It's 'cuz enigenering is eeerrrr hard.

 

Howdy, John!!!

Yeah, Jim, this really has me bugged. I don't get it at all. I don't think we should be offering money at all. Sure, promise help after the war, but paying them up front is -- what -- a bribe??? I really don't get it. Of all the shite going on in these war preparations, this is the thing that really sticks in my craw.

 

You have a very good point there Mig-Meister...


...and for a token $15,000,000,000 I'll agree with you.

 

What's your take, Z-man? (and I don't mean $15B)

 

Why should the US not have to pay an ally? They pay Cuba (not much) for Gitmo. England paid them (through the nose) for weapons in the second WW.

It's frikkin capitalism. You aren't against capitalism are ya'!! Pinko!!!!

 

It IS a bribe....what else can it be? A LEASE? The rest of the world will have a field day with this one and for good reason!

 

Hmm... I don't have an issue with Guantanamo Bay, John. That's like leasing the property. I didn't know we paid for it, but so be it. It's a permanent base, and it makes sense to compensate Cuba for it. And England buying weapons... Well, weapons are for sale. Yup, capitalism at work.

Do you see this Turkey thing as different? I do. It feels like bribery to me. Could be I'm naive on this though.

 

Yes it's been done before. As for why we would do such a thing with regards to Turkey, their economy would be devastated by a war. Just because someone is an ally does not mean that they must be involved in a military action.

By paying Turkey it enables us to use a very strategic staging location while at the same time bolstering Turkey's economy against the damage it will surely see during such a military campaign AND preserving their "face" in the region and the international community.

See, it's mostly diplomacy. Diplomacy is not always logical, often frustrating, and sometimes silly...but it is also a necessary way for such vastly different cultures to interact.

 

I see that point, Brant. Do you know when the US has done it before?

I suppose when viewed from that perspective, it looks like it might be something other than bribery. I am having trouble with it, though. There's a lot more going on here that makes me chafe... Turkey apparently wants control of the Kurds, and the Kurds don't want Turkish troops at all on their territory. The Turkish government is trying to get us to play into a power struggle game there. Something which is a frikkin' nightmare.

We are clearly not talking about a "token" here (newscasters' words, not yours). I could see making a committment to post-war assistance/rebuild, but I'm not seeing this $15B as a humanitarian effort or a necessary bolstering of the Turkish economy.

Sorry, Brant. I'm still not getting it.

 

[oink]I agree Brant. Turkey could not participate in a war for financial reasons. The US payment allows them to sign up as a participating ally.

I make no mistake about Turkey's political agenda though. Of course they want control over the area. This has not caused the US to shy away in past noble causes (Korea, VietNam, Nicaragua, Kuwait to name a few).

There's big money in war. There's political capital (right George W?). It's business.

It feckin nasty but it's business. That's I manage to get it.


[/oink]