posted on March 2, 2003 09:33:38 AM new
ANKARA -- The Turkish government on Saturday failed to muster sufficient parliamentary support to allow the deployment of thousands of US troops in the country, stunning Washington and hampering US military plans to invade Iraq from the north.
The controversial government request to allow 62,000 US soldiers to deploy on Turkish soil for six months failed by just three votes to pass.
Of the 533 MPs present in the closed-door session of the assembly, 264 voted in favour of the motion, while 250 voted against and 19 abstained. The motion needed the backing of half the MPs present, or 267 votes, to be approved.
The result initially provoked confusion. Parliamentary sources first announced a victory for the government but the assembly's speaker Bulent Arinc made clear the motion did not have the required majority.
The decision caused consternation in Washington and within the Turkish government of Prime Minister Abdullah Gul.
'They did what?' blurted one official at the US State Department.
Following the vote, US ambassador Robert Pearson immediately went into a meeting with senior diplomats at the Turkish foreign ministry.
'We will wait for the advice from the Turkish government on how to proceed,' he told reporters following the talks.
The US embassy in Ankara played down parliament's rebuff, saying it would not strain bilateral ties. 'We respect this as a democratic result. We will live with that,' embassy spokesman Joseph Pennington said.
'US ties with Turkey are not threatened in any way,' he added.
The Turkish government also tried to put on a brave face after vote but the Prime Minister admitted the government was going through a 'critical time'. He said they must now decide whether to submit to parliament a second motion on the deployment of US troops.
He added: 'We are aware that we are going through a difficult time. No one should have any doubts that we will take all necessary political, economic and military measures.' -- AFP
~~~~~~~~~~~
Side note to story:
WASHINGTON had placed great importance on the vote and had lobbied the Turks relentlessly to approve the deployment, sweetening the pot by offering some US$6 billion (S$10.5 billion) in aid to the largely Muslim nation, where public opposition to war with Iraq is overwhelming.
Approval of the motion, which also called for the dispatch of Turkish soldiers to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, was essential to US plans to open a second front against the Baghdad regime from the north of the country, in addition to a main invasion thrust from the south.
Denying support to America could prove costly for Nato-member Turkey, which could end up without the promised US financial aid to offset the damage war could inflict on its ailing economy. -- AFP
posted on March 2, 2003 10:28:48 AM new
Maybe the Turks found out, we are over-drawn at the bank.The Turkish population arent buying, our reasons to attack Iraq.
Altho many of those Countrys dont agree with each other, and have their own battles and score's to settle,The one thing none of us, should ever want to witness,is the uniteing of these Countrys, in their hate for the U.S.A.
If that happens,Isreal will cease to exist.
The Muslim terriost are keeping our troops busy all over the world,Not just the Middle East,the Philippines,and South America.
posted on March 2, 2003 12:25:57 PM new
This decision is indeed a set back for the US. No doubt about that. Military leaders have said it's going to make things tougher on our troops, but won't be as bad as some think.
The actions [votes] show their democracy is working. Not in our favor, obviously, but working.
My opinion...they have a right to do what they've done. We have a right to withdraw all the aid we already send them. Hope we do...but doubt that will happen.
What what I've heard their diplomats say the money we had offered was mostly in the form of 'guaranting' loans, rather than it all being in cash.
junquemama - lol @ your 'overdrawn' statement. Thanks for the chuckle.
posted on March 2, 2003 01:01:07 PM new
Linda - I don't know what the final offer was but the initial offer from the US was 6 billion in cash and 20 billion in secured loans. (Is there any doubt that we would have later forgiven the debt?)
posted on March 2, 2003 01:05:14 PM new
The big set back will be next week as Turkey's currency nose dives with its stock market.
The vote was lost by 3 votes. Those 3 votes and more would be had by the time their stock market and currency fails. But by then it will be too late for Turkey to be of any use.
posted on March 2, 2003 01:10:24 PM new
neonmania - Is there any doubt? No, you're more than likely correct. That's the way it ususally goes anyway.
My personal concern and the reason I would support most any amount being promised, is our troops. Being able to come in from both the north and the south would make this quicker, safer and easier on our troops. Fewer deaths, fewer casualities, more protection FOR THEM. Less difficult FOR THEM.
