NATO APPROVES TURKEY'S DEFENSE. Guess Why

[MegalosSkylaki]

Wahooo !

NATO FINALLY DECIDES TO UNDERTAKE STEPS TO PROTECT NATO ALLY.

Turkey shares a border with Iraq.

Defensive measures include "allied chemical and biological defense capabililities" and AWACS intelligence aircraft.

Germany and Belgium Join in the DEcesion.

France is NOT involved as FRANCE is ONLY NATO Country not to be Member of NATO Defense Planning Committee.

Why is France NOT a Member?

'Cause many years agoo--I believe in Charles de Gaulles time--it wanted to protect its Grandiosity--err, excuse me, its Sovereignty, by quitting some Committes of NATO.

France wants to pick and choose its responsibilities under NATO.
Bully for it and enjoy your Chardenney M. Chirac 'cause CA makes better stuff anyhow !

For those who want to read why da DOOG has gone on a BOYCOTT , please be advised that France continues to oppose the defense of NATO ally , which has asked for it.

MegalosSkylaki

[Epidemic]

Can any one explain to me the reasoning of not voting for a defensive measure???

Whether or not you believe Iraq may do something, Turkey seems quite uncompfortable. I can not see a defensive move as being a problem. Heck, considering that france germany and belgium all believe there is no threat this would be like a nice joint exercise.

I think the hole reasoning behind this was to send the message to Iraq that France will not do anything to help globle efforts in the war.

They (France/Germany) got too much at steak in Iraq in terms of oil contracts and who nows what else. Now Turkey will certainly be more compfortable.

What's the arctic Dawgs opinion?

[MegalosSkylaki]

Recall WHY France left the Defense structure or such of NATO--it wanted to have AN INDEPENDENT NUCLEAR DETTERENT, independent of "the Anglo-American" hegemony.

It set it nuclear strength at the level of credibility--which was 1 or 2 % of the USSR/USA nuclear strength.

I think it should be encouraged to be MORE independent.

MegalosSkylaki

[RedFury]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if one of our Bombers "accidentally" loses it's payload over Paris, I'll be looking the other way...

[muno]

I think that the reason belgium was against setting defences on turkey soil was that it would mean they're 'agreeing' on open war against iraq.

If one is saying they don't support war against iraq, why would they support building defences? It is illogical to take those measures when one is so loudly against the whole war.

That is what I think the belgians had in mind, of course I'm not a mind reader.

Finnish government officially supports peaceful measures on the iraqi situation - which I agree.
-M

[osprey4]

Originally posted by shahani
I think the hole reasoning behind this was to send the message to Iraq that France will not do anything to help globle efforts in the war.

France will do whatever suits it, regardless of the global situation. If they would benefit by selling weapons to Iraq, they'be doing it (as they've done in the past).

Of course, point a gun anywhere in France and the entire country surrenders.

[muno]

Umm.. Actually it was U.S. who supported Saddam to get in power in the first place.

Was it libya or whatever it was back then that had to be overrun.
-M

[kenyg]

No, Saddam was the vice-president of Iraq when the President stepped aside - having picked Saddam to be his successor.

I don't believe he was supported by the US in the beginning, as Iraq's military hardware was nearly all Soviet.