SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (28657)9/23/2003 3:41:51 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Meanwhile, a billion here, and a billion there, and you have the best friends money can buy.

As Washington continues to negotiate the terms of Ankara's possible participation in its stabilization efforts in Iraq, both sides yesterday said they had reached an agreement on a new, hefty loan pact. Officials in both capitals deny the deal is aimed at winning over the Turkish public, which remains largely opposed to sending troops to the country's war-torn neighbor. Yet, one of the conditions attached to the loan pact is that Turkey must cooperate with the U.S. in Iraq.

Prague, 23 September 2003 (RFE/RL) -- After months of negotiations, the United States yesterday announced it would lend Turkey $8.5 billion in loans to bolster its fragile economy and offset costs engendered by the war on Iraq. The deal was signed in Dubai on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Ankara's mainstream newspapers today say the U.S. loan has a 10-year maturity and will be paid out in four equal disbursements over about 18 months. The first installment is not expected until after the IMF completes a review of Turkey's economic progress in November.

U.S. market analysts note the terms of the loan agreement are very generous and that the package amounts to a de facto $1 billion gift to Turkey.


but

The U.S. is opposed to allowing Turkish soldiers into northern Iraq for fear of clashes with the two main Kurdish factions that control the area. Ankara in turn demands tough U.S. action against its own Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Turkey blames the banned PKK for waging a 15-year separatist war in its predominantly Kurdish eastern provinces that claimed an estimated 35,000 lives.

Following the capture of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999, many of Turkey's Kurdish armed militants sought refuge in neighboring countries. An estimated 5,000 PKK peshmerga fighters are believed to be hiding in northern Iraq's Qandil Mountains, near the border with Iran, and Ankara would like U.S.-led coalition forces to take action against them sooner or later.

In comments made yesterday in New York, where he is due to attend the United Nations General Assembly, Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said his country was dissatisfied with Washington's response to its security concerns and expected a "firm answer" over the PKK issue this week.

For Turkey's civilian and military leaders, securing a U.S. public pledge to move against Kurdish rebels is key to winning over domestic public opinion, which remains largely hostile to the idea of sending troops to Iraq.


from

rferl.org

While back in Turkey

''According to initial reports three of the guerrillas were killed in fighting yesterday (Monday) evening,'' an official said, on condition of anonymity.
Turkey's security forces are hunting down leftist, Kurdish and Islamist rebels holed up in the mountainous region of eastern Turkey, poverty-stricken after decades of conflict.

Ankara is determined to stamp out the threat from the armed militant groups, the most significant of which has been the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), also known as Kadek.

Turkey has fought PKK guerrillas since 1984 at the cost of more than 30,000 lives, most of them Kurds


from

famulus.msnbc.com

Hey, I've got an idea. Iraq isn't a big enough mess. Let's throw a "little gasoline on the fire".

JMO

lurqer



To: lurqer who wrote (28657)9/24/2003 12:32:17 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
lurqer. Nah, it wasn't you. So Pakistan is withdrawing its troops because it doesn't "serve Pakistan's interests." Meanwhile the Taliban and al qaida leaders have safe harbor in Pakistan to direct their war in Afghanistan. "It reflects general opposition in Pakistan's Pashtun-dominated border regions against the hunt for the members of mainly Pashtun Taliban movement and their al Qaeda allies." I agree, an impossible situation.