Turkey Adopts Bush’s Rhetoric, Says Troops Will Stay In Northern Iraq ‘As Long As Necessary’
Turkey Adopts Bush’s Rhetoric, Says Troops Will Stay In Northern Iraq ‘As Long As Necessary’
Throughout the Iraq war, President Bush has consistently rejected calls for setting a timetable for withdrawal, insisting that to do so would be “conceding too much to the enemy.” Responding to reporters’ questions in 2006, Bush stated:
This notion about, you know, fixed timetable of withdrawal, in my judgment, is a — means defeat. You can’t leave until the job is done. Our mission is to get the job done as quickly as possible.
Similarly, in a 2005 interview with al-Arabiya television, Bush said:
I think it’s very important for the Iraqi citizens to know what I’ve been telling the American citizens, and that is, is that we will stay as long as is necessary to help the Iraqis secure their country.
Yesterday, Turkish officials showed that they had observed and learned from the Bush administration’s position on timetables and deadlines.
Responding to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ admonition that Turkey’s ground offensive in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq “should be as short and precisely targeted as possible,” the Turkish government responded by mimicking White House talking points on Iraq:
– “Turkey will remain in northern Iraq as long as necessary. … There is no need for us to stay there after we finish (off) the terrorist infrastructure… We have no intention to interfere in (Iraqi) domestic politics, no intention to occupy any area.” [Defense Minister Vecdi Gonu]
– “A short time is a relative term. Sometimes this can mean one day and sometimes one year.” [Army chief Yasar Buyukanit]
The Bush administration may not be exporting democracy, but it is exporting misguided talking points.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
84 Responses to “Turkey Adopts Bush’s Rhetoric, Says Troops Will Stay In Northern Iraq ‘As Long As Necessary’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Paging Blue-Sky Exley!
Paging Blue-Sky Exley!
Bring the talking points booklet, you're going to need it!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pmI like the "taste of your own medicine" the Turks are passing out. "Good for goose - good for gander - now we smoke and drink coffee, so kiss a goat's ass, mr. bush-prince."
Then dubbie can whine back "Iraq is ours, we invaded it "fair and square" you guys have to get out - maybe you can play tetherball at second recess, but this is ours - we called it right after pledge of allegiance this morning, and if you guys don't quit it we're telling."
big stupid f'in baby.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pmBarfly, spot on.
What a freaking joke this Iraq fiasco is.
Yeah, Iraq is so much better occupied by two countries and divided by tribal conflicts.
And just wait for Kosovo...
February 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pmThe situation throughout the world is never so bad that it can't be made worse by Bush and his moronic cronies.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pmThe surge in freedom is working!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm(For the Turks...)
Looks like a 1000 year Ottoman invasion/occupation. Ain't freedumb great?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmBring the talking points booklet, you’re going to need it!
Comment by barfly — February 28, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Taking bets on whether Exley will even show on the thread........
February 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmBush has contaminated the world. Others are horning in on his act.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmIronic how its Turkey that parrots Bush....
February 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm"Taking bets on whether Exley will even show on the thread…….."
Comment by Wayne —
The headline will scare him off. He'll read our posts, but he's too chicken to say anything.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pmJust wait til Rice and Perino make statements about this situation. This twists and turns and lies will be substantial.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pmWhat strikes me the most:
And where is the UN?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmLooks like a 1000 year Ottoman invasion/occupation. Ain’t freedumb great?
Comment by RUCerious — February 28, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Well, they did have it first.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmCool, let's go to war against another NATO member. Pooty-Poot must love this stuff.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmMonkey see, monkey do...
In other news, Bush refuses to admit that we are heading into a Bush-depression. Depressing, huh?
The rightwing slime and smear machine is going to use up all of their stupid attacks against Obama by then end of April... What are they going to do after that? Repeat themselves? Repeat themselves? Repeat themselves? Sounds like we might have siz months of relatively clear sailing until the Obama landslide over old lame McCane... This will be the biggest Democratic victory since LBJ and FDR. Remember BHO...Can you say "Boo" to the Republicans?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pmThey Might Be Giants will have fun with this. Still "Who Knows"was once Kirkuk, now it's "Who Knows". Just doesn't have the same ring to it
February 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pmAnd just wait for Kosovo…
Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Juan, Shh! The Kosovo situation wasn't brought about by Bush, it was that other guy, discussing it is off limits unless you want to be called a troll...
