ANKARA, Turkey (CNN) -- Turkey's markets collapsed Monday after the country's parliament rejected a multi-billion dollar U.S. troop deal.

The main stock market was down about 11.6 percent at the close while the Turkish lira fell almost 5 percent and was trading at 1,670,000 to the dollar when the Central Bank said it was considering whether to intervene -- bringing the currency to 1,654,000 by the close.

Turkey's politicians had voted against a $15 billion U.S. offer to deploy 62,000 troops on Turkish soil in the event of war with Iraq.

Stock markets had risen Friday in expectation of a "yes" vote. The money would have helped the $90 billion financial crisis and eased the huge International Monetary Fund payments facing Turkey.

The country's leaders are considering whether to hold another ballot, while insisting Ankara's "friendly relationship" with Washington would not change.

The U.S. deal would have offered Turkey $6 billion in grants and up to $24 billion in loan guarantees to help soften the economic pain of any conflict in neighboring Iraq.

It was unclear whether another ballot on U.S. troop deployment will be held. The ruling Justice and Development Party was split on the vote and was defeated by a series of abstentions, CNN's Jane Arraf said.

Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said: "Our friendly relationship of mutual understanding with the United States will go on. One should not limit it to a motion."


So now the question is, "Should Turkey accept the bribe under pressure from it's stock market?"

Originally posted by Leper

Turkey's politicians had voted against a $15 billion U.S. offer to deploy 62,000 troops on Turkish soil in the event of war with Iraq.

It is a strange way of presenting things ! Turkey's parliament voted against the deployment of US troops. Then the USA said it may reconsider its help.

Turkey will come around to the U.S. way of thinking. There's just to many zeros to the left of the decimal point. The money changers will take care of that momentary ethical brain fart the politicians seem to be experiencing.
Some parts of Iraq will eventually be reduced to mere rubble. We're all just waiting for "day one" or whatever it gets labeled. Ought to be some great footage. Initial battle plans call for the unleashing of some 3000 missles and smart bombs during the first 48 hours. That's more than was used in the entire Gulf War 12 years ago. WOW!! While the missles are flying and the bombs dropping, the ground forces are going to move in. Can you appreciate the sight of this massive military machine taking on an opposing force? Spielburg Productions will make a movie from it in a few years and make a bundle, that's a given. The United States has spent a mountain of money to build, equip and train the finest military force this planet has ever seen. The defense budget is but a small part ....around 3%...of the GNP. Time for them to go to work and show us what our taxes have purchased.

Rock & Roll!!!

Great. You just achieved to convince me that the USA are the most dangerous country in the world.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Great. You just achieved to convince me that the USA are the most dangerous country in the world.

This is exactly the problem with the french. Sure you can have your view on a war with Iraq - but you feel the country that has bailed out your country and rebuilt it is the most dangerous country in the world. I guess the US must have made a U turn in the past 50 years.

Well, thank you for giving me all this power.
Dangerous.?..when riled, you can bank on it. Our movements are pretty well announced, well considered, and debated forever, so we're not unpredictable. Terrorists are unpredictable, do not consider their behaviors fully, and strive for the bloodiest, most catastrophic ending possible. I would submit that the terrorists are much more dangerous. They have no state, no public to answer to, no body of politicians & law makers to satisfy, and nothing to clean up after. This does not apply to the U.S.. You know this as well as I.

Originally posted by es347fan
Well, thank you for giving me all this power.
Dangerous.?..when riled, you can bank on it. Our movements are pretty well announced, well considered, and debated forever, so we're not unpredictable. Terrorists are unpredictable, do not consider their behaviors fully, and strive for the bloodiest, most catastrophic ending possible. I would submit that the terrorists are much more dangerous. They have no state, no public to answer to, no body of politicians & law makers to satisfy, and nothing to clean up after. This does not apply to the U.S.. You know this as well as I.


Ah, excellent post. Shot down the "most dangerous country" persective with a succinct paragraph. The entire world should grant the U.S. a lot more credit for living in one of the most peaceful eras in the known history of our species.

Maybe this needs a little explanation. My post was mostly ironic (maybe I should have added an emoticon).
I meant that in his post, ES347 looked so excited by the perspective of war, talking about it like some funny video game or movie, that I couldn't help being scared by such an attitude. If war is considered so lightly by all americans (I know it is not the case), america would really be very dangerous. So I meant : by sending this kind of message, ES347 is not really helping the pro-war point of view.

