Analysis: Turkey's democratic dilemma

CNN ^ | February 20, 2003 | Bill Schneider

[a_Turk]

>> I disagree with your characterization of the US being belligerent

Misunderstanding: I meant Turkey is being asked to be belligerent.

>> You also say the US has not been attacked by Irak

Misunderstanding: I meant Turkey was never attacked.

[Beck_isright]

Instead of cutting and pasting massive quantities of documents and papers, I'm going to give you a list of websites to read referring to the verbal agreements and the foreign policy implications of the Gulf War and Turkey's current foriegn policy. It's a lot of reading so I hope you enjoy.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1998/08/F.RU.980813130211.html

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/publications/mfa3.html

http://www.csis.org/turkey/event020306.htm

http://www.csis.org/turkey/TU021018.htm

http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/12_01/f_refugee.html

http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/10_01/op_akyuz.html

AS I pour through the other searches, I'll pull some stuff up on Klintoon and Bush Sr.'s promises to aid Turkey after GW1. I've got to get some work done now though. I'll be on tonight with more, have a good day.

[ARCADIA]

That's why our military is charged by the constitution to protect the secular nature of the republic.

The more I learn about Turkey, the more interesting it seems. All I know about Ataturk is what I learned in my high school Mod-ee-hi class (modern european history).

So the military can actually stage a coup to protect democracy, even if the coup against a popularly elected government. That sounds like a contradiction.

[ARCADIA]

Too bad the left and "old Europe" doesn't understand this.

Maybe they understand all too well and do not want a change in the status quo. Everytime a region is liberated economically, old Europe's relative standing falls.

[a_Turk]

>> So the military can actually stage a coup to protect democracy, even if the coup against a popularly elected government. That sounds like a contradiction.

The system in Turkey, with its meriad of political parties, is such that a party can form a coalition government without it itself holding a majority.

But the threats against the system are not only from within a government. These may also materialize from underground terror organizations, or be exported by our dear neighbors..

[FreeCanuckistan]

Okay fair enough, minor misunderstanding.

Yes Turkey is being asked to be belligerent. No insult intended, but Turkey is quite capable of being the "B" word. You guys can take Saddam on your own, although it not expected.

Point is, the defeat of this Iraki regime is very much in Turkey's best interest too......and that Turkey should not lose focus of that.

[PsyOp]

We are asking extraordinary things of our friends lately.

We've done extraordinary things for our allies. I'll simply refer to all the American dead buried on foreign soil.

And, as a general rule, we don't go around asking our allies to "sweeten the pot" before doing what is right.

[PsyOp]

verbal agreements and the foreign policy implications...

Hi Beck. Thanks for the links. I will get to them in time. However, the stipulation in the argument was "writen" not "verbal" agreements.

And since you said you would prove that we broke "writen" agreements, the burden of proof is on you to point to which specific agreement was broken, verifiable proof that it was broken, not just tossing out links to discussions on policy implications. If there was such an agreement, it will be on file at the State Department or U.N. websites and easily retrievable once I know which doc to look for.

What very often happens is that people mistake such discussions and policy papers for being the equivalent of actual agreements. I've been down this road in previous arguments.

The ball is still in your court. And, as I stipulated previously, I will admit error when you provide specific, verifiable documentation of both an agreement and our breach, which does not require me to wade through a dozen sites to find it and prove your argument for you.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

Best Regards.

[PsyOp]

PsyOp!! What are you on?

Nothing. Just turning the argument around and using the same logic used by you and your cohorts to prove my point. I simply rephrased my argument using the logic you used previously to defend Turkey. I did this illustrate the absurdity of your argument.

If you can see the absurdity of your logic when applied to my argument, then why can't you see it when used to defend yours?

It proves that your argument is not based on objective fact.

You might want to study a little Aristotle or Plato. That will help you understand this very effective mode of argumentation.

I began by stating that Turkey had broken its "word", and that I thought that was not honorable. I was then told that since Turkey had not signed an "official" written agreement, that it was free to "re-negotiate" at any time, for any reason, and that there was nothing wrong or dishonorable in that.

I was then told that we stabbed Turkey in the back at the end of the Gulf War. So, using the argument that was used to defend Turky's backing out of a "verbal" agreement, I demanded to know which "written" agreement we had breached. If none could be named, then, by your own logic, it could not be said that we had "stabbed" Turkey in the back.

Re-read the entire thread, carefully this time. The hypocricy of the argument used by you and others may present itself if your partisanship has not completely blinded you.

And as I stipulated to Beck, if anyone can show me which "written" agreement with Turkey that we signed and then breached (with verifiable proof), then I will humbly admit my error and apologize. I would expect you to do no less as an Honorable Turk defending his nation's integrity.

Best Regards.

[a_Turk]

Reagan was a great man, and he said: Trust but Verify.

I guess we have done our learning on that.

