The Iraqi peoples (I say that deliberately, there seems to be no Iraqi "nation") have bitter folk memories of Turkish occupation, and they fear and hate the Turks very much.
Also, it is no secret that Turkey has territorial ambitions in northern Iraq.
So, how is this going to help in Iraq? I fear it will be counter to the aims of producing peace and stability out of this sorry mess.
Faulty math there, steve ... 358 + 183 = 541 votes cast.
183/541 = 33.8% against vs 66.2% for. A 2-to-1 margin is a 2-to-1 margin, any way you spin it.
Don't forget the Poles, Walter. And Japan has signed on to send a sizeable contingent "by the end of the year". The US may not have UN help, and largely is shouldering the burden itself, but it certainly is not without international help.
McT, if, as is probable, the Turkish troops are deployed elsewhere than in Kurdish areas, there likely will be little real backlash, Iraqi or Turkish.
And I'm still wondering, what happened to this:
Quote:Relations were damaged further by the July 4 detention of 11 Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq by U.S. troops, an incident that Mr. Gul yesterday called "unfortunate" and "not acceptable." The soldiers were released after fierce Turkish protests.
source:
Envoy denies talk of Iraq troops for business pacts
Mr. Hinteler-Many many thanks to you. You have reminded me of what I had forgotten. I guess I have been reading too much of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Nation Magazine.
Your listing of the Ukranian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Romanian, Latvian, Slovakian, Latvian, Danish, Dutch, Australian and Spanish troops in Iraq would sound as if the effort were a real Multi-National effort.
And those above in addition to the British, Polish and US troops!!!!
Wonderful.
Perhaps, the addition of FIVE TO TEN THOUSAND Turkish troops ( in the West and North-NOT AMONG THE KURDS- will be the beginning of a great many other troops from other nations.
And the Japanese too???
Wonderful, Mr. Timberlandko.
just curious but how much more will the US have to go into debt to pay for the assistance from those gracious allies? seems like with the friends we do have supporting our Iraq invasion, we might go broke, not to mention breaking an arm slapping ourselves on the back for what a great job we are doing. ah well, not to worry we will saddle our grandchildren with that debt.
thanks Timber
You certainly know arithmetics.
Math isn't much open to opinion, Steve :wink:
I think Mr. Dyslexia may have a point.
Perhaps he knows that as a percentage of GDP, the debt held by the public was the highest at the end of World War II( the debt was 109% of the GDP)
My grandfather said the same thing you are saying Mr. Dyslexia and he was a wise man.
However, to everyone's surprise, the debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP fell to just 24 percent by 1974.
How did this miracle happen??
We kept piling up debt from 1945 to 1974, as everyone knows, but the economy grew faster than the debt accumulated.
By gum, it's another grand coalition of freedom loving peoples (with coincidentally pregnant bank accounts).
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:thanks Timber
You certainly know arithmetics.

You have something with your bones, timber? Hope you get well soon!
(Or is that something else ... aristiderism? ... logometritis? ...athrisitis?
Never mind. What were you talking about?)
dyslexia wrote:just curious but how much more will the US have to go into debt to pay for the assistance from those gracious allies? seems like with the friends we do have supporting our Iraq invasion, we might go broke, not to mention breaking an arm slapping ourselves on the back for what a great job we are doing. ah well, not to worry we will saddle our grandchildren with that debt.
Dys, ssshhhhhhhhhhh ...... he gave them shares in Arbusto Energy
Think they won't be pissed!!
MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Quote:Math isn't much open to opinion, Steve
You know that's just what I remember my bank manager saying :wink:
....on the other hand
I think I heard the US was going to provide Turkey with a 8.5 billion "loan."
Italgato, It's not very practical to look at past history to predict what will happen to present and future national debt. One major difference is the dramatic change in the world's economy. What was true after WWII doesn't compare to our current or future in economic terms.
Cicerone Imposter- OK let's not look at past history.
Let's look at Economics.
If the GDP over a number of years is strong and the Spending is muted( NOT COMPLETELY REDUCED OF COURSE), the ratio of the debt to the GDP will lessen.
The example was only that- an example.
Now, if the GDP goes up an average of 4% in the eighteen years ( on average)_ (That is not impossible). Our GDP in 2021 will be around 22 Trillion dollars.
The ratio of the national debt to the GDP will, of course, depend on the deficits accrued in the coming years. Those deficits will largely depend on the expenditures APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.