It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Turkey won't let US use its bases to attack Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Well, good to see Turkeys true colours coming to light at last.


If this ISLAMIC nation is allowed to join the EU in the future, it is the wedge that will divide and get us all conquered.

They NEVER allow action from its soil against another Islamic state.... they will always side with the Islamic world come hell or high water.... and they want to join the european union? now why would that be....... UNLESS.......they are the trojan horse that will allow UNLIMITED ISLAMIC INFLUX into the EU area....


Think I'm paranoid? well a well known world leader warned against Turkeys move into the EU, saying that they are the Islamic worlds major hope of conquering europe... laughing, he drew a picture... It was titled the Islamic President of the European Union (- And yes if turkey was in the EU it would happen)........ and he sponsored terrorism for decades.... Gaddafi himself.

So no action against Iran from turkish soil.... what happens if it was a joint EU / USA force in the future? would they say no? would they fight against the allies???

An Islamic country within any non-Islamic group is asking for trouble - keep them out so at least you can keep them in plain view. let them be at best neutral till they prove otherwise...then hit them hard if needs be.




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Turkey should never be allowed to join the EU, and that my country, the U.S., would suggest it kind of urks me, and then bribing with a reactor! that just goes to show you the crap about iran is a smokescreen for something else going on behind the scenes. I wont say its oil neccesarily, but something is up that has bush going nuts, I think those generals in washington need to put a leash on that old dog.


Personally I feel that europe is playing a dangerous game by not restricting its flow of immigrants. Of course neither does mine so it really dont make a difference.

I just dont want to see islamic portions rising up against the european governments, as they did in france, and cause trouble. IMO europe has had enough wars fought on its soil in the last century. Hopefully they will have a measure of peace for a good part of the this century.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Are you people rabid dogs? Turkey has a history of secularist government to the point that the military would risk undertaking a coup to stop any perceived threats to secularism. And it is the EU that is asking Turkey to reign in the role of the military on such perceived threats. Islam forms an important moral basis for Turkish society and denying its merits would be like denying the merits of Christianity on American culture. As well, if this is merely an "Islamic phenomenon," then attempt to explain the abstentions and protests to America's actions seen among "Christian" countries and people across the world.

This is xenophobia and prejudice at some of its worst. Get a clue.


[edit on 1-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Shame on you all
After the disaster and lie after lie which was Iraq, these Neocons are still licking their chops at Iran and YOU SUPPORT THEM ?!!!


OMG- America truly is f-cked with people like this. Oh,and Jamuhn, quit the Islamist crap. I don't want you to feed the crocodiles.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Nakash]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
US: "Turkey, can we use your airbases to bomb Iran because they have a nuclear programme? We'll give you a nuclear reactor!"

Turkey: "No."

The irony and double standards the US Foreign Policy shows would be amusing if it did not have such horrifying consequences.

Maybe the US administration will stop nagging the EU to let Turkey enter the EU now regardless of Turkey's human rights record?

It seems the US can't rely on Turkey as a constant toady now.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Ah, Turkey’s loss, the US has plenty of other options, this map and this map show it all. However it does not include the new bases in Romania and Bulgaria, which once built would allow the US to run operations without the host nation’s consent.

Related Articles

Romania Deal
Bulgaria Deal

[edit on 2-5-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
So..Meaningless that Turkey wont allow it.


True Skippy. With or without turkey, it's not going to make a difference.

The US will probably set up camp in Georgia....it's much closer to Iran and I seriously doubt that Saakishvili will turn the US away.

Post I made a couple months back:


Georgia is Americas future Turkey, a place to set up Airbases, station troops awaiting deployment, store gear and maybe oneday have a fully operational US military base in a very strategic location that would greatly benefit the US.


[edit on 2/5/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
So, Sporty, you're completely for the US having bases all over the world, is that correct? And in precisely what ways do you want them to benefit the US? I just want to be clear about your motives and feelings about this.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
So, Sporty, you're completely for the US having bases all over the world, is that correct?


No, what gave you that idea? I think the US should pack and leave most countries that we have a military presence in. There's a few places where I think we should stay, imo, but not that many.



And in precisely what ways do you want them to benefit the US?