And since they have voted not to help our forces....then as I stated, I'd like to see all our financial support we now give them withdrawn. And if they ever again need our military to help protect them in the future, I'd like to see us decline to help them.
edited because I addressed the wrong person...sorry.
And to add - Yes, Reamond I've heard that is a concern they now have. Should have been taken into account BEFORE their vote was taken.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 2, 2003 01:12 PM ]
posted on March 2, 2003 02:55:59 PM new
Linda - Don't you think it's just a little strange that we have to strong arm, bully and threaten our neighbors and allies to get them to vote for this war in the UN and then attempting to bribe other nations for airfield usage in order to save the world from this threat?
These are countries that have received the hard sell on our position and evidence (including things that the public at large will never see) and are not convinced. Considering that so many world leaders with more and better access to information and more experience than yourself are not convinced of the neccessity of this action, why are you?
I'm not being sarcastic by the way. I'm truly curious.
posted on March 2, 2003 04:03:20 PM new
neonmania said: Don't you think it's just a little strange that we have to strong arm, bully and threaten our neighbors and allies to get them to vote for this war in the UN and then attempting to bribe other nations for airfield usage in order to save the world from this threat? When the UN was asked if it agreed that Saddam needed to follow 1441 and all previous sanctions...they all voted yes. What this has come down to, imo, is that while they all agree he needs to disarm, or prove he already has, they don't want to 'force' him to do so. They'd rather spend another 12 years trying to 'talk him into it'. Talking time is up.
I don't see this [money/strong arming] as being any different than what we've done in the past, under different administrations where we've paid them [read bribed them] to not produce these weapons.
Our supposed allies are acting in their own interest...and we are about to act in our own best interest, is how I see this. So no, I don't find it strange at all.
These are countries that have received the hard sell on our position and evidence (including things that the public at large will never see) and are not convinced. Agreed. Maybe if they ever experience a 9-11 and the promises to destroy our way of life, they might take it more seriously. GB has. And they have recently felt the thread of that powder [cant' remember it's name] that was found in the terrorist's homes in their country. They too have been threatened.
Considering that so many world leaders with more and better access to information and more experience than yourself are not convinced of the neccessity of this action, why are you? Why am I? I've never professed to have any more knowledge/access than the general public has. But if you think I'd believe other world leaders over my own country's leaders, then you are sadly mistaken. I've watched a lot, and read the statements of muslim's being interviewed and I've listen to what they've been quoted as saying some muslims/arabs are attempting to do, and I believe them. I also believe the statements by those in our government, unlike many here. I don't believe they are trying to pull a fast one on us. I believe they are doing what they can to protect our country from further attacks/threats.
As I've said before, I'd support any sitting president if the circumstances were the same. Our leaders first job is to protect our nation and it's people. I believe that is exactly what the Bush administration is working towards. And I support what they have been doing.
posted on March 2, 2003 04:11:41 PM new
>Our leaders first job is to protect our nation and it's people.
Wonderful. You support World Conquest. The problem is, is that you think that America and Americans will benefit in the end. That's WRONG. America is a Tool and nothing more. It's people provide the cannon fodder for World Conquest, they also provide the money for it to purchase the materials and weapons necessary for these delusional ideals. But NOWHERE does it state that any of this translates to OUR benefit! To the contrary, in order to prevent us from full-scale rebellion, since the Majority does rule here the majority do not want World COnquest by this nation. Therefore, we have lost our guaranteed Constitutional Rights and we will be living in a Police State that even YOU Linda will find extremely unpleasant!
And you support his? What's wrong with you that you want all of our rights gone and for us to live in a police state of fear? Contrary also to what others on here think about you, I don't think that you are stupid or naive: I think that you truely want this sort of life for all of us.
posted on March 2, 2003 04:20:57 PM new
It's time to take our aid $$ elsewhere. If they can't help us out the one time we need them, why the heck are we giving them money??
posted on March 2, 2003 04:34:11 PM newin order to prevent us from full-scale rebellion, since the Majority does rule here the majority do not want World COnquest by this nation. Are you speaking about people in our country or the nations of the world? There is no World Conquest. There is a defined goal to hunt down the terrorists and stop them. You blow things so far out of proportion it's unbelievable to me.
we have lost our guaranteed Constitutional Rights and we will be living in a Police State that even YOU Linda will find extremely unpleasant! I don't believe that for one minute.
