posted on March 3, 2003 07:34:16 AM newFears that Turkey could lose out on a multibillion dollar aid package after its parliament refused to allow in some 60,000 U.S. troops caused its markets to plunge in early trading Monday.
Turkey's stock exchange dropped by 11.3 percent within the first minutes of opening and its currency, the lira, dipped by about 5 percent to 1,670,000 to the dollar, traders said.
The government on Saturday failed to gather enough support among its ruling party lawmakers for parliament to authorize the deployment of more than 60,000 U.S. troops ahead of a possible Iraqi war. Parliament's decision stunned Washington and seriously jeopardizes U.S. planning for a northern front against Iraq, a crucial part of the American war strategy.
Prime Minister Abdullah Gul on Monday refused to say whether the motion would be resubmitted to parliament.
"We are analyzing the situation and we will see what happens in the next few days," Gul said in a news conference.
A top member of Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party, Eyup Fatsa, said Sunday that a new vote in parliament was not planned for the "foreseeable future." But Turkey's Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis appeared to leave the door open for a new vote.
Asked if the proposal would be back on the agenda this week, Yakis said, "The process (of evaluation) will be completed, then it will come." He did not elaborate.
Saturday's vote could mean the end of a $15 billion package in grants and loans promised by Washington to compensate Turkey for any losses incurred in war if Turkey authorized the troop deployment.
Turkey's markets were counting on that money to boost the country's ailing economy and help it out of a deep economic crisis.
posted on March 3, 2003 07:45:41 AM new
We are apparently building airbases in the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq. If they don't do a fast re-think we may not need them.
posted on March 3, 2003 10:02:01 AM new
I can fully appreciate,a population of people who dont want a nuke bullseye, aimed at their backsides.
Their leaders can collect our big bucks and disappear,the rest of the poor smucks dont have a chance in hell.
Why do people here in the States, believe anyone overseas have no reason to live?
posted on March 3, 2003 10:24:46 AM new
Just why do you think that Junquemama?
Turkey and other foreign countries depend on the US for lots of aid, either in material or monies, however it seems that when we need assistance back these same countries back out or just plain refuse.
We would be keeping Iraq from using WOMDs against Turkey, then you would think they would show some gratitude and help us.
As members of NATO, what country do you think will be providing the most support if Iraq attacks Turkey?
This and other things, is the reason we need to stop foriegn aid and yes tend to things at home.
I think you would find though that these people would be asking for help once again.
We are becoming hated because we are now expecting some help in return for all that we have done in the past for all of these other countries... that is some gratitude... at least the UK knows how to be grateful.
posted on March 3, 2003 11:30:08 AM new
Twelvepole,Turkeys parliment did vote in the U.S to use their space,for deployment.
The masses of people didnt buy the package, and another vote was put for a week later.
The leaders can afford to make deals,and disappear,when the area gets too hot.The little people have no choice.Just as you and I have no choice,we are very small in the big scheme of events.
All the deals are made by the top leaders,not the population.
posted on March 3, 2003 11:33:18 AM new
That is why we have elections... so the few can speak for the many... when those elected take take the easy way instead of the right way, bad things happen... look what Carter did... one of the worst Presidents in US history... always looked for the easy way never the right way.
posted on March 3, 2003 11:51:53 AM new
Twelvepole,.Carter is past tense.We are discussing the here and now.
Voteing anyone in from a 2 party system,is what has hurt us all along.
The arguments are always,well you voted for him,or you voted for that party.
The vote should be to start all over,and weed the bad ones out.
If you got 5 raises in a couple of years on top of a huge paycheck,would you rock the boat?..This on top of the economy for the rest of us steady going down.The playing field isnt fair,and never has been.
We are being manipulated by Corporations,and attorneys in Washington.Most of the Congress and Senate,members have a back ground in law.Do all Lawyers, have common sense and compassion?
posted on March 3, 2003 12:15:11 PM new
A nuclear target on their back ? This is the same arguments that were used against Reagan putting missles in Europe.