Where did I say that I wanted the US to benefit from anything (not that I don't)? I could care less if we have bases in Turkey, Germany, etc...

I said that the US would benefit more from having a base in Georgia rather than Turkey. And, imo, this would benefit both the US and the Georgains...especially with the whole Russia, Abkhazia and Ossetia situation (Link here) which the Georigans would benefit greatly by having a US presence that will probably deter a war(s) between many of the caucus countries and Russia...not to mention civil wars.

How does the US benefit from being in Turkey? The US benefits by having a foothold in the middle east/Europe. But having that foothold in Georgia (strategically/speaking) would be better all around for the long run, especially for any major US military movement.



I just want to be clear about your motives and feelings about this.


My feelings....unless Iran poses a direct (real) threat to the US, we should'nt even be gearing up to go there. If the Turks don't want the US there if we intend to invade Iran...fine, we'll just pack up and move somewhere else.

Would the US support and harbour a country that wanted to invade Canada...I doubt it.

rich23, not to dwell on the small things. But there's a diference between someone giving their opinion and someone saying what they want. I think bacon sucks....but that does not mean that I want bacon to suck
BTW, I love bacon.

Sporty

[edit on 2/5/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarecrow19d
With friends like Turkey....

With out friends like Turkey the US wouldn't've been able to have as effective a nuek detterence against the Soviet Union. The Turks didn't help the US invade, destroy, and occupy, one of their neighbhors, and now won't help in destroying iran. That's their decision.

What the heck kind of a 'friend and ally' would the US be if, when it didn't get its way, it sets up an entire nation right next to you in the hopes that it destroys or destabilizes you as a punishment, which is what creating an independant kurdistan would do???

The Turks took a big risk in accepting US missiles pointing at Russia. Yes, Russia was an 'old' enemy of Turkey, but I don't think that they were going to vapourize each other without US interests involved.

So 'throwing away' Turkey because of something that isn't even needed, would be a really bad idea. Abandoning an islamic country that has a democratic government, when you are trying to democratize and open the middle east, would be silly.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Sporty, thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your position a bit better.



Georgia is Americas future Turkey, a place to set up Airbases, station troops awaiting deployment, store gear and maybe oneday have a fully operational US military base in a very strategic location that would greatly benefit the US.


That's where I got the idea, though... and I would still, if you don't mind, like to explore the ways in which you think that strategic location would benefit the US. You say it's to have a 'foothold' in Europe/the Middle East. But you've kind of avoided answering the question, which then becomes, "a foothold for what?" HOW does the US benefit by having a foothold? Do you see what I mean? I guess I'm asking what kinds of specific benefits might the US gain, what kinds of strategic interests are at stake?

Personally, I'd be very happy if the US took its military out of the UK, in particular because one of its bases, Menwith Hill, contains state-of-the-art listening equipment, and that means that it also has US nukes pointed at it, should it 'fall into the wrong hands'. Short of there being an uprising, though (and even then...) that simply is never going to happen.

And Nygdan, good point about loyalty to Turkey.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
What if Turley gets bribed with EU membership in order to launch attacks on Iran from their land. Does anyone think they will bite then? If it does become a NATO effort I doubt they will be given EU membership if they do not cooperate to the fullest extent.

I don't see why it matters that Bulgaria and Romania are allowing the US to utilize their land and airspace for whatever purposes, They are north of Turkey and would still need to fly over their airspace unless they decided to go over Georgia.

Even attacking from Either of the border countries which the US now has under its rule will prove costly. As far as I can see, the biggest advantage our country had in acquiring Iraq was the terrain. Iraq is pretty much all desert and flat. On top of that its pretty much cloudless at all times. Our jets, UAV's and satellites could see anything that moved anywhere in that land at any time. There are hardly even in any tress in that country. Thats makes things like rediculously easier.

Iran on the other hand is mostly mountanis terrain as well as forest. They could pretty much hide whatever they want wherever they want to and just wait for hostile action. We would not be able to see half of it coming. They can just hide Anti-Air defenses in caves until radar has (and their satellite) has identified hostile action penetrating the borders. Wait until they get close and then fire. The pilots will be caught by surprise alot. Of course those locations may then be revieled, but they still have the opportunity to relocate and hide in another location quickly.

