Turkey's 180

[sspadowsky]

Turkey is now allowing us to "boost their defenses" (meaning "can we store our bombing shit at your place?"). Now, it seems to me that it wasn't that long ago, that the US gov't said, "Hey, Turkey, can we store some of our bombing shit at your place?" and Turkey said "Hell no, cracka."

Now, I haven't followed every last detail of the impending war, so maybe I missed something, but this seems like an awfully big turnaround on Turkey's part in a very short time.

Anyone have any info on this?
________
Bho hash oil

[BombsBurstingInAir]

This is no surprise. Turkey has always been a staunch allie of ours.

Now go chill out you jive turkey!!!!

[sspadowsky]

Since when has Turkey been a "staunch" ally of ours?
________
The cigar boss

[BombsBurstingInAir]

I'm not going there.

[sspadowsky]

No, please, by all means go there. My reasons are twofold.

1) I could be wrong, and would be more than happy to admit it if that's the case.

2) It would be a nice departure from your usual idiotic one-sentence bullshit.
________
SHEMALE MISTRESS

[BombsBurstingInAir]

Well, number two did it for me

[FS]

I'm not completely informed on the situation, but I think that Turkey initially didn't want to become a weapon storage facility to avoid provoking Iraq. Before, the war wasn't so certain yet. Now that things are different, they're happy to get some stuff to defend themselves with.

[Helm]

You know what Sspad? The dude is right. I live right next to Turkey. Greece is always under threat of war and all. Since the hostile occupation of Cyprus, the US has been supporting Turkey for a multitude of reasons. One is that it's a good foothold in the area, which means geopolitical strength. The other was that it's militaristic state is easy to control. Another reason would be because of way to the oil.

When we tried to take back Cyprus, NATO stepped in and said "Hold on a second, jack!" whereas when Turkey invaded Cyprus, same NATO not only did nothing to stop them, but there was also under the table support for them.

Turkey has always been under the influence of the US.

[GAsux]

The primaty reason the Turks are oppossed to war in Iraq is because they fear that larger Kurdish autonomy will only lead to more problems with their Kurdish population in the south east. It's been a problem since the end of Gulf War I.

They also face a bit of an economic dilema in that while they want to support the west and gain a solid foothold in the EU, they are suffering greatly by not being able to openly trade with Iraq which was a large source of revenue prior to the Gulf War.

In all likelyhood, like a lot of other oppossing countries have been doing, they wanted to hide thier cards until they got the assurances they desired. The Bush administration has been working the Turkish government hard lately. I'm sure there was the promise of economic compensation, as well as some promise of security with regards to the Kurdish population.

I do not doubt that the administration probably made it very clear to the Turks that war was coming regardless, and that they could either get on the gravey train and get their cut, or sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.

I don't think its so much a change of heart as it was a bargaining chip to make sure they secured the best possible deal for themselves. Virtually all of Operation Northern Watch is based out of Turkey. It's not a matter of whether or not they support U.S. troops in the region.

[AChimp]

I just think all Turks are sneaky. 8-)

[Abcdxxxx]

GA's mostly right here. Expect there to be a bit of a land grab on the part of the Turks and even the Kurds if Iraq falls. The Turks also have good relations with Israel.... and they've already taken an active prepatory role in Northern Iraq. Plus, as mentioned, Turkey is the Arab gateway to Europe.

[GAsux]

Thanks for your validation. It means a lot to me.

[Abcdxxxx]

Ingrate. Don't get all hormonal on me. I might have agreed with you, but I'm not so gracious as to ever validate you.

[sspadowsky]

Kids! Kids! Play nice.

Thank you, guys. I didn't know much at all about our relations with Turkey; I just assumed they were one of those countries that was on-the-fence (at best) when it came to the USA. 'Preciate the information.
________
Couples Webcams

[LegoLars]

[sspadowsky]

________
No2 vaporizers

[GAsux]

"GA's mostly right here...."

I probably am an ingrate. But I'm not clear on who on proclaimed you Professor Mockery. I'll look forward to getting the rest of my report card soon.

SSpad,
No problem. I'm no expert either. I did get to spend some time there though and was able to pick up a pretty fair amount of insight.

[Systemz]

Another component might be that the Turks are nervous about siding too much with the USA all at once - since France and Germany are EUers who are bitching about the scenario down in Iraq, Turkey might have attempted to refrain from joining the "yaay yaay USA" side until they got some proper under-the-table stuff from the US. Turkey's got one hell of a human rights record (anyone heard of the Assyrians? No? That's because they don't exist anymore) and the EUs using that as a blocker for their EU entry (hilarious considering that Germany's a member) but I think a lot of that has to do with good ol' fashioned Xenophobia on the part of Euros - they're afraid to let the "darkies" in.

[Abcdxxxx]

Turkey's still a bit like the Wild West.

It's not merely xenophobia on the part of the EU. It's whatever the name is of the condition that makes people fear change. As I understand it, the majority of churches near London have become Masques, and the influx of immigrants do pose a threat to some traditional styles of living that gives Europe it's strength. It's also what critics of the wacky Euro dollar threatened would happen. If you open the doors to "outsiders" then the fears aren't simply racial alone. It's a really white liberal one track way of viewing the situation. Everything comes back to race? If a huge population from Asia intended to flood Australia, then wouldn't it be an issue of over population and immigration laws rather then race? Immigrant aren't always a racial minority, or oppressed people, and the issues concerning them shouldn't always be viewed as such. It's scary that American's can't seperate the two when talking about the subject.

[Systemz]

Immigrant aren't always a racial minority, or oppressed people, and the issues concerning them shouldn't always be viewed as such. It's scary that American's can't seperate the two when talking about the subject.

