financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
DrTeeth said:Oh please, not these resolution monologues again. Could we please stick to the subject?
Fair enough. I'm happy to declare a ceasefire.
DrTeeth said:Oh please, not these resolution monologues again. Could we please stick to the subject?
A_Wanderer said: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.
all_i_want said: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 said:well the invasion was very much due to the fact that greek cypriots were slaughtering the turkish population with the help of the junta in greece at that time. turkey could not sit idle and watch the turkish cypriots eridicated.
btw, i think it is a very bad call to accept southern cyprus while the issue is still unresolved - because it was the greek cypriots who REJECTED a UN-meditated agreement, just this last year. whether you like it or not, there is a de facto state in northern cyprus - and it has been suffering because of the embargoes that has been imposed on them for the last 30 years.
now these people voted YES for a reunion, south side didnt. what did turkish cypriots do wrong? why are they still being punished cause the southerners are too greedy to share the EU membership?
those are the questions to be answered before cyprus expects any recognition from turkey. letting in cyprus was a big political error for the EU. now the issue will be unresolved for a long time because cyprus has nothing to lose.
anthony has a point, that armies alone should not determine whether a new member is admitted, but really, why does the new european army (the security initiative) want command of the turkish troops? EU countries have the economy to have stronger armies, why dont they? because less and less young people are becoming interested in pursuing a military career. although i hate to admit it, turks have always been sort of a military nation - the most trusted organization in the country has always been the army.
now, the sheer military power doesnt mean anything unless you have th economic means to support that military. turkish economy has always been in some sort of turmoil for the last decade, since we fully embraced the market economy. but now, things are stabilizing and turkey will see 10% economic growth this year alone. there is some compensation for the recession that happened a few years back, but it is still outstanding. if this kind of growth happens for a couple of more years, combined with low inflation (turkey has been a chronic case of hyper-inflation for the last decade) and low interest rates, turkish economy is bound to fully stabilize before the end of this decade, without comprimising exceptional growth rates. there are a lot of debts to be paid (IMF etc.) but we are turning around. we have been turning in strong numbers for the last couple of years. in 20 years time, if EU has not fell apart, we will hopely be questioning not if EU needs turkey, but does turkey need EU? that growth could occur a lot earlier if we were admitted into the union, but it will happen nevertheless. and everything else, human rights, education, democracy, they all follow economic growth.
also, i think time will tell if letting turkey in is a good idea or not. though, i suspect, by that time it will be too late.
STING2 said:financeguy,
"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?"
Well, thats not the case. The United States and other countries had many legal experts who agreed with the legality of the war including several who actually wrote the much of the resolutions were discussing! The United States Congress, NOT on the payroll of Bush/Cheney, overwhelmingly voted for the war, and a majority of United States citizens supported the action as well.
"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."
Why? If one feels the war is illegal then one should be doing everything in their power to see that those that committed the illegal action get removed from the area.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, did the UN say, "well his military is there now, might as well let them stay there and sort it out".
financeguy said:
I never said anything about the US Congress or US people. With all due respect to the views of US Congress and US people, their views are not material to deciding on the strict legality or otherwise of the war on Iraq.
Yes there were legal experts who came up with a rationale for justifying the war - however the balance of legal experts, taking left wing, right wing and everything else into consideration was very strongly against the war, although people like Fox news will probably try and claim otherwise!
namkcuR said:My mother is Turkish, she spent the first two decades of her life there. That makes me half-Turkish. I'll give one guess what I say.
I say yes. Don't tell me they should associate with their own region. Their own region is Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/etc. You know what makes Turkey different from the aforementioned countries? It is secular, thanks to the great Mustafa Kamal Ataturk. That is a big reason why there isn't terrorism there in the way it is in the countries surrounding Turkey. That this country has survived all these years, right in the middle of a cluster of countries which for who knows how long has had bloodshed in one form or another, without becoming a prominent or lasting part of it, to me is something that should be applauded. And to me, that record of not allowing that kind of terrorism/war/bloodshed in, when it extraordinarly easily could have, is reason enough to let them in, or at least A reason.
financeguy said:
I never said anything about the US Congress or US people. With all due respect to the views of US Congress and US people, their views are not material to deciding on the strict legality or otherwise of the war on Iraq.
Yes there were legal experts who came up with a rationale for justifying the war - however the balance of legal experts, taking left wing, right wing and everything else into consideration was very strongly against the war, although people like Fox news will probably try and claim otherwise!