February 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pmMcCain will hold a presser today to tell them to stay at least a THOUSAND YEARS!!! OR MORE....
Like was said before...Monkey see..monkey do...
February 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pmWell, they did have it first.
Comment by toasterhead — February 28, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Could history be repeating itself itself itself?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pmIt's the Bush pot telling the Turkish kettle to get out of the Iraqi kitchen...
February 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pmWhat goes around comes around! And the Kurds are screwed again.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pmOff topic:
The Kosovo situation wasn’t brought about by Bush, it was that other guy, discussing it is off limits unless you want to be called a troll…
Comment by Keltoi
I understand that your American-centrism forces you to think that Clinton had to do with Kosovo before NATO's intervention. It wasn't the case. Milosevic was a "socialist" that followed IMF economical adjustments in order to empoverish Balcan's middle class. Joined to that the ethnic differences of the region produced a conflict fed by paranoia, poverty and profits for Western countries.
Clinton is but a little, important part of the scheme. There is no way that a conflict can be solved by bombing...as we have seen.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pmComment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Milošević?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pmObama picks up endorsement from Amber Edinger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86HEv_Wtyj8
February 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pmActually, the Bushies mainstreamed exporting your own ideology. The Turks have said, okay, cool beans, we'll follow suit then and export our ideology... part of which is to keep a lid on the Kurdistan question.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pmBy the way this is a REAL WAR out there between the PKK and the Turks:
The other war in Iraq
There are hundreds of casualties, Turkish commandos are engaging the PKK guerrillas in the mountains, and the Turkish Air Force is doing a "shock and awe" campaign of its own with laser guided bombs, rockets etc.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pmCueing up TrollBlatherâ„¢ tape...
3... 2... 1...
Clinton blah blah blah...
February 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pmDon't the Kurds have oil in their... oops, I mean Turkey's territory?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pmJuan, Shh! The Kosovo situation wasn’t brought about by Bush, it was that other guy, discussing it is off limits unless you want to be called a troll…
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
You mean the first President Bush during whose time in office Yugoslavia began to break apart? On whose watch Milosevic began using Kosovo as the focal point for rallying Serb nationalism? Well alrightee then, let's have a discussion about the dangers of jingoism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry because God knows how detached we are from such venal forces today.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pmCaption: (Gates) Oops, excuse me, I have to change my y-fronts.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pmAlong this same line of reasoning, do you think they might send invading troops into our capitol city to rid us of a tyrannical despot who has supplanted and is breaking the democratic government with cronies, spied on its citizens, accumulated stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and has nuclear energy facilities that could convert material to weaponized uranium? And this invasion would be done in the name of restoring the rights of the citizens in that country?
It seems that we, as a country, are coming fit that description - the same description given of Iraq and used by this administration to justify the invasion of that country.
So, what goes around comes around?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pmWhat strikes me the most:
And where is the UN?
Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Same place they were in Kosovo - enjoying $100 lunches in Manhattan.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pmAnd he's not the only one - Al Malaki was blathering on this morning about how the reconciliation is "working" - and the Iraqis are all "loving brothers" once more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
*eyeroll*
February 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pmenjoying $100 lunches in Manhattan.
Comment by Keltoi
Or when the US decided Iraq and Afghanistan invasion...I agree.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pmClinton is but a little, important part of the scheme. There is no way that a conflict can be solved by bombing…as we have seen.
Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Milosevic was similar to Saddam vis Kosovar Albanians. They weren't his people but they were on "his" land, so he treated them much like Saddam treated the Kurds and the Shia. When Clinton bombed Milosevic into submission, the Left largely cheered cause it was their guy doing it.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pmOr when the US decided Iraq and Afghanistan invasion…I agree.
Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
The UN approved Afghanistan. They approved "serious consequences" for Saddam. But I agree, the UN is a weak, feckless joke for the most part.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pmSame place they were in Kosovo - enjoying $100 lunches in Manhattan.
