| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| TURKEY DEAL ON TROOPS |
| 2003-02-27 |
| Turkey's Defence Ministry has reached an agreement with the US on troop deployment ahead of a crucial government vote on the issue. The US wants to base 62,000 troops, aircraft and helicopters in Turkey in the event of military action against neighbouring Iraq. They would be used to open up a second front, which analysts say would shorten any war and limit casualties. In return for its cooperation, America is offering Turkey $24bn worth of aid. Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul said: "Agreement is complete on the military issues. All that's being discussed is at what level (the deal) will be signed." Signature of Bush would do The aid package, which will be debated by the Turkish parliament later, follows weeks of sensitive talks. Despite sharp divisions within the ruling Justice and Development Party, it is almost certain to be accepted. The deal will plug the last major gap in Washington's planning for military action against Saddam Hussein. Turkey will use the $24bn in grants and loan guarantees from the US to cushion its frail economy against the impact of war. It plans to send 40,000 troops into a border buffer zone in northern Iraq but insists they will not become involved in any fighting. It says they will only marshall the expected flood of refugees and protect the Turkish minority in the Kurdish-controlled region. Baghdad has said a decision by Turkey to allow US troops on its soil would amount to it joining hostilities. |
| Posted by:Murat |
| #6 Chuck, Another reason our sysem works is that we have been able to successfully assimilate immigrants into our culture gradually and absorb parts of their cultures and make it our own e.g. St Paddies's Day and Columbus Day. Unfortunately, the multiculturists amongst us want us to change our ways and balkanize the country and allow immigrants to keep their cultures intact. e.g. bilingual education and other politically correct horse manure. If they have their way, our system will collapse. |
| Posted by: Denny 2003-02-27 12:02:57 |
| #5 what people forget about Switzerlans is that it worked because for a long time religion cut differently than language. Geneva was francophone, but protestant, and wanted nothing to do with Catholic France - similarly the largest and most important German speaking cantons were Protestant, and the adjacent german speaking states - Austria and Bavaria - were Catholic. So Switzerland is something of an exception. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-02-27 10:57:38 |
| #4 Well Chuck, one of the reasons our system works is that the ethnic and religious groups aren't very concentrated geographically. When you have geographic concentration of different worldviews (whether economic, ethnic or religious) things go bad (e.g., the American Civil War). The Swiss are the way they are because different Cantons are linguistically different for historic reasons(e.g., some speak French and have a french like culture, others are more German). Once upon a time, religious differences were also toxic (17th century). Now to critize my own thoughts I have to admit that the Austo-Hungarian empire was an unsuccessful example of cantonization which broke up along ethnic and religious lines. The current line up in the Balkins is what happens when the toxicity affects the ethnic groups. If the same takes place in Iraq, there would be 4 or 5 different 'nations' in what is now Iraq. Personally, I don't see anything bad about this. However, Turkey would consider an independent Kurdistan (even an unarmed and weak one) to be a threat. There is also a chance that a de confererated Iraq could encourage mischief by Syria or Iran. So that's why a more federated version of the Canton system might have to be given a play. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-02-27 10:11:00 |
| #3 Chuck---Your point is well taken. However, our US model is based upon being a melting pot, where the most important thing is to make the good of the country the primary thing, and the individual ethnic allegance secondary, though very strong. If a group cannot put the interest of the country (the common good) above group loyalties, the system is doomed. So it boils down to whether the groups are willing to commit to this principle for our US model to work there. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-02-27 10:06:20 |
| #2 Why do we even want a parlimentary system? Our way, three branches, seems to work so much better. The Swiss cantons for a model? How about the United States? Where else in the world can you find a better example of diverse ethnic and racial groups working together well? The other way leads to Yugoslavia II, and without a Tito that fails. Well, perhaps Tito Jackson is available? |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-02-27 09:19:30 |
| #1 I sort of agree with you Murat. A democratic multi ethnic and multi sectarian government with appropriate regional legislatures would be wonderful. Before the Baathists took over, something like that seemed to be evolving in Iraq. The problem is that decades of Baathist rule have made getting from here to there dicey. The version of Swiss Canton system with somewhat more national control might be the transition. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-02-27 08:49:46 |