What's wrong with you that you want all of our rights gone and for us to live in a police state of fear? There is NOTHING wrong with me. I hold a much different opinion of our government and it's people than you do. You buy every conspiracy theory there is...you believe your government is ou to get you. I don't.
Contrary also to what others on here think about you, I don't think that you are stupid or naive Why don't you let the 'others' speak for themselves. I'm not stupid or naive...I just don't see our government being out to get me, full of bad intentions, and hiding under every rock like you do.
And I don't believe that "Blind Patriot" act of yours, Linda. That's a sham!
>you believe your government is out to get you. I don't.
I won't bog you down with demands for you to furnish quotes to prove that allegation, Linda, although I could. However, to diminish my posts down to such shameless hysteria is very much an insult. It proves that you have no ability to comprehend the discussion of issues at hand or that you want to only believe in your government so badly, like as if all evidence to the contrary is a bad dream. Sorry, but I don't buy that excuse anymore either. The evidence has mounted to the point where it is undeniable by any rational person and that leaves me to stop fighting the truth and making up excuses as to what your real motivations are, Linda. You want Big Brother looking over everyone's shoulders, you like the idea that with our Constitutional Rights gone that you'll feel so much safer, and that as American Citizens get arrested in the middle of the night never to be seen again or heard from again that you'll sleep that more soundly. That's the only thing that any reasonable person can conclude about your comments on here after you have read what there is to see. I'm through pretending.
posted on March 2, 2003 05:07:49 PM new
LOL, Borillar -
It proves that you have no ability to comprehend the discussion of issues at hand or that you want to only believe in your government so badly, like as if all evidence to the contrary is a bad dream.
You always fall back on that same tiring rhetoric of judging another's different opinion to be caused by their ability to comprehend...etc. whenever someone disagrees with your opinions...your way of looking at the issues.
Sorry, but I don't buy that excuse anymore either. The evidence has mounted to the point where it is undeniable by any rational person and that leaves me to stop fighting the truth and making up excuses as to what your real motivations are, Linda. See what I mean?? My REAL motivations LOL Oh yes, must be some deep dark secret thing I'm planning. right...
posted on March 2, 2003 05:28:49 PM new
::There is no World Conquest. There is a defined goal to hunt down the terrorists and stop them. ::
But Linda, Saddam is not a terrorist, he's just a nutcase. He is not in cahoots with Bin Laden, Bin Laden in fact hates him. None of his neighbors (the same ones asking him to step down) believe he has WOMD or the ability to launch any type of attack on the US.
We have carrier groups sitting ready to attack both Iraq and North Korea (next in line) but neither are the terrorists.
Unfortunately Bush has taken the word terrorist and redefined it to mean "anyone I don't particulaly like and cannot control".
posted on March 2, 2003 05:36:44 PM new
neonmania - We just see the same situation differently. You see him as a 'nut'....I see him as the threat to our country and to our world as this administration does, and as the Clinton administration did before. A person who should NEVER have in his powers any WOMD.
posted on March 2, 2003 05:48:08 PM new
Our leftist friends seem to forget that Saddam does have WOMD's and that he won't give them up. They forget that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and also against innocent civilians in his own country.
posted on March 2, 2003 05:54:05 PM new
They 'forget' a lot of things.
neonmania - I don't know if you voted for Clinton or not. But if two presidents, their security advisors, etc. saw Saddam as a threat to our country and our world...and both have publicly stated so...then I'm not in bad company. And that's even IF you put aside all the promises the muslims/arabs have made to us.
We're never going to agree on this issue. Maybe we can just agree to disagree.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:06:20 PM new
The US and any other country that has the ability will "strong arm" the others to settle things.
When the Suez Canal "war" erupted, the US/Eisenhower administration advised Great Britain the pound would be worthless in 48 hours if the British didn't give it up.
There is also no basis for an argument if you believe Saddam Hussein has no WOMDs.
Hussein having WOMDs is more than just a possibility of giving them to terrorists. Iraq being armed and having the ability to deliver the weapons via missles will destabilize the entire region. Not only is Israel on the list, but so is Iran, Kuwait, and Suadi Arabia. If Saddam has the ability to reach out and touch these people he is in effect in control of the whole region, even more so because they know he is crazy enough to do it.