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
If your argument is that the U.N. should do more in conflict areas then I gree with you, the U.N. SHOULD have more power and responsibility in these situations. But I suspect that you are merely being snarky, you don't get to strip the U.N. of any meaningful role in International relations with one hand and then slap them with the other for not stepping up... We do need an International Body with responsibility for resolving conflicts between nations, a good start is support for the International Criminal Court... I expect you'll want to write a letter to Bush asking him to reverse his opposition to the United State being a party to this important institution...
comments@whitehouse.gov
(don't expect a response right away, the White House tends to misplace these things)
February 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pmfor my own "lefty" part, there was no cheering re: kosovo.
some cheered because we engaged in military action without getting our own guys killed, which i guess is something.
overall, to me, B. Clinton was/is the best Republican President since Lincoln. I would have to be pretty stupid to agree that Bill Clinton was/is a "lefty" or even a "liberal". He's neither.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pmSame place they were in Kosovo - enjoying $100 lunches in Manhattan.
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
because the Bushies have put up every roadblock they can. Bush hates peace, and his bloodlust prevents him from allowing the UN to do what it was created for. So, as usual, you're off-target and full of shit. And the comparison of Saddam to Milosevic is pulled straight out of your ass, where most of your "thoughts" originate. What a tool you are.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pmI should've, for accuracy's sake, called Clinton "the only good Republican President since Lincoln". That's better.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pmBut I agree, the UN is a weak, feckless joke for the most part.
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Entirely because of republican interference with their operation.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pmYou mean the first President Bush during whose time in office Yugoslavia began to break apart? On whose watch Milosevic began using Kosovo as the focal point for rallying Serb nationalism? Well alrightee then, let’s have a discussion about the dangers of jingoism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry because God knows how detached we are from such venal forces today.
Comment by Dumb_Fox — February 28, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
You are conveniently forgetting Bush I oversaw the demise of the Soviet Union, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Gulf War I....he was a bit busy. Based on how he handled the transition of Eastern Europe, it seems likely he'd have done better with Yugoslavia 1992-1996 than what we did do, but we'll never know.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pmwhat's with the snide obsession with clinton comparisons, anyway?
considering where we are right now, I can't imagine a less productive vein of inquiry.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pmmaybe, keltoi, you can also tell us about whether or not clinton wore/wears a flag lapel pin, and how crucial that is to understanding the world of today?
February 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmYou are conveniently forgetting Bush I oversaw the demise of the Soviet Union, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Gulf War I….he was a bit busy. Based on how he handled the transition of Eastern Europe, it seems likely he’d have done better with Yugoslavia 1992-1996 than what we did do, but we’ll never know.
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
you actually mean Bush 1 "was blind to" the demise of the Soviet Union, etc. he was as very nearly as incompetent and clueless as his lazy, feckless piece of shit son. You'll make excuses for anyone that fails, won't you? Tool.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmoverall, to me, B. Clinton was/is the best Republican President since Lincoln. I would have to be pretty stupid to agree that Bill Clinton was/is a “lefty†or even a “liberalâ€. He’s neither.
Comment by tombaker — February 28, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Curious: who was the last "Democratic" President in your eyes? FDR, I am guessing?
February 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pmwhat’s with the snide obsession with clinton comparisons, anyway?
considering where we are right now, I can’t imagine a less productive vein of inquiry.
Comment by tombaker — February 28, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Juan brought up Kosovo, not me.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pmI'm more concerned with the here-and-now, mr. keltoi -no one's opinion of presidents past, least of all mine, are really relevant.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pmmaybe, keltoi, you can also tell us about whether or not clinton wore/wears a flag lapel pin, and how crucial that is to understanding the world of today?
Comment by tombaker — February 28, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
No idea if he/she wears one or not. It is irrelevant; I am not offended if a politician chooses to wear one or not.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pmI’m more concerned with the here-and-now, mr. keltoi -no one’s opinion of presidents past, least of all mine, are really relevant.