All the peacenicks hit the streets, everyone was claiming Reagan was starting WWIII.
posted on March 3, 2003 12:19:24 PM new
"I don't understand why everyone is so pressured because of the war. It does not seem to me that there will be anything. That one, with the mustache, will not do anything, and for sure not with the gas that everyone says he has, and if he only tries, then for sure the Americans and the British will intervene. And in general, even if now it is not so good here and there is a little inflation, still there is no better place for the Jews than this country." --Zepora Shwartz, Berlin, 1933
posted on March 3, 2003 12:48:17 PM new
It's not just money alone that Turkey wants. They want territory in northern Iraq along with oil just like Bush. They already have soldiers in Northern Iraq to control the kurds and they do not want their soldiers controlled by Bush. At the end of the 1991 war they were overwhelmed with Kurdish refugees and lost billions of dollars in tourist revenue and trade with Iraq. It's understandable why they approach this war with so much trepidation.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 3, 2003 04:47 PM ]
posted on March 3, 2003 09:46:15 PM new
There was an article in the LA times talking about the vote and why it went down the way it did. Their reasons are not out of line and their question were reasonable.
Points of interest:
* Turkish people are against the war 4:1
* There is a feared repeat of the 91 gulf war where half a million refugees poured across the border from Iraq and devasted their economy.
* Questions regarding US plans for Iraq after the war were brushed off and ignored
* US tried to condition aid package on the Turkish option of International Monetary Fund guidelines for economy reform (this part they apparently did back off of in the final days)
Basically the Turks felt the US was trying to buy them off and that they were being bullied with constant deadlines and ultimatums while their questions and concerns were ignored.
Our government (and specifically Cheney who was doing most of the communication) obviously has a lot to learn regarding diplomacy.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:52:37 AM new
Turkey is a very fragile Democracy to say the least. The only one in the Arab world. Asking them to help us fight against Iraqi is a tough idea for many of them.
I see Estimates of 80 plus percentage of the population against the US setting up base in Turkey.
The big problem for Turkey is the Kurds. If war breaks out the Kurds will go after the oil fields on the Turkish borders. That's always been a hot issue between Turkey and the Kurds. Without the US presents The Turks may have a big problem.
The next couple days with their stock market may tell a lot too. From what I can gleam they are on shaky ground financially to begin with.
posted on March 4, 2003 05:04:07 AM newat least the UK knows how to be grateful.
Oh, really? And just where did you hear that? From the truth tellers in the White House?
Direct from friends in the UK:
"Fourteen B-52s flew into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire yesterday. As 12 years ago, they are expected to bomb Iraq direct from this country.
I sense a terrible foreboding. UK public opinion is still very much opposed to an attack on a country which currently poses no threat to us and in which we have no economic interest at all. Plans are being made to evacuate the government in the event of a direct attack on the UK, a very real threat if we go to war. This is the big difference from 1991, when there was no prospect of us being attacked at home. This time around, it seems likely - and we are poorly prepared.
In the absence of a new UN resolution (and I don't think there will be one), Blair is going to take us to war without the backing of his own party, relying on the votes of the Conservative opposition.
The government line varies astonishingly from one day to the next. At the outset, the goal was supposed to be eliminating weapons of mass destruction; but now the objectives are much vaguer. The UK has explicitly rejected régime change as an aim, since this is viewed as contrary to the UN charter. Whether you support or oppose the idea of war, one thing is clear: the USA and the UK are not singing from the same hymn sheet."
I think I will go with those comments for now. I am in regular contact with my friend and I trust him telling me what the people of the UK think more than I trust the White House to tell me.
posted on March 4, 2003 06:03:31 AM new
Fully admitting my lack of knowledge in regards to the UK political structure I did read this in the WSJ on 2-26. Maybe someone who does have this knowledge could explain this to me?
Parliament Isn't Revolting - Belying claims that Prime Minister Tony Blair is in trouble, Britain's House of Commons yesterday gave his Iraq policy a strong vote of support. "Lawmakers by a vote of 434-124 approved a government-sponsored motion which backed the prime minister's efforts to resolve the crisis through the United Nations and called on Iraq 'to recognize this as its final opportunity' to disarm," the Associated Press reports from London.
Another motion, stating that "the case for military action against Iraq [is] as yet unproven," was voted down, 393-199.
Blair won these votes with the support of 77.8% and 66.4% of parliamentarians, respectively.