Anyone knows working your way uphill in a land invasion, no matter what kind of technology and manpower you have will put you in a severe disadvantage. They may have already mined the only navigateable terrains to go up. And putting a whole army on a single road going uphill will not be a pretty site considering the size of the bottleneck. All they have to do is pick and choose, fall back and relocate quickly to inflict heavy casualties. Simply destroying the roads will hamper our efforts even more.

People do not seem to consider how an envrionment and the immediate terrain can have a huge benefit or detriment to any military operation. Of course if we were able to simply go through the mountains which are shared by Turkey and Iran, it may at least give our land forces a strategical equality as far as terrain goes. Even so, I am sure the indigenous soldiers know the land alot better than our soldiers will. Because when it all coems down to it, it is what the individual soldier knows and can adapt to that matters in the situations.

Saddam was defeated the first time because of the terrain disadvantage. He lost his country the second time around because his war machines were destroyed the first time and his bases, surveillance, and communications positions were being attacked for ten years. Even if Iran's military was only equal to Saddams of the 90's, they have the biggest advantage which is their terrain.

Supporting a war against them is ridiculous, in particular a PRE-EMPTIVE war, and those who choose to see it as a walk in the park will be sadly mistaken. Even with all the high tech gadgetry, terrain is the biggest factor in forseeing the outcome of a battle. The defender in this case has it in their favor. They hope America does attack first. Sure the air force may be able to carry out operations with minimal loss, but any land incurseions will suffer unfortunately and unnecessary heavy losses.

Good for Turkey, for not giving this administration an advantage of equal terrain access. If the leader I did not personally elect chooses to pick a fight, he will have to suffer the consequences. I pray in advance and give pity for all those who have family who will be the ones at the front lines if this silly scenario is given the green light to proceed.

I do however thank you for the excellent entertainment value it will bring to my television. Real wars are definetly a bigger thrill to watch than hollywoods ones. Again so sorry for any family many will loose, but they chose the route they chose. I will partake in the freedom to watch them fight for my right to watch



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
They hope America does attack first. Sure the air force may be able to carry out operations with minimal loss, but any land incurseions will suffer unfortunately and unnecessary heavy losses.

You are assuming that striking at those Iranian nuclear reactors and facilities involves an invasion of Iran, as well?

They are and will be two distinct missions with the latter not being a priority goal.




seekerof



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar



Look at Isreal, they have nukes would you want those crazy people near you and not have a way to defend yourself?


LoneGunMan, can you qualify this statement for me? I'm not sure what you mean by 'crazy people'.


I'll answer, but for myself.

The Zionists are crazy IMO. These are the guys who "jokingly" threatened to use nuclear blackmail against Europe to get reparation money for the Holocaust. The same guys who think they run the US (ok, they might actually do this). The same guys who kill little kids because they are on the wrong turf. The same guys who use sonic booms to terrorize people in a 3rd world nation. The same guys who twist the Holocaust to suit their agenda. The same guys who radiated thousands of their own kids.

I could go on and on. The point is, you have these nutcases armed to the TEETH with nuclear weapons, and also have a sizeable influence over the US. I'd be ready to rumble too...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I only made that whole arguement for people who believe Iran should be invaded and attacked without exactly thinking of how it is to be done and what obstacles are in the way. However, the fact that those planes will have to fly over mountains means that any missle fired at it are as much as 2000-6000 feet closer to their target already. That is a pretty significant distance which can cut the air time of the weapon and decrease the alert time of the pilot and his timeing to take appropriate action.

Mountains can hide many many things, including the true location of any legal or non-legal nuclear operations. The fact that they have a satellite means they can monitor the airspace around the area of highest priority for any stealthy aircraft. Not to mention I am sure it is patrolled by their own air force on a daily (perhaps hourly?) basis. Sure even if our F-22's got in there and through pure superiority and destroyed all aircraft on patroll, their locations will have been revealed and all possible routes will be under attack and surveillance. I doubt they will stop shooting even if they lose sight.

Once that has happened Seeker, it will have been an official declaration of war and many many US locations will be fired upon. Whether they succeed or not will be of no importance. The mere fact that it has happened will infuriate the Islamic world to the boiling point I am sure.

