U.S.A. Pays out 15 Billion to Turkey?

[logic]

15 billion dollars paid out to Turkey to let the U.S.A. set up shop with troops and weapons?

Bang your bongo drums.
sport your peace signs.
walk your protest walk.

Take your antiacid pills.
Buckel your seat belts.
cos were going to War.

[red5angel]

We haven't paid out 15 billion dollars...from CNN -

"The United States would base 265 fighter planes and 65 helicopters in Turkey, and provide $6 billion in aid to Ankara, with the opportunity for $1 billion in grants to be parlayed into $10 billion in loans, Turkish officials said"

[logic]

Oh
Thanks red5angel.
I wasn't to sure, I heard it at work thats why I had the question mark in my title.

[red5angel]

no problem.

[joedoe]

Still a lot of money.

[Laughing Cow]

From what I can gather most of the countries supporting the curent war, are appear to be more interested in gaining money/favours or similar from the states than ousting Hussein.

But of course this will be disputed by certain board members.
;)

[Merryprankster]

Not really. Of course Turkey wants money. Do you have any idea how much money they lost the last time Iraq was invaded? Economic impact was quite severe.

Sounds pretty smart to me.

Would you mind telling me what the UK has to gain, and especially Blairs government? All I can see is negatives for him specifically.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

Would you mind telling me what the UK has to gain, and especially Blairs government? All I can see is negatives for him specifically.

Reread my post and pay special attention to "most of the countries" & appear to be more interested

This should answer the little snite remark of yours.

Too many people here don't really read what is written, but rather jump to conclussions of the posters intended message and attack.
;)

[tnwingtsun]

Don't mind Laughing Cow,

He's liable to drop dead of Mad Cow Disease at any moment.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by tnwingtsun
Don't mind Laughing Cow,

He's liable to drop dead of Mad Cow Disease at any moment.

Now that really added value to the discussion.

Cheers.

[Laughing Cow]

Looks like Turkey will decide in a vote if they will accept the US-Aid pacckage and allow the Troops in or not.

Still not decided for sure yet.

[dezhen2001]

just to say the UK is free of mad cow disease and scotland was hardly affected ;)

dawood

[Serpent]

Originally posted by dezhen2001
just to say the UK is free of mad cow disease and scotland was hardly affected ;)

dawood

You're not the best spokesman for that case, bud! ;)

What does Blair have to gain? If nothing else, he gets to keep his d!ck firmly in Chimpy Bush's arse, thereby maintaining the alliance that has been in place for so long. The only way a little island like the UK, without it's Empire, can continue to remain a superpower of sorts.

Same goes for our spineless twat of a PM, John Howard.

[tnwingtsun]

"just to say the UK is free of mad cow disease and scotland was hardly affected"


You will not know for years to come,the disease was brought on in part by the farmers feeding the stock ground-up cows(the parts not used).

The same symptoms suffered by people that eat other people,it didn't hit them for years to come.

But I'm feeling bad at this time because I had chicken for dinner and that makes me a .......................NAZI!!!!!!


http://www.masskilling.com/

[Merryprankster]

The word, LC, is snide. Catty enough for you?

That said, I've been genuinely interested in that for quite some time. He's quite convinced of the need to go in, and I'm curious as to why Blair, of all people, feels this way.

I read what was written--which is why I asked the question. But you're more than welcome to come to your own conclusions.

[Liokault]

The real problem for Turkey is that it wants to appear on message as it wants to get into the european comunity with all the benifits that would offer them but they are very scared of their Kurd population.

They fear that if we oust sadam them the kurds in iraqu may get indipendance or at least recognition and so encourage the turk Kurds (who are having as rough a deal as the Iraqu Kurds) to rebel.

[Liokault]

and on Mad Cow disease.

The really scarry thing is that the UK government didnt stop brain, spine (and other parts that could transmit Mad Cow) going into products for human comsumption till a PET food company stoped thease parts going into DOG food and told the UK government that maybe they should do somthing similar for people!!!!

[Frank Exchange]

>> Would you mind telling me what the UK has to gain, and especially Blairs government? All I can see is negatives for him specifically. <<

That has puzzled everyone over here for months now. However, the general feeling seems to be that Blair genuinely and passionately believes in the case for war. He believes in the importance of the "Special Relationship" with the US, believes it important to be an ally, and believes Saddam is a future threat.

So, although his government is not really behind him, the UK population is 80% against him, and his political career is over, come the end of the term, he still maintains the case for war.

He has not been helped by the constant change of emphasis on the reasons for the conflict, the constant spin, and the arrogant dismissal of the very negative feelings of the populace.

So he personally has nothing to gain, and a great deal to lose, which makes it more likely that his stance is a genuine one.

His problem is that although many people would agree that his stance is indeed genuine, the majority in the UK thinks he is simply wrong.

[Merryprankster]

Well, it's puzzled the crap out of me too. By all rights, he should be backing way the hell off. Yet he continues. I think the people that dismiss him as Bush's toady are being a bit insulting. When I listen to Prime Minster's questions, he doesn't impress me as the sort that jumps because somebody else says jump, ya know?