That's a pretty convincing margin, but look how the left-wing media spin the story:
"Britain's Blair Suffers Parliament Revolt Over Iraq"--Reuters
"Blair Suffers Huge Revolt on Iraq"--CNN
"Revolt of the Backbenchers: Blair suffers biggest rebellion as 121 Labour MPs vote against war"--Independent
"Rebel Vote Stuns Blair"--Guardian
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 4, 2003 06:05 AM ]
posted on March 4, 2003 07:05:30 AM new
krs - how typical of you.
______
My question was because I read and hear so much criticism about Blair and how he has no support from the parliment, and to me this proves differently. So I asked..... shoot me.
posted on March 4, 2003 07:31:56 AM new
I think I am going to stick with opinions and observations of someone who has lived in the UK all his life, is a former university professor and who is especially knowledgeable of the UK political scene over what you may have read in a newspaper, heard on TV or heard on the radio. And, who, believe it or not, has said if he lived in the US, he'd be a Republican (I shudder to think). That hardly makes his observations liberal or "left-wing". His observations and facts are more accurate than what you are ever going to get by chasing the media, left, right or liberal.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Mar 4, 2003 07:33 AM ]
posted on March 4, 2003 07:38:36 AM new
While I am not an expert on their system, i do know somewhat about it. Unlike our President, Tony Blair can be ousted at any moment simply by someone caling a "Vote of Confidence" (or whatever it's real name is) and obtaining a majory of some sort, I think a simple majoriy vote, and Tony Blair is sent packing along with other memebers of his political party.
So while those voting numbers would indeed not be unusual for us, since we have a much different system of government and we can't get rid of Bush through a simple majority vote in Congress, most serious agreements in Parliment are usually unanimous. By the percentages shown there, neither CNN nor Reuters is "left wing" or "spin", but an accurate assessment that Tony Blair has a *LOT* of convincing to do or he'll be ousted just when Bush is depending upon him the most.
posted on March 4, 2003 07:52:45 AM new
Cheryl - over what you may have read in a newspaper, heard on TV or heard on the radio.
That hardly makes his observations liberal or "left-wing".
His observations and facts are more accurate than what you are ever going to get by chasing the media, left, right or liberal.
I wasn't my expectation that you would reject your friend's opinion at all. But since a vote was taken...the results [at that time] would be a valid accounting of that said vote...not spin, not opinions, not untruths.
--------------
Borillar - Thank you. So then the UKs structure is similar to Canada's in regard to the 'call for a vote of support/non support'.
And Tony Blair is from the Labor Party which would be similar to our Democrats. Right?
You are exactly right. From what I gather from my friend, Blair is in real trouble. Where impeachment in this country is a complicated matter, ousting Blair isn't. It doesn't help that he's losing (or may have already lost) the people's confidence. He was borderline already prior to this mess. From what I gather, in the UK the popular opinion is that Blair has molded himself by our presidency (e.g., he became another Clinton, now he's another Bush). He's definately not "his own man."
Linda
Even though a vote was taken, that doesn't make it the popular opinion of all the people. Just like here. Yes, the Labour Party is quite like the Democratic Party here with some differences. I have to have my friend explain it a lot of the time and even then I don't always get it. He sometimes talks in what seems like riddles. But then, he hates the way we spell! It's all wrong. LOL!
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Mar 4, 2003 08:00 AM ]
posted on March 4, 2003 08:02:15 AM newIt doesn't help that he's losing (or may have already lost) the people's confidence.
That's what I'm trying to clarify. Was the vote that was taken [where the 77.8% and 66.4%] of parliamentarians.....what would be referred to as 'a vote of confidence'?
posted on March 4, 2003 08:05:36 AM new
>And Tony Blair is from the Labor Party which would be similar to our Democrats. Right?
To the best of my knowlegde, the difference between our Democratic Party and Tony Blair's Labor Party is that the british Labor Party is a Socialist Party wherreas the democrats are only accused of that by ignorant people. While the Democrats do have a "left-leaning" ways, you have to take that with a grain of salt, so to speak, because you have to be far-right to see the democratic Party as other than Mainstream with a slight twist to the left.
posted on March 4, 2003 08:10:32 AM new
Cheryl - Thank you. That's what I was trying to be more clear about.
