Points well recieved, although I should have stated the relationship with NATO more clearly. What I meant to get across was that they should be kicked out of UN, or at least their veto powers striken (which I had hoped was already assumed by the post), and to go furthur, kicked from NATO as well.

As for Turkey:

Turkey is a nation that is very vulnerable from an attack from Iraq for many reasons. One reason is because they are a NATO presence in the region, which makes them fair game if war were to break out. A second reason is because of the fact that Turkish and Isreali soldiers train together, and Saddam has shown no remorse is sending munitions towards Isreal, including the possibility of chemical/biological agents.

UN laws clearly state that pre-emptive war is forbidden. The US and Turkey asked for military support for Turkey IN ANTICIPATION to a war with Iraq. According to UN-laws, that is forbidden. Now where are France, Germany and Belgium backing out? Don't be mistaken: in case of war, the three countries won't hesitate to send support. IN CASE OF WAR, not before the war has even started.

I'm sorry to say, but the war has already began, 10 years ago. Ten years ago, need I remind you, it was Iraq who decided to start a "pre-emptive war" with Kuwait. You may think the war ended with the UN inspectiors arrival back the first time, although the bombing in the no fly zone has never ended, and the tossing back and forth of munitions between the USA and Iraq continues to this day. How in your view is this not war?

Allow me to quote your beloved NATO articles:

Taken directly from The NATO Charter.
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Well, it seems to me that when Iraq, on numerous occasions, tried shooting down our aircraft, we should have had unconditional support from all NATO allies. Except of course France, Belgium, and Germany.


The reason of putting more troops in Turkey, as stated even in NATO press conferences, is for "Strictly defensive purposes". What if your country was caught on the border of a known rouge country with possible WMD. I'm sure you would want a strong defence to cover you also.

Ankara is afraid the Kurds will profit from the war against Iraq by conquering Mosoel and Kirkuk (lots of oil there!), and making Kirkuk the capital of an indepent Kurdistan.

You can say all you want and bring in all the rhetoric and heresay you want about oil and whatnot. These statements hold no actual content and are stretching for just more propaganda against the US's military efforts to, let me remind you, "stabalize" the region.



Now, the US needs Turkey for a war against Iraq (talk about the power of the US as much as you want, but that is a simple fact). Turkey knows this, and is preparing to get everything they can from that simple fact...

The US needs Turkey? I think you have it backwards my friend.
During the 1990-91 Gulf War, Turkey suffered a loss of a minimum of $40 billion in lost trade, commerce, and investments. Now some Ankara officials put the impending losses in a new Iraq conflict at $150 billion over a decade. How can a country with an anemic economy, dizzying inflation, and a weak currency sustain this loss? Five years ago while in Istanbul I recall the lira being at 250,000 to the US$; it’s now 1,656,000!
The IMF provides economic life support for Turkey, and who is one of the leading contributors of the IMF? You guessed it, the USA. Turkey really has no leverage in this argument.



Taken directly from Nato Website
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Well UN has been toying with Iraq for ten years now, and with the resolution 1441, UN has signed itself into something with ""consequences" if Iraq does not cooperate. Do you think this means were going to slap Saddam on the wrist?

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Well, to me it looks like Turkey has more than enough reason to be thretened.


Article 51Taken directly from United Nations Charter.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Taken from above.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,

Well, armed attacks have been happening for the past ten years, so why is "defensivly arming" Turkey a problem? Answer me that.


sincerely,
xmaddness