Comment by tombaker — February 28, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Tom! You were just summoning Abe Lincoln! But whatever, I agree with your point, politics are too intense right now to worry about the past. The upcoming election battle is going to be extremely interesting.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pmComment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Ahh, yes... Gulf War 1... you mean that other war where a little bit of diplomacy could've saved a whole lot of lives? The Fall of the Berlin Wall that surprised Bush's CIA more than Wolf Blitzer's CNN? The Soviet Union that is slowly reorganizing under Bush 2? Those distractions?
February 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pmA foreign country invaded and is currently occupying Iraq during a time when we had previously invaded it and are currently occupying it. Why didn't we stop Turkey from invading and occupying Iraq if we would presumably stop Iran and or Syria from invading and occupying it? What foreign countries comprise the Bush administration's list of those countries it "will allow" to invade and occupy Iraq and those it "will not allow" to invade and occupy Iraq? Am I the only one who finds this situation beyond insane? What countries did we allow to invade and occupy Germany and Japan after we had invaded and were still occupying them? What in the hell is going on?!
February 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pmmaybe, keltoi, you can also tell us about whether or not clinton wore/wears a flag lapel pin, and how crucial that is to understanding the world of today?
Comment by tombaker — February 28, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Be careful Tom. This web site has been taken over by Obama Maniacs. According to them, anyone who does not support Barack Obama is a troll.
sigh.......
February 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pmAhh, yes… Gulf War 1… you mean that other war where a little bit of diplomacy could’ve saved a whole lot of lives?
Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
What more do you want than a unanimous vote by the Security Council for Saddam to get out of Kuwait? That is the Gold Standard of Diplomacy - Christ, we had the SYRIANS fighting with us.
But I know, Bush I was a Republican, all things Republican are automatically and eternally bad by default, it is a waste of time discussing it.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pmComment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
What I'm talking about is the Iraqi Ambasador feeling Bush out about the invasion two months before and Bush being to 'distracted' to notice or care and giving his tacit approval... It was a huge shock to Saddam when we objected.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:37 pm...and we only objected because the Saudi's were up in arms about the invasion, otherwise we couldn't have cared less...
February 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pmWhat more do you want than a unanimous vote by the Security Council
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Would that be that UN that you find so useless? Odd!
February 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pmWould that be that UN that you find so useless? Odd!
Comment by dbadass — February 28, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
They are useless. But you can't say we didn't use diplomacy.
As far as whether we gave our "tacit approval", that is a point that is open to debate. Saddam surprised Mubarak of Egypt when he attacked Kuwait. He had been sabre rattling to get Kuwait to quit sinking oil prices. Everyone was surprised when he actually went for it, even many of his own ministers.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pmI'd be surprised if North Korea actually attacked South Korea, but you can be damn sure if they were 'sabre rattling' about an attack, I'd expect my president to speak out about it- and if he didn't and we then had to engage North Korea you can bet that I'd call that a failure of diplomacy... See, I'd like a president who actually pays attention to the entire globe, even when he's 'got a lot on his plate.'
February 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pmI’d be surprised if North Korea actually attacked South Korea, but you can be damn sure if they were ’sabre rattling’ about an attack, I’d expect my president to speak out about it- and if he didn’t and we then had to engage North Korea you can bet that I’d call that a failure of diplomacy… See, I’d like a president who actually pays attention to the entire globe, even when he’s ‘got a lot on his plate.’
Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Hm...does that mean Truman was an inept diplomat then?
BUT - I am going to reference Tombakers very reasonable position in 47 - we could do this forever all to no purpose.
BUT -
February 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pmWhen Clinton bombed Milosevic into submission, the Left largely cheered cause it was their guy doing it.
Comment by Keltoi
You mean the Left in the US, which is pretty much the moderate right elsewhere in the world.
For the most part, your posts are indoctrination and propaganda, so it is useless to respond them.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pmFor the most part, your posts are indoctrination and propaganda, so it is useless to respond them.
Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Oh, be nice, Juan, we have disagreed amicably in the past, I am more conservative than you but that doesn't make me a propagandist.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pmHm…does that mean Truman was an inept diplomat then?
BUT - I am going to reference Tombakers very reasonable position in 47 - we could do this forever all to no purpose.