[Liokault]

May be he is doing it because its the right thing to do!!

ok under international law proof must be given for military action....and thats hard to find right now but it dont make the action wrong.

Also i wouldnt go writing off Blairs political future as the oposition is a joke and their is no real alternative.

[Merryprankster]

Oh, amen to that. The Tories are in horrible disarry--I wouldn't even call them an opposition. They spend more time ****ing on each other.

Liokault--if it is the right thing to do, how is it that 80% of the population opposes this? Is it a salesmanship issue? Has Blair done a bad job at making his points? I'm genuinely interested.

[red5angel]

"Too many people here don't really read what is written, but rather jump to conclussions of the posters intended message and attack"


This has to be a record for winning my irony of the day award?!


MP - I think it is a salesmanship issue on both sides of the pond. What has boggled me this whole time is that the reasons we really want to go into Iraq, besides oil of course :rolleyes: , is for the war on terror, on many levels. however it seems to me like this whole aspect of it has really been downplayed since the President and Blair want to impress the UN by playing their game. Now they have focused on breaches of contract and all that other crap, and no one really cares about that, obviously since it has been going on for several years now.

[jesper]

Just a mind experiment.

Saddam get hold on some nukes.

He invades kuwait, bombs saudi and iran.

Whos in control now ?

[Frank Exchange]

>> Liokault--if it is the right thing to do, how is it that 80% of the population opposes this? Is it a salesmanship issue? Has Blair done a bad job at making his points? I'm genuinely interested. <<

I will jump in on this. (BTW, regarding the figures, the 80% that are against war without a 2nd resolution, drops to 20% if there is one, according to the latest polls. That shows that the UK is not against action per se, just that which seems to be unilateral. And of course these figures vary from week to week, but the broad trend is there)

Yep, I think it is largely a salesmanship issue, but there are deeper undercurrents. He has done a pi$$ poor job at the making his points, but he also enormously underestimated the concern which many in the UK have with perceived US arrogance, their foreign/environmental policy and their recently announced right to preemptively attack. Rather than attempting to address their concerns, he simply labelled this as knee-jerk anti-Americanism, which did not help his case.

The majority of our high level military, current and retired have made it known they think the war a bad idea.

The evidence produced by Colin Powell and the US Administration was was not considered credible over here, particularly the links between Saddam and Al Quaeda. Seeing GW on TV announcing that "Saddam IS Al Quaeda", despite our intelligence services and the CIA announcing there was no such link, for example, just damaged the Administrations credibility; so for Tony to then follow and repeat the US line on everything, he cant help but appear like GW's lapdog.

His biggest problem has been with spin. He just cannot get out of the habit wilfully bending the truth to give the best impression. Not unusual, in any walk of life, Im sure, but our media tends to be pretty critical.
Did you get to see the Newsnight special with Blair inteviewed by Paxman and an audience of middle-Englanders? He came across quite badly, as Paxman didnt pull any punches.

For example, when Tony mentioned Saddam throwing out the inspectors last time, Paxman caught him up on it, and wouldnt let it rest until Tony admitted that they had been withdrawn by the UN, rather than thrown out. The point being that even there he had to effectively lie in order to make his case.

So, in general when the evidence is not convincing, then spin is used to cover up the gaps, and when the spin is discovered for what it is, then the case becomes even less convincing that it would have been in the first place. The perception becomes that the evidence is shoddy to start with.

During that interview, the best sales spiel he could come up with, was, effectively, "Trust me. Believe me".

And therein lies the problem. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think despite the spin the majority in the UK would believe that he thinks he is doing the right thing, but unfortunately they do not trust his judgement.

Any thoughts, Liokault?

[tnwingtsun]

RANT AS FOLLOWS

R5A seems to have his $hit wired tight most of the time but I'm
getting a case of the arse so bad that I've splatered the walls
with multicolored dung looking forward to the mess being so clean a fly landing on the wall would skin its arse on the way down.

But folks and you know who you are, so dim-whitted that you think that GB/TB and the powers that be are going to feed you the truth?

Why should they risk operations and endanger lives that lead the charge so we can debate??
Is the world getting so dumb that we live in a media/entertaiment
world that we demand and speulate that what's feed to us into the truth?

Although I question at times my (Military) Command Structure I'll be damed if CNN/BBC/FOX/MSNBC or even Stratfor(which is better than most) is going to brainwash me as they have so many in the past.
I mean, look at alot of boneheads on this board that have no clue
other than what they read in the media and post on this board.

Show me you clearence before sticking you head up your ass,
PGP would be fine,but take it only to a point

[Merryprankster]

tn,

nobody expects to be told exactly how we're going to do what we're going to do... well, nobody with a brain anyway...

However, the why is another matter. And FWIW I'm cleared up the wazoo, which is why I'm very very circumspect when I talk about this stuff. :D

I think they are telling us the truth about their reasoning. I also suspect, and do not know, that there is a great deal of evidence somewhere that isn't getting publicized--to protect methods and sources, no doubt.