re-uniting the soviet union....article

[BubbaGump]

... in response to Re: Welcome back, posted by DanM on Mar 10, 2003

I am unemployed now but with plenty of money to spend on searching.  When I had my job I was always too busy to break away.  Now I can travel and actually visit somebody.  I hope I can get girls to consider me because if I was a Russian girl, the guy having a good job would be a major attraction.    

I'm in the winnowing process on the women but why is it none of the compatible big breasted women speak english?  Guess I'll have to settle.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Welcome back, posted by BubbaGump on Mar 10, 2003

Good luck with the search. If I can ever do anything to be of assistance, just let me know.

[WmGo]

... in response to Rambling points regarding Turkey and the..., posted by DanM on Mar 7, 2003

Actually, it is an excellent analysis of the situation and articulated quite well. Kudos.

[micha1]

... in response to Rambling points regarding Turkey and the..., posted by DanM on Mar 7, 2003

[This message has been edited by micha1]

It is a sure thing Dan,  the US has many friends in their government.
But in the end they voted in their parliament,  the majority said no,
in democracy, the majority win, right.
If the democrat had the majority in the house or the senate,
what would happen, where would we be.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Rambling points regarding Turkey and..., posted by micha1 on Mar 7, 2003

You are right about democracy prevailing. Democracy means the will of the people will eventually be heard. I just want us to all be clear about the voice of the Turkish people and what they said. They did not say "We are pacifists who are against war". It also was not some great expression of liberal solidarity against an American war. They did say that the US offer of payment for use of their bases was not enough. Simply put, the will of the Turkish people said it wanted to be paid more than we thought was fair.

All I can say is that they were greedy and their greed will hurt them worse than anyone else. Now they will receive zero cash from us, but the war will still proceed and the economic setbacks they predict will be paid for completely by their own people. Considering they already have a 90+ billion dollar debt, this does not seem too smart. Second, they will most like lose our support for EU membership. Also, they are very likely to lose billions in US aid that has come to be a staple of the Turkish economy. Simply put, they just lost their best friend and they don't even realize it yet. No matter how many casualties we have in Iraq, the American people will always wonder how many fewer casualties we would have had if not for Turkish greed. I imagine that question will come up every time Turkey comes to us with an outstretched hand and I imagine it will cause us to be a little less sympathetic for a while.

As for your question about how much different things would be if we had a Democratic majority in the house or senate, its an interesting question. First of all, I just want to remind you that the will of the people spoke when it gave the office of President and both houses of Congress to the Republican party. That whole democracy thing can be annoying at times. : ) Second, I wish I knew how things would be with the country if the democrats were in power. Unfortunately, its hard to tell because they have done such a poor job of articulating a comprehensive vision of what they see as America's best path to the future. Lets face it, saying they do not agree with the president is more of a reaction than an offer of an alternative vision.

[cherokee]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: : Re-uniting the soviet unio..., posted by micha1 on Mar 7, 2003

Most of Eastern Europe is on the U.S. side of the Iraqi conflict, including Poland and most of Turkish parliment wants to let in troops they just don't have the majority needed ......yet. I figure they'll wait till fighting starts and then let us in, that way they cover their @sses.
IMHO

[BubbaGump]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: : Re-uniting the soviet unio..., posted by micha1 on Mar 7, 2003

Turkey had a fear of negative economic impacts if they were dragged into a war.  Of course, after the vote their stock market crashed because Turkey needed the $30 billion that the USA was going to give them.  That's really a lot of money for a smaller economy.  They also have a rise in Muslim fundamentalists that swung the vote against us.