BUT -
Comment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Let's concentrate on this president then... how are we going to deal with Turkey's invasion of Northern Iraq? Seems to me that we've lost a bit of credibility worldwide and we might want to look to a strong International body to assist us in settling these conflicts? What do you propose?
February 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pmSo, Keltoi - have you read the book I recommended to you yet?
You know, Naomi Wolf's "The End of America - Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot...?
February 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pmLet’s concentrate on this president then… how are we going to deal with Turkey’s invasion of Northern Iraq? Seems to me that we’ve lost a bit of credibility worldwide and we might want to look to a strong International body to assist us in settling these conflicts? What do you propose?
Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Turkey has invaded northern Iraq multiple times since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, at times in tremendous force commiting outrageous atrocities. This situation has nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq per se.
Can we solve a situation that is at minimum 80 years in the making and arguably centuries old? Well, we are trying to forge some comity between Sunnis and Shias, Israelis and Palestinians, why not this one too?
But a strong international body has never succeeded in brokering such peace deals until the parties themselves are sick of killing each other. N. Ireland got peace for precisely that reason and no other. So long as the Kurds are willing to commit acts of terror inside Turkey, Turkey is going to attack them in their safe havens in Iraq.
We somehow have to get the majority of the Kurds in Iraq to lean on the PKK and get them to knock off the terrorism. But why would they when in their view the Turks are occupying their land? Same deal with the Serbs vis Kosovo and the Palestinians in Gaza.
It is kind of a Dr. Phil approach to diplomacy - "how's that working for ya?" When the pain becomes too great, the behavior will change. The problem is, when you factor in Jihadi Martydom ideology, the pain NEVER becomes too great because dying is the ultimate reward.
You can look at all these factors and try your best, but the hate is so deep seated it is tough to be optimistic. I won't blame Obama when he can't solve it - it is up to the people who live there. We can help, so can the UN, but only if they are willing to take the help.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pmSo, Keltoi - have you read the book I recommended to you yet?
You know, Naomi Wolf’s “The End of America - Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot…?
Comment by Leftside Annie — February 28, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Ermm....no. What is the date of publication? I'll go straight to Amazon if it is out of bookstores, I promise, I kinda forgot that whole thing.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pmUnder the Bush definition of a terrorist and the Bush doctrine (if you harbor a terrorist, then you are a terrorist), not to mention the neocons who (in parallel to the Kurds in Turkey) define the Mexican immigrants as terrorists, Turkey is totally justified in invading the Kurds and, for that matter, dropping the bomb on them.
In short: ethical test: what if everyone did as I say and do ?
February 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pmComment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Finally we can agree on something, that was a thoughtful post. Where we differ is on your apparent Laissez-faire attitude towards conflict... International pressure does yield results, but the pressure has to be uniformly applied. You can't play favorites, that's why the U.N. is the best option at this point- tearing it down for being 'useless' is counter-productive. If the United States abided by United Nations resolutions and pressured China and Israel to do the same it would go a long way to convincing other countries that the U.N. has some clout.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pmFinally we can agree on something, that was a thoughtful post. Where we differ is on your apparent Laissez-faire attitude towards conflict… International pressure does yield results, but the pressure has to be uniformly applied. You can’t play favorites, that’s why the U.N. is the best option at this point- tearing it down for being ‘useless’ is counter-productive. If the United States abided by United Nations resolutions and pressured China and Israel to do the same it would go a long way to convincing other countries that the U.N. has some clout.
Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
I don't disagree, but at this point I just don't think the human race is evolved enough to expect raw power to not figure into the equation anymore. Our goals are in conflict with China's and Russia's - essentially, we are still squabbling over resources but the existence of nukes makes us change the way we do it. Then there are the 1 billion Muslims who are held hostage by a radical wing of their religion and are in desperate need of the concept of seperation of church and state. That isn't going to happen in our lifetime, I fear.
It is better the UN exist than not exist. It is the second attempt at a worldwide peacekeeper. But until all people everywhere renounce violence as a political tool, they are going to continue to be a paper tiger. Someday, SOMEDAY, we might reach Gene Roddenbury's vision of the Star Trek utopia, and every journey starts with the first step. But at this stage of our history, force still is the coin of the realm.