But I am curious. If there was a mentally ill man on your block and he was building a fully automatice weapon or several bombs, would you call the authorities and demand that they act ? What if we add that this nut had taken over a neighbor's property once, and had gotten his hands on a weapon before and killed several people ?
posted on March 2, 2003 06:15:09 PM new
:: Our leftist friends seem to forget that Saddam does have WOMD's and that he won't give them up. ::
No, as usual you have walked in twith a snippy one liner with no substance behind it.
Prove it. Prove that he has WOMD. Ou government can't, the UN inspectors can't, his neighbors who can't stand him don't even believe it but by all means, now that you have made the statement... Give us the facts that back that statement up.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:24:38 PM new
::neonmania - I don't know if you voted for Clinton or not. But if two presidents, their security advisors, etc. saw Saddam as a threat to our country and our world...and both have publicly stated so...then I'm not in bad company. ::
I've never once denied he is a threat that needs to be removed, we've had that discussion, he is not however a terrorist and there are better ways to remove him than to wage war.
::And that's even IF you put aside all the promises the muslims/arabs have made to us. ::
ARGH! Please, if you do nothing else, PLEASE start referring to countries by their names and not as muslim/arabs. There are numerous arab countries, Three have opened their doors to us to strike from, one has not. IOW - Each country has it's own view on situation, it's own governement and it's own relationship with our country, to lump them all in to one group defined only by their religion and deny them their individuality is disrespectful and comes across as much more racist than I have perceived you to be.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:37:25 PM new
Well since you want the US to "prove it" I guess you support our invaision of Iraq.
The proof, had you bothered to peruse the UN reports, is that the paper work and other proof had already been found by the UN inspectors years ago. The inspectors want to know where the material is at that the paperwork proves Iraq was in possession of. How could there be 120 missles that violate the UN agreement if Iraq was in compliance ?
There is simply no way even an army of inspectors can find the weapons without the cooperation of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government is not cooperating.
And besides, it was not the original intention of the UN inspectors to play hide-n-seek for a decade, they were sent there to verify the destruction of the weapons and weapons making equipment that the documents proved existed, NOT TO HUNT FOR WEAPONS
Since Saddam Hussein will not cooperate, it is necessary for the US to invade the country and get the job completed.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:44:44 PM new
::Well since you want the US to "prove it" I guess you support our invaision of Iraq.::
Neat slant but no sorry, I do not support declring war (let's not play with words, call it what it is) in order to confirm the existance of that which we used as to declare war. That's pretty assinine logic.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:58:31 PM new
neonmania - Please, if you do nothing else, PLEASE start referring to countries by their names and not as muslim/arabs. There have been many muslim/arabs/saudi's etc. that have been arrested, that have been quoted and they are from MANY different muslim and arab countries. Not just one or two. So I will continue to describe them as terrorists from muslim/arab nations because that's the location in our world where they're coming from. Just like with this latest arrest. The government doesn't even know which country he was born in. They just know the different countries he's lived in.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:59:02 PM new
>A person who should NEVER have in his powers any WOMD.
I agree with you on this, Linda. First, the United States of America must disarm ourselves of WOMD, then China, Russia, North and South Korea, Israel, India, Pakisan, Britain, and so on and on and on throughout the world anywhere any nation has WOMD. Why us first? Because it's immoral and unjust for us to keep ourts and demand that everyone else drop theirs first.
posted on March 2, 2003 07:00:46 PM new
>But if two presidents, their security advisors, etc. saw Saddam as a threat to our country and our world...and both have publicly stated so...then I'm not in bad company.
The the "two" are both Father and Son, both with the same World Conquesting agenda, I can hardly credit a word that they say. Their motivations are those of Naziis.
I've never professed to have any more knowledge/access than the general public has. But if you think I'd believe other world leaders over my own country's leaders, then you are sadly mistaken. I've watched a lot, and read the statements of muslim's being interviewed and I've listen to what they've been quoted as saying some muslims/arabs are attempting to do, and I believe them. I also believe the statements by those in our government, unlike many here. I don't believe they are trying to pull a fast one on us. I believe they are doing what they can to protect our country from further attacks/threats.