[micha1]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: : Re-uniting the soviet ..., posted by BubbaGump on Mar 7, 2003

Sorry, to say this, but.
The Turkish Parliament did not vote against you or I.
The voted for us to have a chance to stay alive,  we should drink to them.
Because if the OIL WAR starts without  the U.N.'s consent.
No one will be credible anymore.
China, Russia and Europe will be needed to negociate with PyongYang.
North Korea is not like Irak, the likes of a junior high team facing the BUCS.
Last week they almost shot down a spy plane,  the warn them severely.
They do have the missiles and the nuclear war head, sure they can be destroyed
in a few hours, but how many missiles will they have time to launch,
what about the fall out of these bombs...etc.  etc...
Please try to rent movies,  like  "On The Beach", "Dr. Stangelove" or "Fail Safe".

[BubbaGump]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Re-uniting the sov..., posted by micha1 on Mar 7, 2003

[This message has been edited by BubbaGump]

The view by most in the USA is that Saddam will very likely pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists to use against us.  The fear is made very real by the attacks of 9/11 even though Iraq was probably not involved.  We could be wrong but the concern is not far fetched given the type of man Saddam is.  We believe France and Germany want to protect their own business deals more than world peace and hide the fact that they have been selling Saddam the materials he needs for weapons.  Iraq has billions in debt to Germany and France that likely won't get paid if Saddam falls.  This war will cost us a lot but the future costs and consequences could be far greater to our economy if we ever had another terrorist attack with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.  Europe seems to have precious little concern for our safety.

If we wanted to start a war only over oil we would chose a country with a lot more of it, or one closer than Iraq.  Iraq has less than 6% of the world's oil.  The US gets most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venuzuela.  If we wanted oil from a middle eastern country Saudi Arabia has much more (like 25%) and would be an easier target.  

I know this is only the conservative viewpoint.  I did not really want to go into this discussion at all in this forum.

[Alfred]

... in response to It's not about the oil, posted by BubbaGump on Mar 8, 2003

I always thought that Dubya's desire for a war with Saddam was to avenge his father's failure to remove Saddam from power.  I suspect Dubya's going to war - with or *without* international support.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Re-uniting the sov..., posted by micha1 on Mar 7, 2003

I don't think its really fair to characterize it as an oil war. Although its a convenient label, it does not acurately address the reasons given by the US, UK, Spain, Italy or Australia.

Specifically, we are there to get rid of Iraq's ability to create weapons of mass destruction and to change the regime in Iraq. Although many people ask what right we have to change a regime in another country, I think the potential threat he offers our country through the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction is enough of a justification.

Saddam's ties to terrorist organizations are clear. His willingness to use biological and chemical weapons against his own people and Iranians is well documented. Do we have to wait for another 9-11 before we act? If that is the proof desired by France, Germany, Russia and China, then they can just protest on the sidelines while we put an end to this threat.

As for Turkey's motives, I doubt they were thinking about our best interests when they voted against helping us. In principal they had agreed to help us. The voted was just a matter of haggling over the price of their help. Although your characterization of Turkish motives was very generous to the Turks, I think it would probably be more accurate to characterize them as mercenary on this matter.

As for the taint of oil greed, I would like to point out that the national oil companies of France and Russia make enormous profits from their oil concessions in Iraq. They enjoy very nice profits due to the current political situation in Iraq. When Iraq is under new management and the oil concessions open up to more competitive bidding, they will lose billions. I would like to also point out that we will not take Iraqi oil revenues to pay for our war costs. Bush is on record as saying it all goes towards Iraqi reconstruction costs (ie the Iraqi people).

No one likes war. I know I don't like it at all. If my preferences were the only factor to consider, then there would never even be another fist fight in this world. Unfortunately, sometimes wars are thrust upon us. Its a matter of choosing between two things we do not want. If given the choice between a war in Iraq or watching more innocent American men, women and children die, I will choose war every time.

[Alfred]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: : Re-uniting the soviet unio..., posted by micha1 on Mar 7, 2003

I am under the impression that the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) are also on track to join the West. All three receieved invitations to join Nato at the end last year and are slso on track to join the European Union.

Nato inviations: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/11/mil-021129-2b5eaeef.htm

European Union integration: http://www.tbr.ee/issues/vol20/eu.html