My question is why is Western policy so lenient towards Turkey? I understand during the Cold War that Turkey was a major player in containing the USSR, but the USSR is no more. Furthermore the 2003 invasion of Iraq made Turkey totally redundant in US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Iraq gives the US a very central operating base for operations against any Middle Eastern country. Furthermore the Turks refused to allow the US to utilise US bases in Turkey for the invasion (a fair enough call) but this does mean that Turkey’s status as a reliable US ally has been put in doubt. Iraq on the other hand is a US puppet state…
if you read any neoconservative articles from their think tanks.. long term goals include a permanent presence in 3 areas. East Asia, the Middle east and “South West Europe”. Turkey pretty much being a prime candidate for the last two. Another is that despite some disagreements and changes in stances.. Turkey is overall on good terms with both the US and Israel. And more importantly is the Turkic world.. most of them.. i.e Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan hold vast amounts of energy. Turkey has been keen in using its Turkic roots in wooing them over. The US has been quite active as well. Strategically these countries are also at the backdoor of Russia and China.. two challengers to the current unipolar hegemonic world order. Many of these Turkic countries have had long historical distrust of both these countries, as well as having a number of Turkic minorities in both countries that have had a history of separatist struggles..some thing the outside could exploit (and have done so). Economically, being the most populated country in the region, they also have large potential for consumer goods.
Greece on the other hand, doesn’t really offer the same things and are on good terms with Russia.
holy, that’s quite detailed!
I would say that Bhutan needs a transport ac AF since IAF cant meet all their needs
Bhutan also has an unresolved border issue with China, to which the former is accusing the latter of sending in troops to build roads in the disputed area. perhaps something light may be needed to monitor activities
I would say that Bhutan needs a transport ac AF since IAF cant meet all their needs
Bhutan also has an unresolved border issue with China, to which the former is accusing the latter of sending in troops to build roads in the disputed area
How about Zell Miller? He is a Democrat, but he has a certain following in the Republican camp, after his endorsement of Bush for the election in ’04. He has left congress now, but if you needed to find a Democrat that Republicans could cope with, he would probably be at the top of a short list!
I personally support the Republican party in general, though I tend to be a fiscal conservative more than a social conservative (i.e. I support the lean government part, but not the whole ‘change the constitution to outlaw {insert pet hate here}’ part that seems popular at the moment).
yeah, it seems most of the Americans here are just fiscally conservative. The few I talked to here aren’t into the issue about gay marriage, stem cells, and abortion.. just economics and foreign policy.
The trouble is that all the Midway conversions had severe rolling problems in heavy seas (large deck overhang). Also, the hull was laid down in ’44, so she was a good old age when retired, so I suspect few customers would want her – also, mid-sized is not always a great thing, she was too big for the ‘small’ carrier navies (Argentina, Brazil) and too old for the ‘bigger’ navies like the UK or France. On a related note, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Argentina had actually looked into buying one of the old SCB-modernised Essex class carriers, though I am not sure when, probably in the ’70s I would guess. My suggestion of civilian uses was just for fun though! :diablo:
alas, the age thing too. (i thought the hull was laid down in 46′ not that 2 years really matters when that far old).. woulda been interesting if Brazil ended up taking it.. it surely could accomodate future Rafales couldn’t it?
Did they ever try selling her? given that she was America’s last mid size carrier.. you’d figure it’d be popular with the likes of Europe, S.American or maybe Asian nations who want smaller carrier.
I was merely making an observation that naming new carriers after Republicans, and retiring one named after a Democrat might not go down well in some circles. Instead of simply taking that statement for what it was, you seem to feel that somehow it is a slight on the reputation of one former President – I note you choose not to boast of GHWBs outstanding popularity!
I can’t think of any Democrat politician that Republicans would like to see having a ship named after. likewise on the issue of Reagan.. Reagan is to Democrats as is Clinton is to Republicans.. one side thinks he’s the greatest thing that ever happened, the other think he’s one of the worst.
Although oddly, it seems most of the Americans posting in this forum are republican leaning. Most of the military ones I met in person usually sided with the Dems or neutral.
Does that mean we’ll see carriers named after Clinton? what about Ford?
They will have to name the next carrier in line (after the GHWB) the JFK – you cannot possibly have carriers for Reagan and Bush, without one for JFK, one of the most admired US presidents!
I believe carriers are named after individuals who were either in the US Navy or contributed in someway? JFK and Daddy Bush were both in the Navy. Reagan… well he was sick, but he did do Hellcats of the Navy :dev2: Truman was an artillery guy but he was very pro Navy.. and Dubya.. was a flight jockey and seems to have a heavier emphasis on the AF along with Rummy.
I have to say Mongolia. Unlikely they by themselves could stop an invasion from Russia or China should they chose to. They don’t have any ocean. They don’t border a major shipping route or have alot of illegal drug activities that warrant a patrol aircraft like Mexico. They aren’t as heavily involved in peace keeping as New Zealand either.
Nan… Japan and Korean Co-op won’t ever happen until Japan truely realize the horrible things they comitted in WWII and appoligized for it.
Germany have openly appoligized for all atrocities it bestoed upon neighbouring countries while Japan on the other hand tries to white wash its history. since WW2 Germans attitude earned them forgiveness in europe, but Japan is still at odds with most of its neighbours and maintains territorial disputes with all of them…Given such geopolitical climate Co-op oppertunities with rest of asia is highly unlikely if not impossible…
to clarify, Japan has made apologies and regret from both Koizumi and the Emperor himself. Korea waived reparations when Park Chung Hee was leader, while China waived it at the intragovernmental level in the 70s. Other countries that suffered like Vietnam, PI, etc got compensation. But the key problem is the text books and the shrine visits.
Like wise China, Vietnam, etc seem to have territorial disputes with most of their neighbors too. Asian nations are more divided than Western and Northern Europe.
It’s a Japanese government agency for defence-related research.
ah so im guessing this is actually something “legit” then.. thought it was another fan model/art
http://www.jda-trdi.go.jp/topics.html
“High movement flight regulating system” at JDA-TRDI.
who are the JDA TRDI??
hmmm I thought they are NATO allies nation!.serriously by playing mock dogfight god know why?. a life was lost and 2 50 million planes wasted for nothing. very shameful for both country.
if both were F-16s. If it was an RF-4, then it’d be a bigger loss for Greece than Turkey.
okay Question. Was the accident where it occured, within the area considered to be disputed airspace?