STORM2K

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03 ... index.html

There is a new prime minister now and he will convoke a new vote of the parlament and be favorable for the US opening a front in northern Iraq hopefully that happens soon before the 17th.

I was hoping that Turkey would come to their senses. I found it quite disturbing that they would consider turning their backs on us. They have been with us since the Korean War, if my facts are correct.

Yeh its just a tough situation willingly allowing war to come to your country. Its a difficult decision to make. I completely understand why they may be flip flopping their votes.

JQ Public wrote:Yeh its just a tough situation willingly allowing war to come to your country. Its a difficult decision to make. I completely understand why they may be flip flopping their votes.

It is not a difficult decision when you are being offered billions. Not to mention the fact that Turkey is a poor country and could sure use the money. We can and will protect Turkey as we always have.

War would eventually come there anyway with Saddam as their neighbor. I honestly don't think we should have to pay them billions, IMHO it's a favor for the United states to protect them. They are entitled to some compensation but Billions is a joke. What did we pay France to use their beaches in The D-day invasion to rid Europe of Hitler?????????

Johnathan

Rainband I heard that the billons for them will be around 16 Billon.

Actually if you knew anything turkey is becoming a pretty affluent country. They do not want to deal with the refugees. They do no want to deal with war on their soil just like we didn't like then attacking us on 9/11. Its not a easy decision to go to war. It would be irresponsible if it was so easy. Money makes the world go round. Would you let England come over here and attack mexico for free? I doubt it.

It is not about them not wanting war on their soil. The Turks and Kurds have been at it for years. But you are right about the refugees. It is not ALL refugees they do not want there, just the Kurds. We need to be there to protect the Kurds from the Turks as well. And by no means is Turkey an affluent country.

So you're saying they want war on their soil? I doubt it. The turks and kurds have been at it b/c if enough get into turkey they will try and make their own country causing my problems in a growing sector of the world economy.

JQ Public wrote:Actually if you knew anything turkey is becoming a pretty affluent country.

WE BOW to you on your economic evaluation of turkey. This is a debate PLEASE DON'T BE RUDE TO SUNNYSHINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thanks for your attention to this matter ...



Johnathan

I understand where you are coming from here JQ. But the fact is, Turkey does not want the Kurds in their country, true enough. So let me run this past you. Do you know that the Kurds are the majority in Iraq? And they are being forced to live like a bunch of refugees there? Did you know that Saddam has gassed more than 5000 Kurds with his Chemical Warfare? If we take out this dictator of Iraq, then the Kurds will be able to live in peace and harmony in their home country of Iraq and maybe the Turks and Kurds will live in peace and harmony as neighbors.


Thanks Rainband... you are a true patriot.

Thanks, I just call em like I see em



Johnathan

Then why didn't Bush Sr. take him out? Because that first war was about oil. Bush 1 didn't care about ridding the kurds of a tyrannical dictator and neither does bush 2. The proposition bush agreed to only calls for dissarmament of saddam...it says nothing about the regime change he keeps telling us about in America. Sorry didn't mean to disrespect you sunny shine. Oh well i guess i'm a traitor b/c i speak my mind. Geesh

JQ the Gulf War was not about oil either. We went in to protect Kuwait from an invasion by Iraq. Now if my memory serves me correctly, Kuwait is full of Kurds and Shiites and is not about oil.

There will be peace and harmony brought to the country of Iraq once we go in and remove him. I agree that Bush Sr. should have taken him out. He had the chance and blew it. I am with you on that note.

The proposal of disarmament is just the first step in removing him from power. We will just have to wait and see on everything else you are debating when the war is over. Which, IMO, will not last very long.

I sincerely hope it will not be a long war. But it always seems like wars bring way too many surprises for my liking. I dunno why i keep arguing against the war. Its too late now...bush wants it to happen now so no use. I guess i'm the "ulitmate optimist". Woops did i reveal smthg?!

JQ Public wrote:I sincerely hope it will not be a long war. But it always seems like wars bring way too many surprises for my liking. I dunno why i keep arguing against the war. Its too late now...bush wants it to happen now so no use. I guess i'm the "ulitmate optimist". Woops did i reveal smthg?!

I certainly respect your opinions JQ. Regardless of what we agree or disagree on, we can always agree that we are Americans.

I try to remain optimistic too, but there are some things that are just too dangerous to be left alone, and this situation is one of them! I wish it didn't have to be this way, but it's out of our hands, let's just pray for the safety of the American people!

Good b/c i feel the same way about you!! I like having these "discussions" with people. Yeh jacki...i know what you mean...but i still don't want it to happen. I agree saddam is a bad dude, but do we really need to drop 10 times the bombs on the first assault than we did during the entire gulf war?! I dunno.

JQ Public wrote:Then why didn't Bush Sr. take him out? Because that first war was about oil. Bush 1 didn't care about ridding the kurds of a tyrannical dictator and neither does bush 2. The proposition bush agreed to only calls for dissarmament of saddam...it says nothing about the regime change he keeps telling us about in America. Sorry didn't mean to disrespect you sunny shine. Oh well i guess i'm a traitor b/c i speak my mind. Geesh

The mandate both from the UN and the coaltition that President Bush Sr put together was for the expulsion of Saddam's troops from Kuwait. To have extended that mission to the removal of Saddam would have caused major probelms. In hindsight it might have been better but nontheless Bush Sr held to his word.

The reason we've gone from disarmament to regime change is simple. Saddam has refused to disarm! If Saddam had complied, then he would have remained in power. Since he has not disarmed. the only way to accomplish it is to remove him from Iraq once and all. It was his choice... not it's ours!