That belief is what makes me a conservative - the world has always been so. But I also realize that without Progressive idealists, we can never see a better world. The two have to exist in tandem, though; your vision reminds us of what is possible, my view fights a rearguard action against that atavistic forces of our beastial origins. Beam me up when you get there.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pmComment by Keltoi — February 28, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
... and yet, while you fight this rearguard action, elements of your side concoct Utopian fantasies like the Project for A New American Century which plunge us further into the muck and mire... I don't think it's pie-in-the-sky to hope for an International body that actually had some teeth, indeed I think it's infinetly more practical than remaking the Middle East according to some "Master Plan" developed by a bunch of chickenhawks with little or no experience in diplomacy and less knowledge of the region... Conservative thinking like that brought us the Sykes Picot Agreement and the current Middle East mess...
February 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pmConservative thinking like that brought us the Sykes Picot Agreement and the current Middle East mess…
Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Yeah, but we both have our extremist elements. You have got Code Pink saying the Marines can't have a recruiting depot in Berkley...if the whole ideological spectrum were represented as a football with Norman Podehretz on one end and Cindy Sheehan on the other, I say, stay near the stitches!
February 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm"But a strong international body has never succeeded in brokering such peace deals until the parties themselves are sick of killing each other. N. Ireland got peace for precisely that reason and no other."
well, that's just ignoring the facts of international diplomatic efforts.
"Yeah, but we both have our extremist elements. You have got Code Pink saying the Marines can’t have a recruiting depot in Berkley…if the whole ideological spectrum were represented as a football with Norman Podehretz on one end and Cindy Sheehan on the other, I say, stay near the stitches!"
another foolish trope. code Pink is not about to invade foreign countries to steal their natural resources; that's generally a 'conservative' move. Conservatism is barbarism in a political guise. Get rid of it, and the world becomes more peaceful, automatically.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pmanother foolish trope. code Pink is not about to invade foreign countries to steal their natural resources; that’s generally a ‘conservative’ move. Conservatism is barbarism in a political guise. Get rid of it, and the world becomes more peaceful, automatically.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 28, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Exactly- and we're not talking about fringe elements of the Republican party, we're talking about the very people who shaped our current foreign policy...
February 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pmKeltoi, it is nothing against you.
You could be the most friendly guy. I didn't call you names.
I said your posts (not the ones directed at me) showed a lack of insight and were just a piece of propaganda. I mean, saying that the Left cheered the NATO bombings is a display of ignorance of world political spectrum. Saying that Bush I oversaw political events that had nothing to do with US influence for the most part, is a complete jingoistic POV.
And it is ok, but it is tiresome.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pmI said your posts (not the ones directed at me) showed a lack of insight and were just a piece of propaganda. I mean, saying that the Left cheered the NATO bombings is a display of ignorance of world political spectrum. Saying that Bush I oversaw political events that had nothing to do with US influence for the most part, is a complete jingoistic POV.
And it is ok, but it is tiresome.
Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Well, the majority of posters here are US nationals, and one of the things I love about your perspective is that you are not.
That said, US liberals defended Clinton to the hilt on bombing Serbia. Obviously, when we blew up China's embassy, the Chinese weren't so hip on that. To say Bush or the US had little to nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is just historically inaccurate - it is almost to deny that there WAS a Cold War. There was. The USSR lost (though Putin is doing all he can to broker a rematch, I will grant you).
But again, I grant you that I see things from an USAian lense (note I did not say American, how sensitive is that? :) and do not make a huge effort to reflect the viewpoints of the other 180 nationalities of the world unless it is especially germane to the discussion.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm"You are conveniently forgetting Bush I oversaw the demise of the Soviet Union, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Gulf War I….he was a bit busy. Based on how he handled the transition of Eastern Europe, it seems likely he’d have done better with Yugoslavia 1992-1996 than what we did do, but we’ll never know."