Anyway, if you have been reading the press, you have probably come to the conclusion that all this arm twisting was not about money at all.. The press would have us believe that Turkey was offered 26 billion bucks, but settled for 15. LOL! When in fact it is only 6..

I'll post the details of the actual military and political agreement when it becomes public, but it may not ever hit the streets, or may have to wait until after the war in order to keep the Iraki opposition from throwing a fit...

[Beck_isright]

No problem, I'm still digging but if you've ever searched the State Department archives, it's like looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack. If I am incorrect, I shall state such forthright as soon as I'm sure. In the mean time, this time there appears to be a written agreement with Turkey so I don't think we'll have a dispute about this situation again.

Thanks and back to work I go...

[PsyOp]

I have not read the details on any deal one way or the other. The basis of my displeasure is this:

Before the blow-up with France and Germany, I recalled that our representatives (Powell, Rumsfeld, et al) stated that an agreement for support had been reached with Turkey. Then. after all the BS with Europe and the peace demonstrators, and meetings of the Arab League, etc., there comes the report that Turkey may change its mind and was delaying it's vote pending more negotiation on "the deal", whatever it may have been. Details aside, that did not sit well with me, since this seems to be a growing trend among our "allies".

That begs the next question. Is it or is it not right to take out Saddam and free the Iraqi people?

If it is right, you do it without asking what is in it for you.

If it is wrong, stand on principle and say so.

The same thing applies to those who say they will only go along if the U.N. says so. Well, if it is right if the U.N. says so, then it should be the right thing to do regardless of how the U.N. feels.

To say that you will do it only if you'ra paid enough, makes you a mercenary. And I don't have a problem with that either, as long as it is stated up front that that is the basis for a relationship.

That, in the simnplest of terms, is where I am coming from. And I apply that principle in all cases and expect my country to adhere to that moral code. Which is why I vote Republican. I do not want my country's first question, when asked for help, to be "what's in it for us?" I want my country to do something because it is the right thing to do. I therefor expect our "allies" to do the same.

When devastating earthquakes racked Turkey and made thousands homeless, I and my family started boxing up blankets and spare clothing and canned goods to send to those people. "What's in it for us," never entered our thinking.

So, when we try to do the right thing vis-a-vis the war on terrorisism, which Saddam is neck-deep in, I expect "allies" to join in without sticking their hand out.

I'm just kind of old fashioned that way. Of course, that's probably why I'd never make a good diplomat.

Regards.

[a_Turk]

All points well taken..

>>you do it without asking what is in it for you.

May I ask if there's more terror in it for me? More truck bombs, car bombs, walking bombs? Nursery bombs, school house bombs, bus stop bombs?

I know how you feel..

Your guys assumed there was a deal. There was not, obviously. Now we're pretty close. We'll know tomorrow. I expect a few MPs to resign from parliament..

[PsyOp]

May I ask if there's more terror in it for me? More truck bombs, car bombs, walking bombs? Nursery bombs, school house bombs, bus stop bombs?

All things that we've been threatened with since 9/11 (I'm sure you remember it and how many died), vby Hamas, al-Queda, Islamic Jihad, Hezzbolla (sp?) et al. All of whom receive support from Saddam (and others) and will continue to do so until he is removed. The only way to prevent terrorism is to kill the terrorists and those that support them as soon as they can be located. I'm familiar enough with your namesake Atta Turk to know that he knew that.

By doing nothing, terrorism is encouraged, in Turkey as well as here. Ask your allies the Isrealis about that. They appeased Arafat and received Infitada for their trouble.

Clinton failed to go after al-Queda when he had the chance and they killed over 3,000 Americans and foreigh nationals.

Again, if its right its right. And if these terrorist attack you and your neighbors in Turkey, I will be the first one to tell Bush to give Turkey whatever aid it needs to combat it.

The world is at a crucial turning-point in history. We can crush terrorism now, and in such away that no one will consider using for centuries for come, or we cal all spend the rest of this century looking over our shoulders.

It really is that simple.

I spent 11 years helping to fight the Cold War. I do not want my kids (one of whome is in the Army and who will likely go to Irtaq soon), to have to spend this century living under Damocles' sword, when the problem can be solved with just a little back-bone.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that enough people have learned the lessons of the last century and would rather quibble over the insignificant until it is too late to win this war without paying a catastrophic price in human lives.

It is particularly disturbing that the Russians and Germans seem to have forgotten this.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I have a feeling that what CNN would like to promote and propagandize here is not the same thing that you are writing about. I'm considering the source, and knowing what CNN is all about and what they represent, they aren't suggesting what you are in your thoughtful post.

[Mortimer Snavely]

I share your sentiments about CNN. I posted this article because there is so very little published about basic Turkish ideology, and so very much popular ignorance about the country.

[patriciaruth]

as a general rule, we don't go around asking our allies to "sweeten the pot" before doing what is right.

After eight years of Clinton administration corruption, including shakedowns and bribery, we have no right as a country to be smug.