I think Leper understands what I mean.

But to be perfectly honest, I think that the present american policy is not making the world safer, and that in this way the USA, playing with fire, are dangerous. I guess other people would say the same from France.
I guess we all can agree that our countries are not on the verge or making war to each other ?

Doing nothing would not make the world safer either. The countries in Europe have lots of words & insight into the issues but the plain truth is that is all the have is words but no action.

There is a force of anarchy at work in the world - that wants to bring down the civilized world, it's not easy to quantify, pin down or put boundaries on. The way to deal with it is not appeasement, words or understanding. The only way to deal with it is to completely destroy it. Iraq stands for all the same principles that this force for anarchy stands for, given the chance it will feed it. A strong and clear message must be sent.

Iraq must change & the whole world must change with it. Being weak willed and prefering inaction and appeasement would be the worst thing to do.

No American wants to see the US in a war - but the US will do whatever it takes to preserve the US way of life. It's done it before & it will do it again. Is the US perfect? - no - but it will take action even if the outcomes are unclear & contain wider risk because the risk of doing nothing is far greater.

It's irritating to the US to have France - a country with no respect and a history of being useless to even take care of itself, a history of selling out it's own people to the gas chambers, be the country that takes an anti-us position - for one sole reason - only to prove how "important" it is. Ch-iraq's position is only because he wants to give France a voice. It's actually incredible that France has a permanent seat on the UN security council. France has NEVER shown itself worthy of a permenant seat.

This is so incredibly simplist ! I won't even bother reply to your paragraph about France since I'm tired of repeating always the same thing.

But did you really buy Bush's "axis of evil" and crusade thing ? You said before that you have been living in various countries. How can you still have such childish conceptions of "good and evil" in international relations ?

When it's inevitable, you may as well enjoy it. I've been in combat. I well know the blood, guts, gore & horror of it. I don't relish seeing the children of my neighbors coming home battered, misshapen or dead any more than anyone else. Time to get this particular mission over with. Iraq isn't making the changes called for, even with the barrel of a gun pressed against its' forehead.
I agree, there is a force of anarchy present. Unfortunately, this presence will not always be seen without the shadow of doubt, or unwilling supporters. Those that cry out in protest and demand more inspections seem to play right into the hands of these barbaric terrorists. The longer they can use delay tactics, the longer they have to hide their real activities. The more danger we're all in waiting for yet another major incident, and hoping the next will be the one that convinces everyone. The news today includes articles about a bomb in a Phillipine airport. Acceptance of reality does not make one "....excited by the prospect of war...", but more so fills one with the resolve to see the mission through. Unfortunately the paths to this are not all "yellow-brick roads" that are clearly marked.

This is so incredibly simplist ! I won't even bother reply to your paragraph about France since I'm tired of repeating always the same thing.

Ironic because your views of Bush are incredibly simplistic - you think because he wears cowboy boots that he is just a cowboy.

No issues are ever simplistic - but solutions typically move toward simplicity. This is exactly the problem with France - you want to make every issue so complicated and deep that all you end up with is words & hot air. Lets face it - the only thing France would do is sell Iraq goods. You would never actually do anything of real value - all France can do is talk. This is pure reality.

My paragraph about France is entirely correct

- What has France ever done of value? Please tell me
- France has proven itself incapable of even defending itself
- France sold out 2 million of it's own people to the gas chambers - they signed a deal on that one. How do you feel about that?
- Nothing in history suggests that France deserves to be a permanent UN security council member. Tell me why they should be?

All these could be overlooked, but when France takes an anti-US position purely to try to prove that they have value - then it's over for France. France has no significance beyond having a veto ability - without that - they would simply be 100% irrelevant.

The only reason France wants more time for inspectors is so the inspectors can remove the made in France stickers :D

The entire world was presented with ample evidence of the upcoming world war in long before Germany invaded Poland in 1939, and Japan attacked Hawaii in 1941. No government took prophylactic actions. The world is again being presented with ample evidence of another upcoming world level conflict, a conflict that has much more severe consequences than known ever to man, yet there are still the naysayers. The public statements by the known terrorists and their organizations swear death to infidels. There are nations who's leaders clearly provide varying logistical support to these groups. They have an economic base, research & development capabilities, and a willing population of largely illiterate, behaviorally malleable individuals raised from birth to preform without conscience. Couple this with the awful technologically enhanced weaponry of the 21st Century, and you could be facing the end of civilization as the Western world knows it. How many more need to die by terrorist attacks before real steps are taken to cut the head, and tear the roots from this? The evidence is there, just connect the dots.

