Turkey |
|
|
|
ANDIMIZ! (Student Vow)
|
161. |
06 Apr 2008 Sun 04:52 am |
I don’t believe anyone disputed Turkey being an asset to the Americans in the Korean War. However, lets look back after World War II when the Brits left Greece and Turkey and the Truman Doctrine was signed. Basically the U.S. committing to balance the power in the Near East. Turkey welcomed that with open arms it is estimated at $400 million that went to Greece and Turkey as a result of the Truman Doctrine.
Let us not forget as well why Turkey entered the Korean War. They wanted to show their solidarity to the West not to mention more importantly what their capabilities were. As Turkey entered the Korean War there were over 3,000 casualties and approx 700 deaths. Unfortunately, Turkey entered into the War lacking weapons and equipment that were totally obsolete. The United States had to increase their military budget form $13 to about $50 billion that amount meant the military would have better guns more equipment and yes, their was money for Turkey. This was the turning point for Turkey’s role both in European and Near Eastern Power and it’s defense in which the United States supported and as a result Turkeys full support membership into NATO.
With Turkey’s army of nearly 500,000 people and equipment obsolete, the United States began to understand that Turkey as an investment of the security of the West. It cost $9,000 to fit a Turkish soldier where as to put an American soldier in Turkey it was $60,000 . So the money sent to Turkey in paid dividends was basically a terms of Western security. The critical peace between Turkey and the United States was the concern from Turkey of the Soviet Union. What Turkey wanted was a guarantee that strategically aligning with the United States who had nuclear weapons. What Turkey was willing to committ was a defense to the West , a membership into NATO, military assistance, economic assistance. In which the United States followed through on every aspect and continue s to do so this very day.
I'm sorry you are compelled to say "we suck". :-S
|
|
162. |
06 Apr 2008 Sun 01:44 pm |
It is evident that you belong to a supermarket culture where everything is measured in dollars. I am trying my best not to flame you any further than that. There is a phrase common in countries full of people who think they can buy everything with their money: put your money where your mouth is! I am not willing to see anyone of our soldiers or people get killed because of the "criminal" ambitions of your government.
|
|
163. |
06 Apr 2008 Sun 03:40 pm |
Quoting teaschip1: I don’t believe anyone disputed Turkey being an asset to the Americans in the Korean War. However, lets look back after World War II when the Brits left Greece and Turkey and the Truman Doctrine was signed. Basically the U.S. committing to balance the power in the Near East. Turkey welcomed that with open arms it is estimated at $400 million that went to Greece and Turkey as a result of the Truman Doctrine.
Let us not forget as well why Turkey entered the Korean War. They wanted to show their solidarity to the West not to mention more importantly what their capabilities were. As Turkey entered the Korean War there were over 3,000 casualties and approx 700 deaths. Unfortunately, Turkey entered into the War lacking weapons and equipment that were totally obsolete. The United States had to increase their military budget form $13 to about $50 billion that amount meant the military would have better guns more equipment and yes, their was money for Turkey. This was the turning point for Turkey’s role both in European and Near Eastern Power and it’s defense in which the United States supported and as a result Turkeys full support membership into NATO.
With Turkey’s army of nearly 500,000 people and equipment obsolete, the United States began to understand that Turkey as an investment of the security of the West. It cost $9,000 to fit a Turkish soldier where as to put an American soldier in Turkey it was $60,000 . So the money sent to Turkey in paid dividends was basically a terms of Western security. The critical peace between Turkey and the United States was the concern from Turkey of the Soviet Union. What Turkey wanted was a guarantee that strategically aligning with the United States who had nuclear weapons. What Turkey was willing to committ was a defense to the West , a membership into NATO, military assistance, economic assistance. In which the United States followed through on every aspect and continue s to do so this very day.
|
Excellent cut and past response...bravo!!!
|
|
164. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 02:46 am |
Actually, my post wasn't cut and pasted. It was research I did on the matter, found on the internet. Please be my guest and try to cut and paste this link, it's protected.So what the hell is your point Keith? You may also want to look at Vineyards post as well, found the same information on Yahoo. You obviously have a problem with me, as a mod if you have personal problem, you need to pm me. I'm tired of your calis remarks. It is quite evident who the immature one is here. I post, vineyard responds and Keith is right behind him. Actually, it's quite amusing how you protect eachother. I didn't realize men did this sort of thing.
Responding to Vineyards post. Bought obviously once again Turkey has no problem taking the money. Now what's worse? What kind of message does that send?
|
|
165. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 02:57 am |
Also if you notice, Keith and vineyard NEVER respond on Jans posts. Interesting, now isn't it.
|
|
166. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 03:37 am |
I personally don't endorse all of his posts. So what? Should I react to every single post just to please you?
|
|
167. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 03:41 am |
Quoting vineyards: I personally don't endorse all of his posts. So what? Should I react to every single post just to please you? |
No, turn the other cheek when it's your convienence. Silence, is the best method. I sure see you responding to mine and handsomes, but that's just by coicendence now isn't it.
|
|
168. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 03:43 am |
I was once a target of Turkish nationalists in this site but since you talk first and research later on...
|
|
169. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 03:56 am |
Quoting teaschip1: No, turn the other cheek when it's your convienence. Silence, is the best method. I sure see you responding to mine and handsomes, but that's just by coicendence now isn't it. |
Teaschip, I really think it's his business to respond to the posts he wants to respond to.
|
|
170. |
07 Apr 2008 Mon 04:01 am |
Quoting catwoman: Quoting teaschip1: No, turn the other cheek when it's your convienence. Silence, is the best method. I sure see you responding to mine and handsomes, but that's just by coicendence now isn't it. |
Teaschip, I really think it's his business to respond to the posts he wants to respond to. |
Agree, I just like consistency.
|
|
|