So now that the two nations will be at war, do you suppose it will be an all aerial campaign? I sure hope so. Because anything foreign attempting to enter its land will not see any mercy or even much luck. I doubt they will launch any land attacks on any significant targets within 50 miles of their border though.

Oh but Seeker you also forgot a declaration of war will also pit us against Syria

So now US forces in Iraq ar being fired upon from both sides of the border. I do not believe Syria will attack Israel. There is no doubt though Hamas and Hezbollah will attempt to destabalize Israel by direct assault now that the whole region is a mess.

So Seeker, regardless of the outcome of any airstrike on Iran, it will not be hidden and it will be a declaration of war. Seeker are you telling me we can even afford to fight a war on three front nows (Syria-Iraq, Iraq-Iran, Iran-Afghanistan) and fight an insurgency in a whole nation it occupies, at the same time being able to help Israel fend off an invasion of tens of thousands of angry militants right into its streets and cities?

forget about the logistical capabilities of it, where is the money and soldeirs coming from? Could you explain how any this will lead to a psotivie outcome?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Seeker are you telling me we can even afford to fight a war on three front nows (Syria-Iraq, Iraq-Iran, Iran-Afghanistan) and fight an insurgency in a whole nation it occupies, at the same time being able to help Israel fend off an invasion of tens of thousands of angry militants right into its streets and cities?

Here's the 64 million dollar question to you and them:

Can they, Syria and Iran, etc., afford to think or assume that the US and Coalition can not or will not?


Consider this: If the U.S. acts unilaterally and strikes Iran's nuclear reactors and facilities, and Syria joins on the side of the Iranians, then Iran nails Israel while actively increasing insurgency Afghanistan and Iraq....guess what?

*Afghanistan is currently mixed foreign troops, mainly supplied by NATO and the US.
*Iraq is currently mixed with mainly US troops, and Coalition troops (UK, Poland, etc).

Israel can handle Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah but can Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah handle a combination of Israel and US and/or Coalition forces?
Iran, in actively messing in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely meet NATO (Afghanistan), Coalition (Iraq), and US forces (Iraq and Afghanistan). And lets add the growing Iraqi security/police and military which will undoubtedly continue to get a handle on insurgency and security concerns.

Accordingly, Iran and Syria will have to answer the 64 million dollar question correctly, and they better not be basing grand strategy on "what ifs" and assumptions, you think?





seekerof

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Did you think about the fact that sovereign nations of Iran and Syria are not run by children? They understand full well the consequences of attacking multinational forces in Afghanistan. The fact that their terrain gives them a physical advantage means they would only have to defend their territory to inflict significant American casualties.

You are basing a lot of hope that the rest of the world has no conflicts with destroying whole human societies and destabilizing the lives of innocent civilians. If the United States initiates a pre-emptive attack on a nation which has not initiated one in the events leading up to that moment, I am betting NATO will not assist them. This is why I believe Turkey is not going to assist. None of the Nato nations except Britain actually supported the US in the Iraq invasion. They most definitely will have no business supporting them in a ground war with three of the most profound Islamic nations. Europe is tired of war, has been waging it since the history of that Lands' existence has been recorded. I would think after two world wars in a single century of which virtually all of the battles have been in Europe they would be pretty reluctant to feel the ramifications of a third in less than one hundred years.

The thing I fear most is that if Hezbollah and Hamas simultaneously attack Israel in blitzkriegs after any Western Air strikes on Iran, these merciless fanatical militants will murder any Jews they see in the street on sight. This is going to severely limit the abilities of Israel’s defenses to mobilize quick enough to fend off any support Syria may send that way. America has no significant ground troops or bases in Israel to mobilize manpower. We would have to be utilizing quite a hell of a lot of our air force in order to defend the hornet’s nest we have stirred in the whole region. The problem with Israel being so tiny is it can be overrun and occupied in a very hasteful manner.

Not to mention that unless the US bombards any oil pipelines going east (which would seriously upset Russia and China) they will continue to have funding to pay their soldiers and build their defenses, as well as support limited social welfare programs. In fact if the West did destroy those pipelines, which are bringing much wealth and luxuries to many nations, I would not be surprised if China decided to Seize Taiwan and give NK protection to launch an artillery barrage against US positions in South Korea.

