Forget the Principles ...

[azkar]

Someone is paying us to allow the motherland to be used against our neighbor. Lets negeotiate and make more money...

Way to go, Turkey!

But I wonder, what took them so long to decide? $15B ... I can go kill anyone and many for this kinda money .... ;-)

[lost soul]

Well, international relations is all about interest and not about principles...

Its not just that huge amount of money but also the prospect of getting Iraqi Kurdistan that has led to a change in Turkish attitude.

Wonder whether this will help them secure a place in EU ...


But where did u find about this, I mean the $15 b amount to be paid to Turkey?

[andha_qanoon]

Originally posted by lost soul:
Well, international relations is all about interest and not about principles...

Its not just that huge amount of money but also the prospect of getting Iraqi Kurdistan that has led to a change in Turkish attitude.

Wonder whether this will help them secure a place in EU ...


But where did u find about this, I mean the $156 b amount to be paid to Turkey?

You got it wrong.
Yes it is about money but last thing Turkey wants is kurdistan. Actually thats the part of deal that there should not any space for Kurdish movement in Iraq because that will create problem in Turkey. Thats on of the biggest reason Turkey wants to be part of whole deal and have its say.

Disgusting but true....

[MiniMe]

And the sellout price is $26B, which the US has already agreed to pay.

[CM]

Turkey has never been one to side with what is morally right. After all they have commited crimes against their own people, the kurds, not to mention gross human rights violations. They sold out to attack iraq. Any nation would do that. Sadly morality and honor mean nothing today.

[myvoice]

Azkar:
Personally, I think it is kind of hard to take a position on either side of the Iraq situation that one could truly argue is based entirely on principle.

The anti-war side is necessarily assuming a position that advances the agenda and cause of Saddam who is without debate one of the most ruthless, reprehensible dictators who ever lived.

The pro-US/UK contingent is necessarily assuming a position that pre-emptive war (with all its terrible consequences) is, under certain circumstances, justified to remove leaders and change regimes in other countries.

Neither of those positions are shining examples that we'd want to place atop a moral pedestal.

Now, if you're on the outside looking in and you don't see a moral imperative on either side of the equation but you must choose a side, what do you do? If I were a leader of some country, I'd try to extract as much benefit as possible for my own people from the party who I perceived to be the ultimate winner. In a way, I guess I would actually be taking a "principled" decision with the principle being that my first priority is to the health and welfare of my people. I would certainly hope that Turkey would improve the lot of a whole bunch poor with $20B in extra money. Weigh that against taking no money and assuming a stand that at its core constitutes supporting Saddam.

[Imdad Ali]

Didn't Pakistan do more or less the same? Butt just not so obviosuly and we didn't get as good a contract as Turkey.

[azkar]

Originally posted by Imdad Ali:
Didn't Pakistan do more or less the same? Butt just not so obviosuly and we didn't get as good a contract as Turkey.

ohh yeah .. that too ... But I wonder if this time it was money or pure dada-geri (force,threat) ... :-)

[azkar]

Originally posted by myvoice:
I think it is kind of hard to take a position on either side of the Iraq situation that one could truly argue is based entirely on principle.

NO .. In my opinion it is very easy to take sides based on PRINCIPLES ... hey if you think the guy is a threat to your nation, heck yeah ... kill him .. and help any one who can kill him ... but siding with someone or not based upon the money you are getting in return is sick .. then again .. these are my opinions .. :-) ... just a common one-man ...

[lost soul]

Yeah Imdad, very true, the very same point propped in my mind time and again when i thought about the Turkish role. But can we really draw parallels. Even if we could then I think that its our poor diplomacy that we were not able to extract the maximum that we could have from the US. It was a good enough chance to cleanse ourselves from the curse of debt..
Yet we were able to continue with our nuclear weapons program which nonetheless was an acheivement.(thats controversial though)

AzkarC:
... but siding with someone or not based upon the money you are getting in return is sick .. then again .. these are my opinions .. :-) ... just a common one-man ...

--------------------------------

No, its not sick.1) You are offering your land and bases. You are putting your country at risk for something that can be solved by otherways. Killing Saddam and installing someone else in his place is not that difficult a task for US.
2) Turkey fear the Kurd uprising and hence in any such event it wants assurances from the US in that regard too.
3) THe money that will flow would help bolster Turkish economy...

I don't see this is unethical or immoral at all...If you are coerced into something then whynot extract maximum benefits from that.

[myvoice]

Originally posted by Azkar Choudhry:


NO .. In my opinion it is very easy to take sides based on PRINCIPLES ... hey if you think the guy is a threat to your nation, heck yeah ... kill him .. and help any one who can kill him ... but siding with someone or not based upon the money you are getting in return is sick .. then again .. these are my opinions .. :-) ... just a common one-man ...

I guess my point is that if you are a third party and do not agree with or necessarily see the principles upon which either of two sides are arguing AND you are pretty much forced to take a side, it only makes sense to take the side of the person who can help you or offer you the most. Take the side of the sure loser who is offering nothing to help you or your people and you haven't done very good.

In the case of Iraq, both sides of the argument believe they are taking the principled and morally right position. If you're Turkey and you don't believe in either side's principles, "show me the money." Turkey didn't pick this fight and would probably prefer just to stay out of it and be left alone. That is not an option because staying out of it and denying the US request for the presence of US forces is, in fact, taking the opposing side. I wish someone would offer me tons of money every time I found myself between a rock and a hard place. It would ease my pain tremendously.

Of course, your common one-man's opinion means the same thing as my common one-man's opinion (which in the big scheme of things means it matters only to us).

Health and happiness be with you yaar.

[Mr Fraudia]

Originally posted by Azkar Choudhry:


NO .. In my opinion it is very easy to take sides based on PRINCIPLES ... hey if you think the guy is a threat to your nation, heck yeah ... kill him .. and help any one who can kill him ... but siding with someone or not based upon the money you are getting in return is sick .. then again .. these are my opinions .. :-) ... just a common one-man ...

is it based upon the money, or is it based upon the need for money which will help you in dealing with some of teh consequences of doing something?

It seems like its more of a question of, we agree with it, but feel that the impact on us will be hard enough that we dont want to open that can of worms. If at that time someone says hey let me help you deal with the impact it may cause you for such a stance its not about money, but a thought out move to pursue what is needed while minimizing the negative impact on yourself.

thats what it seems like to me, but these are just my views a not-so-common-alien-life-form

[AvgAmericanGirl]

<~~~ Concientious Objector.......