]

Apparently the INC isn't too happy with this development and with good reason. They don't want troops from any of Iraq's neighbors in there since these guys tend not to leave when the job's done. Also the Kurd controlled areas are between Turkey and the rest of Iraq. Given their history it may be iffy if the Turks can get in country without violence.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yes, moronic comments like the ones you usually make should be ignored.

I don’t see you ignoring them.

[Shane Costello]

IIRC there's been bad blood between the Turks and Arabs in general since the days of the Ottoman Empire. So much so that Turkey is an ally of Israel.