According to Federation of The Atomic Scientists, there are 90 B61 type of nuclear warheads in Turkey each have the power of 170 kilotons(the bomb dropped in Hiroshima had the power of 12.5 kilotons of TNT) .50 of them are in use of US Air Force and 40 of them are to be flown by the Turkish Airforce.Each designed for F-16 aircrafts to deliver.they were donated after the cold war, of course Turkey won't be able to use them without United State's approval...
thesee bomb dont controled by taf(turkish air force).its nato bombs erci
http://www.turks.org.uk/ 16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``
According to Federation of The Atomic Scientists, there are 90 B61 type of nuclear warheads in Turkey each have the power of 170 kilotons(the bomb dropped in Hiroshima had the power of 12.5 kilotons of TNT) .50 of them are in use of US Air Force and 40 of them are to be flown by the Turkish Airforce.Each designed for F-16 aircrafts to deliver.they were donated after the cold war, of course Turkey won't be able to use them without United State's approval...
exactly, when you look deep enough, you will realise that iran would make a mistake by having its reactors in turkey. like i said, armenia would be the safest choice.
russia isnt that trustworthy either.
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
you are right, actually I don't trust Iran either and it's for sure vice-versa.Just 2 years ago mollahs were bashing Turkey for having good relations with Israel, US and its secular army.What changed now? not much... You can't just go other countries and build nuclear plants tho, hence, Iran won't even be able to control its own nukes, at leats it seems so.That's why I said if Turkey plans to own nukes it will be Pakistan who will be partner to.
An Iran-Turkey alliance is impossible, unless Turkey leaves NATO, OECD and EU, or Iran joins in.
Many people in Turkish military are anti-EU and are known to support alternatives, some even alliance with Iran. But Turkish military and government is overwhelmingly pro-American. They might be anti-EU, because EU wants to cut their power, but they are not anti-US, because US gives them power, and doesn't care about democracy or human rights or such crap.
Erdogan government is pro-EU, and this allowed them to move away from the US. But, it turns out that half of the EU is more pro-American than Turkey! In the end, it is agreed that Turkey supports US politics in the Middle East (Turkish Foreign Minister announced earlier today).
no its not that. think about it, armenia and iran have had a very good relationship. turkey is liable to betray iran at any moment, it really doesnt care about iran.
armenia owes us, and they have always had a good relationship with iran, and armenia isnt liable to betray us, because they need iran to survive against their neighbors.
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 14, 2006; 4:30 PM
Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said today he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.
On Monday, President Bush suggested Iran was involved in making roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, that are being used in Iraq. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week accused Iran of sending members of its Revolutionary Guard to conduct operations in Iraq.
< src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technorati/Technorati.js">
<>
var technorati = new Technorati() ;
technorati.setProperty('url','http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401083_Technor ati.html') ;
technorati.article = new item('Top U.S. Military Official: No Evidence of Iran Involvement in Iraq',' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03 /14/AR2006031401083.html','Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said today he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.','Bill Brubaker') ;
< src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401083_Technorati.js">
<>document.write( technorati.getDisplaySidebar() );
< src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv//resets.js">
<>
< src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv//delicious2.js">
Today, Pace, the top U.S. military official, was asked at a Pentagon news conference if he has proof that Iran's government is sponsoring these activities.
"I do not, sir," Pace said.
The Bush administration's statements about alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq come amid increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program.
Rumsfeld, standing beside Pace, said today it is difficult to ascertain whether the Iranian government is directly involved in sending military equipment and personnel to Iraq.
"As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in in a government-sponsored vehicle, or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it" comes from Iran's government, Rumsfeld said. "All you know is that you find equipment -- weapons, explosives, whatever -- in a country that came from the neighboring country.
"With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran. As we all know, there are pilgrimages where Shi'a come from Iran and around the world to go to holy places in Iraq, and they come by the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands. And so, that is also a difficult" to prove.
Rumsfeld again declined to offer a timetable for withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. On a day when police around Baghdad discovered more than 80 bodies -- apparent victims of the sectarian violence that has gripped the country since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra -- Rumsfeld called the day-to-day events in Iraq "clearly a very difficult situation."
Asked how long Americans might be fighting in Iraq, Rumsfeld said: "We know that insurgencies can last five, eight, 10, 12, 15 years and we've said that. We also know that insurgencies ultimately are defeated, not by foreign occupying forces but by the indigenous forces of that particular country. . . . "
Rumsfeld added: "Now, the implication to your question is, do we think we're going to be there four or five years more in terms of large numbers of U.S. ground forces? And the answer is no, I don't think so. Those are decisions for the president. They're decisions for the country."
Bush vowed yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained troops from that country by the end of this year. But he made no commitments about withdrawing U.S. troops.
Rumsfeld said there are too many uncertainties to make such commitments. "Now if anyone in the world was smart enough to know precisely what the behavior of Iran, what the behavior of Syria, what the level of the insurgency would be; how fast they'll get a government; how confident the people will be in the new government, then one could probably draw a line and say, 'Gee, the trajectory of our troop reduction ought to be about like this,' " Rumsfeld said.
the bush administration is very good at making false statements with no evidence to back them up
on this issue: i am against iran having its plants in turkey. not trust worthy enough.
i think they should build them in armenia or something, that way they can have more gurauntees and trust.
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
No offence but I don't believe it. No way that a Turkish general would approve an alliance with a non-secular state.
So they are nothing more than morons, Regime of iran is not our issue. If we have same interest we can become ally with even satan itself.
If we allied with greece after one of most bloody war, we can also become ally with iran.
Infact without alliance of iran, we have no alternatives but become a toy of USA at middle east.
Who supports Islamists or extremely religious, fanatical groups in Turkey?
I don't want an alliance with non-secular Iran myself.
well are the country's who are the best ally's of Turkey... secular? Israel? USA?
Iran doesnt support anymore thsoe groops, they also coorporate (now when its late) with Turkey against PKK and if you read my posts you see there a Iranian minister talks about "forgetting the past". Because they want to have close ties with Turkey...
By the way, we should also have nuke. I remember a general said, we dont need Nuke because we are a member of NATO. I am sure his ideas changed after USA attack to turkish soldier at north iraq.
The problem is not between Iran and Russia. It is between US/Isreal and Iran. Iran want to keep a small R&D going then the large scale enrichment to be done on the Russian soil, or be involved in the enrichment process with Russians which US does not accept. Current issue is not with Iran having Nukes, or enrichment process it is to stop Iran from perfecting the knowledge on how to enrich Uranium ( not Plutonium). This is making the Russian deal impossible.
Baris is right, Generals wouldn't make such statements, however it is a posibility that an anonymous General would have mentioned that we should focus more on Eastern States than EU BS.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum