Should Turkey Join the EU? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Should Turkey enter the EU?
Yes 11 47.83%
No 10 43.48%
I don't really care 2 8.70%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-21-2004, 03:30 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:04 AM
I have a new book about the Ottoman Turkish military. The author, who is British, refers to this force as "European". I was a bit shocked. Apparently there's more than one school of thought on this matter.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 03:31 PM   #47
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 01:04 PM
one interesting thing about EU is that while it is a substantial economic power, it doesnt have that much of a role or influence in the world politics. one reason is that it is divided. the other is a lot simpler. with the possible exception of british, european countries dont have a formidable militaries.

i know a lot of you would say that military power doesnt count for much in the modern world. it does. US has that power so they can bully other countries around and get their way. (which i dont approve in any way)

turkey having the 2nd biggest army in NATO is one of the possible reasons EU was interested in the first place. frankly i think that is very annoying but it is the truth.

another reason lies in the demographics. turkey has a relatively large and quite a young (younger than china on average) population. that means cheap labor and lets face it, the population in EU countries isnt getting any younger. turkish population is bound to hit the 100 million mark by 2050, making it quite an important element in the area.

on the other hand, talking about cultural relevance and compatibility is a bit redundant, since there is a huge number of immigant muslims in pretty much every country in west europe. i know a lot of them (esp. britain) has a lot of problems with these minorities, but what do you think is the best way to deal with this? if turkey was a EU country with a great economy and a fully functioning democracy, do you think muslim immigrants would still strive to go to some west european country with rising employment and stagnant economy? (see: germany)

the dilemma of my country is that, we dont belong with the rest of the muslim world because none of them are secular, and most of them see us as blasphemers because we are secular. we dont belong with the europeans cause of all the reasons anthony has stated above. we are too leftist to follow US in everything they do. we have trust issues with russia because theyve tried to invade turkey for the same reason for centuries (i believe the austrians have the same issues with us)

i think it is fairly obvious by now that turkey is quite a wild card in this territory. years will show if we manage to get past the EU goal to pursue something more worthwhile. cause frankly i am sick of europeans bringing up all these issues (i.e cyprus) and making the rules as they go (permanent derogations about movement) if the people of these countries are going to ride the wave of loonie right wingers from austria and france, fine. it will be a missed opportunity for both parties, but its not like turkey is gonna die because of it.
__________________

__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 04:05 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


On this basis, Britain should be kicked out of the EU because of:-

(1) Illegal anti-terror legislation found to be unconstitutional by its own top judges

and

(2) The country's participation in an illegal war which is against the UN charter
Nearly half of the European Union is involved in some way in the "illegal war" which is not against the UN charter and was in fact authorized by the UN Security council in 3 different resolutions! 16 of the 26 NATO nations have been or were involved in the war in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 04:09 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Rubbish, the war was in no way authorised by the UN Security Council. Check your facts my friend. In regard to your point about 16 of the 26 NATO nations being involved, most were small and probably afraid of being bullied by the US.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 04:14 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:04 PM
The resolutions that Sting is refering to are those regarding Iraq's failure to verifiably disarm its illegal weapons programs after the Gulf War and due to Iraqs non-compliance in verifiably disarming its WMD, technically it is a sound argument.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 04:42 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Rubbish, the war was in no way authorised by the UN Security Council. Check your facts my friend. In regard to your point about 16 of the 26 NATO nations being involved, most were small and probably afraid of being bullied by the US.
UN Security Council Resolution 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force against Saddam's Iraq if it is in material breech of its obligations which were laid down in the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire agreement and multiple UN resolutions since then.

In addition, since the war to remove Saddam's government ended in April 2003, the United Nations Security Council has signed 3 more resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq by the current coalition. If in fact the war was illegal as you claim, why would the UN security council approve the occupation of a country brought about through "illegal means"?

The UN clearly thought Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegal. Try comparing the United Nations reaction to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the UN's reaction to the Coalition of UN member states that removed Saddam's regime from power after failing to comply with multiple UN resolutions! There is a clear difference!

Can you name a single UN resolution that in any way condemns Operation Iraqi Freedom or calls for the withdrawal of the coalition from Iraq?



Turkey has been a member of NATO for nearly 50 years! I'm surprised everyone in here fails to mention this fact. Turkey was VITAL to Europe's security through out the Cold War and played a key role in detering Soviet Aggression against Europe during that time. Turkey has also helped many European countries in its dealings in many parts of the middle east. These are very good reasons why Turkey deserves to be apart of the European Union.

When it comes to economics, its true Turkey's standard of living is worse than any European country coming in at #88 on the latest UN Human Development report. But Romania is not much higher at #69 and they are likely getting in, in 2007.

If the European Union can let Romania in, they must let Turkey in!

Before we start talking about Turkey messing up the identity of Europeans because their Muslim, lets remember that the largest ethnic/religion group in BOSNIA are Muslims. Does this mean Bosnia should not be allowed in the EU either?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 04:50 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Good point about Turkey and NATO Sting. It completely slipped my mind. DOH! And you're right about Bosnia, it's heavily Muslim also.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 06:14 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


UN Security Council Resolution 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force against Saddam's Iraq if it is in material breech of its obligations which were laid down in the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire agreement and multiple UN resolutions since then.

In addition, since the war to remove Saddam's government ended in April 2003, the United Nations Security Council has signed 3 more resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq by the current coalition. If in fact the war was illegal as you claim, why would the UN security council approve the occupation of a country brought about through "illegal means"?
Please explain what "material breach" occured as no WMD were found. In order to legally justify an actual invasion you would have had to have a new resolution specifically authorising it - this never happened.

I agree with your points about Turkey.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 06:27 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Please explain what "material breach" occured as no WMD were found. In order to legally justify an actual invasion you would have had to have a new resolution specifically authorising it - this never happened.
Resolution 678, 687 and resolution 1441 all authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF all WMD. To date, Saddam has yet to account for several thousand liters of anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio Chem capable shells just to name a few things!

Whether or not WMD is found by the coalition is irrelevant to the legal justification for war. This was never required by any UN resolution in order to take military action. The only requirment in regards to WMD was Saddam's full and complete Verifiable disarmament of such materials. Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD.

Resolution 1441 that was passed in November 2002 was just as specific in authorizing military action as the resolution that authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam's military forces from Kuwait back in 1991! There was no need from a legal standpoint for another resolution. In fact, there was no need for resolution 1441 from a strict legal standpoint either because the ceacefire agreement and resolution 678 from 1990/1991 authorized military force to be used in the non-compliance of "subsequent resolutions".

Can you name a single UN resolution, or an attempt at one, that condemns or calls for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 06:32 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 10:04 AM
there should be an "i don't know" option because frankly i don't know enough to make a decision.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 06:35 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:04 PM
Toss a coin maybe
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 06:47 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Resolution 1441 that was passed in November 2002 was just as specific in authorizing military action as the resolution that authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam's military forces from Kuwait back in 1991! There was no need from a legal standpoint for another resolution. In fact, there was no need for resolution 1441 from a strict legal standpoint either because the ceacefire agreement and resolution 678 from 1990/1991 authorized military force to be used in the non-compliance of "subsequent resolutions".
Why then did has virtually every top legal expert, apart from those in the payroll of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair, said that in their judgement the war was illegal?

The main reason that there hasn't been a subsequent resolution calling for withdrawal is that there would be no point. They are in now, so they have to sort it out.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 06:59 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 11:04 AM

Oh please, not these resolution monologues again. Could we please stick to the subject?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 07:00 PM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 05:04 AM
this is all very, very interesting. two things jump out at me:

1. if the EU really wishes to united and stand alongside the US, Russia, China and India, then it will need a bigger military -- Britian is not enough, but Britain combined with Turkey could make a big differences. i can't imagine Turkey's army will get any smaller, with all these young men running around and with Russia looking to flex some muscles now that her economy has stabilized and she becomes a key oil exporter.

2. history -- it's what Americans *love* about Europe (you can't go more than 100km and not find some treasure trove of culture anywhere on the Continent ... and the UK and Ireland) yet it can be a huge impediment in situations like these. while i can get frustrated at the short American attention span and our disregard for history, it is precisely these qualities that allow the US to constantly move forward and live in a continuously evolving present (which is why i think we can recover from all the damage the Bushies are doing right now). but it has a grasp on so many other people, and old hatreds die hard, apparently. it's probably not naturally for a continent that has suffered so much death and warfare in the 20th century alone to simply kiss and make up.

prediction: Turkey will join. it makes too much sense economically and militarily.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2004, 07:08 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:04 PM
But will the ageing European European nations be able to maintain themselves with their cradle to grave welfare? You can only subsidise so much before your country gets tripped up.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com