Originally posted by DrewM
Ironic because your views of Bush are incredibly simplistic - you think because he wears cowboy boots that he is just a cowboy.

No issues are ever simplistic - but solutions typically move toward simplicity. This is exactly the problem with France - you want to make every issue so complicated and deep that all you end up with is words & hot air. Lets face it - the only thing France would do is sell Iraq goods. You would never actually do anything of real value - all France can do is talk. This is pure reality.

My paragraph about France is entirely correct

- What has France ever done of value? Please tell me
- France has proven itself incapable of even defending itself
- France sold out 2 million of it's own people to the gas chambers - they signed a deal on that one. How do you feel about that?
- Nothing in history suggests that France deserves to be a permanent UN security council member. Tell me why they should be?

All these could be overlooked, but when France takes an anti-US position purely to try to prove that they have value - then it's over for France. France has no significance beyond having a veto ability - without that - they would simply be 100% irrelevant.

The only reason France wants more time for inspectors is so the inspectors can remove the made in France stickers :D Wow......that was some good reading there Drew. I especially liked the ending. It seems not very much has been said about the "feel good" relationship Chirac seems to share with Saddamm, or about how it is that France is the country that sold them the reactor in the first place, or the enriched uranium it also sold them. No, it seems everyone just wants to shout out that we Americans are warmongers and such.

Originally posted by es347fan
The entire world was presented with ample evidence of the upcoming world war in long before Germany invaded Poland in 1939, and Japan attacked Hawaii in 1941. No government took prophylactic actions. The world is again being presented with ample evidence of another upcoming world level conflict, a conflict that has much more severe consequences than known ever to man, yet there are still the naysayers. The public statements by the known terrorists and their organizations swear death to infidels. There are nations who's leaders clearly provide varying logistical support to these groups. They have an economic base, research & development capabilities, and a willing population of largely illiterate, behaviorally malleable individuals raised from birth to preform without conscience. Couple this with the awful technologically enhanced weaponry of the 21st Century, and you could be facing the end of civilization as the Western world knows it. How many more need to die by terrorist attacks before real steps are taken to cut the head, and tear the roots from this? The evidence is there, just connect the dots.

Sorry, I've said it before but comparing Iraq today to Nazi Germany before WWII is ridiculous. Iraq in NO way is even close to the relative capability Nazi Germany had. If you want to try to push this point further, feel free but you're going to look like an ass.

Additionally, this logic could also have been used to launch a "preemptive" attack on Russia during the Cold War. But was such a massive war necessary to obtain a peaceful resolution? No. That is precisely why "preemptive strikes" should hardly ever be used; that is because you're trading the possibility of war for the certainty of war on the premise that war now is better than war later.

It's also not possible to compare the USSR to Iraq.

It's also not war now vs war later. It's a fast war now vs immesurable problems later that involve WMD

I'm not attempting to draw a direct line between Iraq and Nazi Germany. There could however, be argument made to challenge the numbers of deaths attributed to the Nazis and the potential for deaths caused by terrorists should extensive bioterrorism be unleashed instead of conventional weapons. The Nazis executed their unwanted, these terrorists kill infidels. There are similar patterns. Take one more step back, take out all the names, see the repititions. Pretty much apply those repititions to any dictatorship. While the terrorists are anarchists, their apparent goal is yet another dictatorship, on a huge level.

The USSR may have been attacked through use of similar logic, but somehow the 2 superpowers never went toe-to-toe. We simply out spent the USSR. They had a choice....first class military, or first class living conditions in their country. Unfortunately for them, communism doesn't do well on large populations, and they coundn't provide either. The USSR finally crumbled inward.

Originally posted by es347fan
There are nations who's leaders clearly provide varying logistical support to these groups. They have an economic base, research & development capabilities, and a willing population of largely illiterate, behaviorally malleable individuals raised from birth to preform without conscience. Couple this with the awful technologically enhanced weaponry of the 21st Century, and you could be facing the end of civilization as the Western world knows it.

You're a little bit unfair with the USA.
OK for the economic base and technology, but there are some educated american wiling to resist to their fundamentalist leader. And no evidence of direct support to terrorist groups by the CIA has been presented for at least 10 years.:cool:

Originally posted by DrewM

- Nothing in history suggests that France deserves to be a permanent UN security council member. Tell me why they should be?


You're quite right, Drew. France should not be a UN security council member.

And Russia ? A country whose greatest achievements have been stalinism and the death of millions of opponents sure should not be in the UN security council.
China is still a communist country and a bloody dictatorship. Ban it from UN right now !

Which country should replace them ? Maybe a country with a big population.

India ? Another country with nuclear weapons and a fundamentalist govt, which society is based upon the most outrageous system - casts ? Surely not.

Pakistan ? With Nukes ? Who supported the talebans and Al Queada ? Don't even think about it.

No, none of these two countries deserves more than a good preemptive war.

And Bengladesh ?
It could not even afford the plane ticket to NY. And, by the way, it will have disappeared from earth's surface in a few decades - thanks to GW Bush's for refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol.

So maybe a rich country ?

Germany ? With its nazi past ? No way !
Japan or Italy ? Former "axis" members ? Nope !
Spain ? Remember Franco ? Don't even think about it.
Belgium ? Hardly possible to find it on a map.

OK… maybe in Africa… or in Latin America …
No, we're looking for a truly sovereign state. In this case it would be easier to put directly the International Monetary Fund in the security council.

Too bad. We'll have to let only the USA and UK in charge of the security council. I guess that will make things easier - no more boring discussion, no more unproductive thinking ! At least we are going to see some ACTION !

You're quite right, Drew. France should not be a UN security council member.

Exactly.

Russia / China / US / UK is enough permanent members, and only the UK because they earned it.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's also not possible to compare the USSR to Iraq.

It's also not war now vs war later. It's a fast war now vs immesurable problems later that involve WMD

Yes, Russia was much more dangerous than Iraq is now. Yet, there was a peaceful resolution to the Cold War.

And don't you think "immeasurable problems later that invlolve WMD [and Iraq]" would involves a war?

Russia was a threat - but it was not an international outlaw. Iraq has flouted UN resolutions for 12 years & even still there is reluctance to do anything other than make words.

What is the purpose of the UN if it can never follow through?

Drew, what is an "international outlaw" in your opinion ? Could you give me a precise set of criterias you could use to decide if a country deserves preemptive war or not ?

That is a good question.

An international outlaw is a country that flouts international law. Just in the same way a national outlaw would be a person that flouts national law.

Hussain has flouted UN resolutions for 12 years - he can be considered an international outlaw.

I wouldn't call it preemtive war - I would call it enforcing international law. It could be argued that any one of the 17 UN resolutions on Iraq could be used as justification to enforce international law. Enforcing international law can only come by the use of force or the threat of it. This is what we are seeing now - the threat of war. The US is the only country with enough muscle to give international law meaning.

Remember Hussain has a choice for war or not - it is his choice. If he disarmed willingly along the lines of how South Africa disarmed then he would avoid war. The role of the UN inspectors is to supervise disarmament - not to play hide & seek with a country that has no intention of disarming.

What else could trigger preemptive war? - Well you could use the Balkans war as an example. No UN resolution was made in this case but NATO made a preemptive strike against Yugoslavia to react to genocide.

The issue is not simple, but what is simple is that for a stable world there has to be some rules of what is and what is not acceptable & there has to be consequences. To me, this is what attacking Iraq is about - it is about creating boundaries in a post 9-11 world.

I can 100% agree with you that war is a horror. It's easy for us to watch war on TV and marvel at the use of smart bombs and treat it like it is a video game, but we don't see the lives war impacts, the innocent people who are killed, the turmoil and human suffering. It is easy to forget that & when we reflect on it, it is normal for educated people to recoil & say - no war is worth it, there are other routes, we can appease, we can avoid. The truth of history is that this never works - it sends the wrong message, it strengthens threats to the civilized world, it results in more deaths.

We can look at war & it can lay heavy on us. Be clear though that those that would see western civilisation crumble delight in the pain and suffering & death of our people. The pilots that flew into the WTC cared not even about their own lives if it meant that they could kill 1000's of other people.

If we do not set boundaries, if we do not do what we are called to do - however hard that may be, then the blood of our children will be on our hands.

Peaceful resolution to the Cold War? Yeah, I guess so. We flat spent the U.S.S.R. into the ground. They tried to play that American game--"keep up with the Jones'" and lost. They wanted a first class military, wound up with a 3d class at best.