At the risk of dorking out, your assumption about these postings being American is not necessarily the case - at least, not in my case.
What the contemporary attitude of most white Judeo-Christian countries is toward immigration is implied Xenophobia - it's not "let's drag the arabs behind our pickup trucks" but its "they are threatening our tradition and culture", or "they have no respect for what this nation (or in the Eu's case) group of nations represent". Xenophobia isn't limited to race - admittedly, a more proper term might be "pan-Europan nationalism" or an expectation of hegemony by the European states. Because Turkey isn't as developed as Germany or the UK doesn't make it the "wild west" - that's a lot of Rudyard Kipling ethnocentrism bullshit.

[Abcdxxxx]

" that's a lot of Rudyard Kipling ethnocentrism bullshit."

No, that's my take on Turkey in it's current state. In Turkey you can study philosphy at one of the worlds most progressive institutions, and fear for your passport all at the same time! Yeehaw! Geedyup doggy!

Way to rebutal and prove my point at the same time.
Oh, and it matters little where these posts come from, or who it comes from... it's still a "white liberal American mindset" (you've heard the expression before?) to view every situation in racial terms, and you don't have to be White or Liberal or even American to subscribe to them or pay 'em lip service. Do you? Can you string two thoughts together at once? It's even more cliche to view every situation in a racial context and then turn around and accuse others of being ethnocentric or xenophobic. Doesn't that suggest you're in fact the one being ethnocentric here? Learn to tie your shoes first.

[Systemz]

Sorry, bud - I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you on the entirety of your statement, but I fail to see how a religious influx of Islam into London can "pose a threat to some traditional styles of living that gives Europe it's strength". It's not as if having a few less Anglican churches is going to debase the already non-competitive atmosphere of the UK. Most of the jobs middle eastern immigrants are holding down are ones the Euros won't touch. And accepting that culture and race do exist does not necessarily imply for either of us that we are necessarily ethnocentric - but modernity forces us to create these divisions that do not necessarily reflect the situation as it truly stands. Particularly in relation to Nationalism of the type we're talking about - the fact that the Turks are "different" from the rest of Europe implies that they are either "better" or "worse" than Europe. That's ethnocentrism defined. And from that ethnocentrism comes generalization, and marginalization. By simply stating that Turkey is like the wild west you are saying that it is "worse" than modern European states, who are supposed to have graduated beyond that sort of behavior, which I'm sure as you have seen over the past few months of problems in the former Yugoslavia (Or, Serbia and Montenegro, if you're a nitpicker). Ethnicity is not natural, nor is it fundamental to our understanding of things - I'll agree to that - but as long as the people of Europe view the rest of the world as somehow separate from themselves they are in fact feeding the ethnocentrism that has cast a shadow over them since Westphalia.
And when I say "Xenophobia isn't limited to race" I think I'm pretty much accepting that a view froma solely racial context is insufficient. Before you start making backhanded remarks I'd suggest you either read more closely or articulate yourself more fully.

[Abcdxxxx]

No you're right. Next time I make rude remark about Turkey, I'll be sure to slag off a few of the other EU nations so fools like you don't get all worked and assume it's racially motivated. My comments were actually downplaying race as a factor in this situation, though we both know race is indeed an issue in part. Then again, when some poor fuck watches the Church he was confirmed in turn into a Masque he's probably a bit pissed right? I dout he'd be any happier if it became a Temple, a Scientology social club or a Euro disco. When my father opens up shopping malls all through the Ukraine it pisses people off all over the world, and I doubt the fact that he was born in Iraq is the reason why. Get what I'm saying now? Change makes people miserable...especially when you're a union of nations wrapped around traditions. An influx of immigrants from third world countrys isn't really going to keep in standard with the illusion of a "European lifestyle" that their economy is based around.

[Systemz]

I agree that the "european lifestyle" is certainly an illusion - just as the "american lifestyle" and the "Iraqui lifestyle" are certainly socialized norms that don't actually reflect the majority of the citizenry of these nations. I'm the last preson that'll tell you that holding on to these illusions is beneficial to the society as a whole. The illusions are the product of a patriarchial social system that wants to retain control - the fear of immigration and the resulting "destabliziation" is baseless. Its not as if these churches in London are being bought out in a hostile takeover - only 12% of Britons actually attend church weekly, and nearly 70% never go at all. That's down enormously from even 10 years ago - and it's not like there are roving packs of scientologists out there scaring Anglicans away from church. So if the traditional Anglicans aren't going to church, its their own damned fault if they lose their churches to a group more interested in practicing. Change does indeed make people miserable - if the people are the people who have control. The fall of the Berlin Wall didn't exactly make the Stasi very happy, but mysteriously our images of those days are of teeming masses of jubilant people - people who were changing their lives. Sure - not every German was out carving their portion of the wall to sell on EBay that day, and certainly some of those people were unhappy about the wall coming down. Just as the landowning classes were cranky when the common man got the vote, and how the common man was cranky when women got the vote. Change happens - in fact, change is inevitable, and even Mr. Realism himself, Niccolo Machiavelli, will tell you that a proper person adapts to change, because the alternative is to be run under the gears. There is no "status quo" - the status quo changes as often as the days are numbered. If you want to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, go ahead and hide in your rabbit hole and scream at anything that comes into your territory - your failure to change'll get you left behind.

[Abcdxxxx]

That's lovely and all, but so what? ... you're saying these fears are without merit....but they do EXIST ... and one can look at history or take a look at what happened in Egypt for example, and see great relevance.....so your logic might be better suited for a good grade on a class paper then the real world. The Berlin wall falling represented the falling of an idealogy not an entire culture. We're not talking about natural progression of time here, we're talking about the threat of a systematic cultural warfare. A strategical immigration movement can not be seen as anything but a threat now matter how passively poetic you look at it.