Comment by Keltoi
Heh, heh, heh, you get my vote for funniest post of the day.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm"Gates Tells Turks They Need to Get Out of Iraq Soon
Thursday, February 28, 2008"
republican hipocracy knows NO bounds... has anyone pointed out the irony of Gates insisting on a timeline for Turkish withdrawl while essentially condoning our own indefinite stay there....?
im really curious about whats going on in the other sides minds about this..none of our resident trolls or even the more reasonable folks on the right have tried to address this.. has anyone heard the right wing spin on this? im really really curious.
its really a shame exley doesnt seem to have the courage to speak up and tell us his honest opionion about this issue, it would go a long way toward making him seem to be interested in legitimate debate.. i know redblooded flaghumping trolls like bigfoot couldnt even spell turk3y correctly but id hoped for more from peeps like Exlexlia...
February 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pmits really a shame exley doesnt seem to have the courage to speak up and tell us his honest opionion about this issue, it would go a long way toward making him seem to be interested in legitimate debate.. i know redblooded flaghumping trolls like bigfoot couldnt even spell turk3y correctly but id hoped for more from peeps like Exlexlia…
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — February 28, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Well, I took a shot at it in 63...this situation pre-dates our invasion, pre-dates Saddam....I have no solutions for a centuries old conflict. As far as the hypocrisy index, I guess Gates feels like the Turks invading the North is destabilzing....it is probably true from our perspective, but not from the Turkish one.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pmoh, also, I think bushs statement that "we will make no distinction between terrorists and the governments which shelter them" gives turkey the moral green light to attack to attack anywhere in iraq, rightEE?
February 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm>.I have no solutions for a centuries old conflict.
You talking about the sunni vs. shia conflic saddam was an integral part of?
Perphaps you shouldnt be supporting somone who thinks they had a solutiion then...
>I guess Gates feels like the Turks invading the North is destabilzing….
Hahahahah. And OUR invasion wasnt? Turkey is 10000% more justified...
Terrorists sheleterd by Iraq's goverment are DIRECTLY and BLATANLY attacking turkish soil. If terrorists attacking america were taking refuge in mexico how well would you take a european country trying to dictate how our military should respond to them?
>it is probably true from our perspective, but not from the Turkish one.
right....certainly its ridiculout to expect the rest of the world to show us more concern than we show for them, right?
February 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pmoh wait...no..you were saying you didnt have a solution for the OTHER centuries old conflict in iraq....so whats your solution to the centuries...or is it millenium old schism between sunni and shia? arent they all muslim?
February 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pmKeltoi, you can be the all time, ultimate magnificent American you want (I celebrate your sensitivity... ;), you can say your country is the best, etc, etc, etc, that doesn't mean you have to lose your common sense.
The fundamental POV that I would like to endorse in every person I'm debating with is that moral judgements do not depend on the person(s) who does them, moral judgements should be made based on the act; therefore, if Nazis put in Siemens ovens millions of Jews and that is something henious, then Shock and Awe, though much more sophisticated and fancy, is still henious.
As you see, your Americanism remains intact if you condemn this act, cause it does not depend on the person/country who did it.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pmKeltoi, regarding your claim that "Turkey has invaded northern Iraq multiple times since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, at times in tremendous force commiting outrageous atrocities", please cite ONE such example--one which includes the "outrageous atrocities" would be best.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:28 pmThe only incidents which I can find were in 1992 and 1995, incidents that could legitimately be compared with any number of Israeli incursions into Lebanon over the last 35 years (all of which happened with tacit support, at the very least, from the US). The Turkish goverment (and the US government, by the way) views the PKK as a terrorist organization (just as Israel viewed the PLO and, more recently, Hezbullah and Hamas--it was that Israeli designating the two organizations as terrorist groups that "legitimatized", at least with the Bush Administration, the most recent Israeli invasion into Lebanon). I imagine that Turkey has had enough with US hypocrisy regarding Israel and "terrorist groups"; the US not only ALLOWS Israel to invade other countries SUSPECTED of "harboring" terrorists, but even sends more arms and munitions to help Israel in its actions. Turkey, however, is condemned and criticized by the US for doing the same.
Is the USA part of Turkey's coalition of the willing?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm