Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73645)	2/13/2003 6:05:57 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What the U.S. wants them to do now, is something totally different. Nobody is attacking Turkey. There is no credible threat, not even remotely, to Turkish territory. The U.S. wants France and Germany to help us use Turkey, to attack Turkey's neighbor, in a wholly non-European campaign What the US asked for was a plan to help defend Turkey in the case of an Iraqi attack.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (73645)	2/14/2003 2:26:54 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

All the NATO countries have an obligation to defend Turkey, when it is being attacked. The scenario is: France and Germany help defend Turkey, when Turkey is the exposed flank of NATO in a European war. That's what France and Germany signed up for. So... we shouldn't have deployed troops and prepared defenses in West Germany during the Cold War in anticipation of a Warsaw Pact invasion? Because West Germany hadn't been attacked YET? That's the analogy. We can agree that Turkey (all of it) is part of Europe, for the purposes of NATO. But it stretches things to the breaking point, to say that a war against Iraq is within NATO's mandate. NATO's purpose is to defend member nations. That is what is being asked. No one is asking for NATO troops to be deployed to Turkey to participate in an invasion of Iraq. Derek