Even though a vote was taken, that doesn't make it the popular opinion of all the people. Just like here.
So...the UK political structure at the last vote taken, did support Blair to those percentages. But public opinion is not supporting him [I have read that].
Different only in that like here....polls don't make the decision, the president does....and as Borillar states, much to his saddness, we have to wait until another election to either support Bush or not. But Blair could be 'removed' at any time by a vote of confidence doesn't work in his favor.
If that's correct, then now I understand. Thank you.
Thanks for explaining that better than I could. You almost sound like my pal! Now, all you need to learn is to spell like him. LOL
I always think of labor unions when I think of the Labour party. Don't know if that's a fair analogy or not. Oh, geesh, I still don't completely get it. Thankfully, I never wanted to get into politics.
Linda
Communicating on this board is quite like communicating with my friend. There are always fierce debates and definate difference of opinion, but never any resentment harbored (or harboured?). So, while he's recovering from a recurring illness, I'll just have to rely on this board to liven things up.
posted on March 4, 2003 08:17:39 AM new
Borillar - LOL Gotta love ya....you never stop trying.
Blair's Labor Party is that the british Labor Party is a Socialist Party wherreas the democrats are only accused of that by ignorant people.
There are socialists in the democratic party. There are other 'left wingers' who may not claim to be socialists....but by their votes do support socialism to varing degrees.
One isn't ignorant because they hold a different opinion than yours.
posted on March 4, 2003 11:45:53 AM new >Now, all you need to learn is to spell like him. LOL
Cheryl, several years ago on AW I revealed a few times that I was terribly handicapped. One, which I am not legally handicapped for, but is a real problem is the severity of dyslexia that I suffer from. Long story short, I can type out my posts, run them through the spellchecker, look it over, copy and paste the post into the AW post Filed, press the SUBMIT button, and then see that there are still misspellings and words that both I and my spellchecker missed. Hence, most of my posts are edited. I do not edit to retract anything, unless I note such; or add anything, unless I note such. I wish that it were otherwise, but its not and most old time posters here just ignore the EDITED BY BORILLAR stamps at the bottom of my posts.
posted on March 4, 2003 11:58:54 AM new
Thanks, Linda. I say that because the Republican Party has done its very best to stereotype and stigmatize the content and purposes of the Democratic Party. That the Democratic Party is also full of Old Time Conservatives, which true fact never gets mentioned on Michael Savage's Entertainment Show for Nazi Wannabes or Rush Limbaugh's Entertainment Show for Ignorant Listeners. That Real Conservatives and Real Liberals have the very same common causes and see the world in much the same way. They only differ in how to reach those goals. These are the lies spread today about Liberals and Conservatives being Absolute Opposites, they do it to polarize us in order to keep us from using our strength, as we are only politically strong when we are unified.
Today's New Conservatives are an ignorant breed who see politics as just another sporting event and they have no ability to recognize the fact that true politics takes being highly informed, by the facts, and by as many reliable sources for those facts in order to have a valid political opinion. Instead, they take to political opinion the same way that New Born Christians take to receiving The Word -- in toto, verbatim and completely unquestioned.
The problem that these New Conservative present creates quite a show, whether you are watching a debate on TV or on messageboards or chat rooms on the Internet, demagoguery washes up against the rocky shoals of FACT. for instance, how many times on here do New Conservatives wish to participate in our threads and come off disgruntled, then they go and make a thread themselves quoting some piece of demagoguery and expect us to go make comments on it? I mean, it's pointless for us to do so, because there is simply no way to really sit around and argue in such a fashion that the readers convert their opinion. And when in the past that we have tried to bring up links to facts or posted facts, then all we get back is more demagoguery as retaliation. Does that interest me? NOT!
Thanks for listening to me rant.
edit for sp & readablilty
[ edited by Borillar on Mar 4, 2003 05:27 PM ]
I didn't mean you couldn't spell!!!!! By far you spell better than I. I meant that you sound so much like my friend in the UK, if you spelled the way he does (the UK way e.g., labour instead of labor, jewellery instead of jewelry), I wouldn't be able to tell the two of you apart. I was poking fun at the way the Brits spell because they so dislike the way we spell. Hence the "LOL."
>Now, all you need to learn is to spell like him. LOL