Seeker the thing you refuse to accept is the fact that attacks on Iran WILL instigate a global war that will have dire consequences and effect almost every human being living in the civilized world. This is not over dramatizing or fear-mongering, it is fact. Treaties and pacts are signed with the intent they will be fulfilled when the situations arise.

Let’s just say for our sake, that this Friday an air strike is initiated, and we will even say it was successful without any loss. Everything I have just stated will immediately come into play. Because it is written that way in treaties and because some people will fulfill the declarations they have been pronouncing for months and some for years. Once it reaches the point of global involvement, where do you think they are going to find Private first Class "Johnny American Soldier"? Voluntary recruitment? Convicted Felons? Illegal immigrants? They are going to fall back on you, the loyal citizens who will support their government regardless of the consequences.

You may be sent to the Pacific to combat Chinese or even Russian military buildups in East Asia. Or perhaps you will combat the Islamic world defending Eurasia for the sake of Energy conglomerates and the profits of their shareholders. Maybe you will even be stations in the Southwest to help quell civil uprisings over economic issues.

No matter where we will need troops, the loyal citizen will be there to put his life on the line to protect the economic interests of wealthy capitalists for a war they don't even know the true reasons for. They only know they have to do what is right by what their leaders tell them.

The only question is, will Europe actually be involved in this war at all? Or will they sit by and allow the United States suffer at the foolish choices they have made, as their economy and civilization breaks down at the saturation of expansionist ideals. Why fight another war on their land? Especially for an entity that has no respects for other cultures and are located on the other side of the world.

Oh well, if the US somehow wins in such a situation, without European help; just imagine the chunk of the world we will now control? Man that’s awesome. In fifty years half the world could be America controlled and influenced. I love living in this country, and if I can go anywhere in the world and live the same, that would be awesome. I just hope I would not have already been killed with my fellow citizens fighting for it



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
With out friends like Turkey the US wouldn't've been able to have as effective a nuek detterence against the Soviet Union. The Turks didn't help the US invade, destroy, and occupy, one of their neighbhors, and now won't help in destroying iran. That's their decision.



agreed.....




What the heck kind of a 'friend and ally' would the US be if, when it didn't get its way, it sets up an entire nation right next to you in the hopes that it destroys or destabilizes you as a punishment, which is what creating an independant kurdistan would do???


While I dont think that a kurdistan would be dead set in the destruction of turkey, I do think the Turks have oprresed them enough there is bad blood. Kurds need a homeland just as the Jews did.



The Turks took a big risk in accepting US missiles pointing at Russia. Yes, Russia was an 'old' enemy of Turkey, but I don't think that they were going to vapourize each other without US interests involved.


yes, they took a huge risk....but the US could argue that what turkey was to us is what cuba was to the soviets. I think the "balance of power" prevented the cold war from going hot.



So 'throwing away' Turkey because of something that isn't even needed, would be a really bad idea. Abandoning an islamic country that has a democratic government, when you are trying to democratize and open the middle east, would be silly.


couldnt agree more there, to issue an ultimatum like this over the issue of iran is foolhardy to say the least.


[edit on 3-5-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
To further expand on your statements. Are you telling me that it would be acceptable for the us to attack Iran knowing that it will strike back in defense and will likely draw in other players for a regional war that has the easy potential to expand globally? Tell me again why this global war is worth sacrificing the lives of possibly millions of innocent civilians? Please don't tell me to save Israel. This move will destroy Israel regardless. The citizens will simply move out into other lands to survive, blending with another society playing the victim while the rest of the world is fighting and killing each other for a cause they will probably have forgotten after a few years because of the priority of keeping wealth and land.

I honestly do not see the logic, especially considering you will end up offering your life to fight or face imprisonment. Don't think about going to Canada, they are a NATO nation and will probably only be fighting to protect their European friends from the mess America decided to cause. I doubt they will have much mercy for our citizens trying to avoid a fate their own will be unable to escape. I guess you could go to Mexico, but well
we know how that’s looking right now.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by scarecrow19d


I agree with you here completely. Time for the US to close its bases in Turkey, and in fact we should create a Kurd nation and rebuild our bases that we close in Turkey there.

With friends like Turkey....


So the yankees playing lego with the middle east again?
Create a new country it seems!!..




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join