Posted on 03/01/2003 8:54:07 AM PST by RCW2001
Edited on 03/01/2003 10:23:24 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's parliament speaker said on Saturday a motion to allow U.S. troops into the country for a possible war in Iraq had been rejected, a member of parliament told reporters. The issue is crucial to U.S. military plans and Turkey's relations with Washington.
The vote, carried out behind closed doors, ended with 264 votes for and 251 votes against with 19 abstentions -- an apparent slim victory for the government.
But the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) challenged the result on the grounds that the government had not won the 267 votes needed to represent a majority of the 534 lawmakers present in the assembly.
The government must now decide whether to try to present a similar resolution to the assembly again and gather the few votes it needs.
The resolution, which would also have cleared the way for dispatching Turkish troops to Iraq in case of war, had drawn widespread opposition in Turkey.
Fearing the economic and political impact of any conflict on its borders, Ankara had been reluctant to agree to any role in the war. Rejection of Washington's request will however deprive Turkey of U.S. financial support and a say in the future of northern Iraq, where Turkey has key interests.
U.S. ships are currently waiting with supplies off Turkey's Mediterranean coast to unload. For months Ankara and Washington have been working on an agreement which was expected to include some $6 billion in U.S. grants for Turkey and some $24 billion in loan guarantees.
No, but neither is the US after 8 years of Clintonsizing and some reasonable post Cold War downsizing by the previous Bush adminstration, which were started even as Dessert Shield was underway.
I don't know when the rule was written into the Turkish Constitution. You would think that parlimentary members would know the basic rules for voting on motions.
Of course in the United States, the Senate Democrats think the can change the U.S. Constitution and require 60 votes to confirm a judge as opposed to the simple majority as required by the U.S. Constitution and Federalist Papers.
.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous "build-ups" to war, in historical terms, that I can think of.
This whole effort appears more like vaudeville or Charlie Chaplin on the political side of the equation.
First: It is assinine to spend more than half a year talking "tough" yet always making the caveat that "war can be avoided". It's the anti-Teddy (Roosevelt) philosophy: Talk tough yet keep give your stick to France and Germany to hold for you. All you do is give time and encouragement to your external enemy and your internal opposition.
The administration has allowed itself to be played, over and over again, and just the latest player is Turkey. And now they have a very powerful and united (and on-fire with encouragement) opposition, just about everywhere including the U.S. and amongst the populations of those countries whose governments are supporting us.
This effort has become FUBAR, because the Administration has simply taken too much time -- and that time has won them nothing. By avoiding a "rush" to war is there anyone who was opposed to it before who is now in favor of it???
There is a reason why you don't talk and talk and talk and talk about going to war -- if you decide to you just do it now. And what is happening here is the reason.
They should have known better, history is replete with examples for them. They now have one helluva big mess to try and put in order (and if their past is any prologue they'll just "get busy" diplomatically -- which will merely exacerbate the real problem, which is plenty of talk and no action).
They (the administration) look like they're bluffing and that is simply going to make more "allies" wobbly.
Good luck to the administration in fixing this mess.
What is the political affiliation of the 19 Abstentions? Did they think it had PASSED or FAILED? Will there be a NEW vote?
Tanks are heavvvvyyyy. Ammo, gas, bridging equipment, trucks, dozers, etc. are required if we are going to hit them so hard they don't have a chance to do anything stupid.
Copters require forward refueling and rearm points. You get the idea.
These guys are just holding out for a better deal; just like the rest of the world's "governments." The United States is THE only player that can simply afford to buy any country that is reluctant to 'see things our way'. Economic Colonialism at its best. Go Bush!!!!
Wall --- Handwriting.
Aint gunna happen. Were up to our knees in bull sh*t.
I'll bump that Scott. This is a circus.......
Can they really? What about growing deficit?
Good question, one that is often ignored.....
It's too bad that there are still millions of Americans here that don't get the fact that we have no friends in that part of the world. And the ones we claim to be friends, are paid in billions of tax payer dollars every year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.