Should Turkey Join the EU? - Page 6 - 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 12-22-2004, 11:25 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:37 PM
Well I think the problem is we're now tying ourselves in legal knots and this is partly my fault as I was the one that originally raised the legality issue here.

Basically for me it comes down to a question of right or wrong, and to be the Iraq invasion was not justifiable on ethical, moral or military grounds. That's my take on the subject, take it or leave it!
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 12:19 AM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:37 AM
This is irrelevant - keep telling yourself your on the right side, keep making out like only idiot Fox News watching individuals are "pro-War" and leave the Turkey/EU discussion a Turkey/EU discussion.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 12:57 AM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:37 PM
I don't need to "tell myself" anything dude I just know. If you thought my post above was patronising it's a good thing I didn't post the first draft of it, that's all I can say.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 01:15 AM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:37 AM
What about the future use of Turkey in the context of Missile Defence? The technology is in its infancy but should we see a workable system the European Union will no doubt be interested in aquiring something simmilar, considering its strategic location could that be a reason to include Turkey?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 01:32 AM   #80
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:37 PM
If you're going to talk about the illegality of the War in Iraq, there's an entire forum dedicated to it, there. Its no good trying to accuse another one of derailing a thread and then baiting each other about it.

The thread is about Turkey's membership in the EU. Please keep it in mind.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 06:06 AM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
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.
Very well said, I couldn't agree more.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-24-2004, 12:19 AM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


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!
Well, thats simply not the case and any study of the resolutions and the work done to disarm Iraq prior to the war shows that. There were certainly many legal experts out there who were against the war, but THEY do not sit on the security council and THEY do not ultimately decide whether something is legal or not!

If you or any "legal expert" believes that the resolutions did not authorize military action in 2003, then you cannot say that the the resolutions passed in 1990 legally authorized the the 1991 Gulf War either. Both resolutions have the same general language.

Not only are there three different resolutions authorizing the March 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, but there have been three different UN security council resolutions authorizing the coalition occupation!

If the military action was illegal, why would UN members approve the occupation that resulted from it? Did you see the UN approving Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1990?

Where is the UN resolution that condemns the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Where is the UN resolution that calls for the withdrawal of coalition troops for the "illegal occupation" of Iraq?

Because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and its brutal rape and occupation of that country, after the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all of his WMD, return Kuwaiti citizens, repair the damage he had done to Kuwait and the Gulf, just to name a few things.

Because of Saddam's passed behavior, Saddam was required to comply with all the resolutions or faced renewed military action. Any other system that did not allow for immediate military action in the face of non-compliance would ultimately fail, given Saddam's prior behavior.

Saddam failed to verifiably disarm and member states of the UN took the appropriate action and insured that Saddam's regime was disarmed per the resolutions.

Finally, we have a set of UN resolutions that were actually enforced and its a good thing, because the UN would be meaningless if it could not even enforce its most serious resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules threatening the use of military force if resolutions were not complied with.

There are plenty of UN documents and resolutions explaining and showing Saddam's violations of UN resolutions but there is not a single UN document or resolution that actually says that Operation Iraqi freedom was illegal in any way.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-24-2004, 02:58 PM   #83
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 06:37 PM
hmmm turkey
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome 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 12:37 PM.


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