Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 03/18/2003 View Mon 03/17/2003 View Sun 03/16/2003 View Sat 03/15/2003 View Fri 03/14/2003 View Thu 03/13/2003 View Wed 03/12/2003
1
2003-03-18 Iraq
Reports: Turkey might rethink troop decision
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2003-03-18 10:24 am|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Whatever the result of this war may be, it is one of the weirdest wars ever, the US attacking without any proof and UN approval (any other country on earth would have been earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN). I wonder if the UN is going to survive this US torpedoing.
Posted by Murat 3/18/2003 3:09:33 AM||   3/18/2003 3:09:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Well,Murat you are a pretty reasonable guy and make some strong,valid points.

Allow me to make some valid points:
(1)The U.S.did try to go the U.N(releiable)way.But with the Franco/German/Russo alliance's lack of resolve in backing up 1441,left us with no choice.
(2)When country's like Lybia(head of the U.N.human right's council.
(3)Iraq(head of U.N.disarmements council)
(4)Syria(known and addmitted supporter of terrorists).
Have an equal voice,then the U.N.is no longer viable.
The"US torpedoing"the U.N. Nope didn't happen the U.N. shot it self in the foot.

The day France said it would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force,gave Saddam Hussien the green light to do anything he wants.
Kinda wonder if another gas attack aginst the Kurds or Sth.Shites would have been enough for France?
No,France said it would"veto ANY resolution authorizing the use of force".

Now explain to me ,what choice did the U.N.leave US.


As side note has anybody realized(my son brought this point to my attention).
Do you realize that the U.S. is being led by
a Bush
a Dick
and a Colin.

Posted by raptor  3/18/2003 6:45:31 AM||   3/18/2003 6:45:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Whatever the result of this war may be, it is one of the weirdest wars ever, the US attacking without any proof and UN approval (any other country on earth would have been earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN). I wonder if the UN is going to survive this US torpedoing.
Posted by Murat 2003-03-18 03:09:33||   2003-03-18 03:09:33|| Front Page Top

#4 Murat, I don't recall anything in the United States Constitution that says the United States requires the approval of the United Nations to go to war. Furthermore, longstanding constitutional law doctrine in the US has it (as well as tne language of the Constitution itself) that international treaties, including the UN Charter, may not contravene the Constitution.

Not to mention that FRANCE has _not_ been "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN", nor was Tanzania "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN" when it went in to overthrow Idi Amin, nor was Vietnam "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN" when it went in to overthrow the Khmer Rouge. In fact, I don't think the U.S. even applied to the UN for permission when it went into Afghanistan in 2001. Conclusion: UN permission is nice to have, but it is NOT necessary.

And there are more than a few of us here who think that the UN was a floating hulk anyway even before this latest fiasco.
Posted by Joe  2003-03-18 04:40:02||   2003-03-18 04:40:02|| Front Page Top

#5 What about Turkey's illegal,unilateral occupation of Northern Cyprus?I don't recall that ever been sanctioned by the UN - or anyone else,for that matter.
Posted by El Id  2003-03-18 05:57:27||   2003-03-18 05:57:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Well,Murat you are a pretty reasonable guy and make some strong,valid points.

Allow me to make some valid points:
(1)The U.S.did try to go the U.N(releiable)way.But with the Franco/German/Russo alliance's lack of resolve in backing up 1441,left us with no choice.
(2)When country's like Lybia(head of the U.N.human right's council.
(3)Iraq(head of U.N.disarmements council)
(4)Syria(known and addmitted supporter of terrorists).
Have an equal voice,then the U.N.is no longer viable.
The"US torpedoing"the U.N. Nope didn't happen the U.N. shot it self in the foot.

The day France said it would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force,gave Saddam Hussien the green light to do anything he wants.
Kinda wonder if another gas attack aginst the Kurds or Sth.Shites would have been enough for France?
No,France said it would"veto ANY resolution authorizing the use of force".

Now explain to me ,what choice did the U.N.leave US.


As side note has anybody realized(my son brought this point to my attention).
Do you realize that the U.S. is being led by
a Bush
a Dick
and a Colin.

Posted by raptor  2003-03-18 06:45:31||   2003-03-18 06:45:31|| Front Page Top

#7 Raptor, you give some nice defensive arguments, but all of them lose validity since the US was set to ignore the UN anyway. The US had set her mind to attack Iraq no matter what, with or without Saddam. What’s the explanation of building up troops and trying to legitimize it by bribing the UN member states in the meantime, and if even that doesn’t work to walk over the UN. This is explained only in one way the US has called herself as the imperial ruler of the world, in other words Saddam is the dictator of Iraq and the US the dictator of the world.
Posted by Murat 2003-03-18 07:31:11||   2003-03-18 07:31:11|| Front Page Top

#8 Murat,

Things haven't been nearly as exciting here since you left.

I'm eagerly awaiting your response to El Id's post above, regarding the unilateral invasion of Northern Cyprus by Turkey.

Additionally, I'm anticipating that your criticisms of the US will serve as cover for the impending Turkish seizure of territory in Northern Iraq. Something along the lines of "If the US can do it, we can do it too".

In response to your last comment above, if you do not understand that diplomacy is often only effective when consequences are made clear for inaction (such as, say, credible threat of the use of force, maybe?) then you do not understand diplomacy. If you did understand it, then you would understand that France, in its unilateral search for popularity, is the one who undermined the diplomatic process by calling any forthcoming resolution a non-starter...

Of course, I'm just a tool of the dictator of the world, and am no expert.

Posted by mjh  2003-03-18 07:53:48||   2003-03-18 07:53:48|| Front Page Top

#9 Murat - OK, I'll play: even Blix admitted that Saddam wouldn't have opened the country to the ineffective inspections or released the recycled hash "documents" without OUR troops poised to apply the serious consequences. To criticize without offering real solutions (more time, more inspections, listen to the U.N.!) is bullshit, and comments such as those should be disregarded as nonserious chatter. The U.S. will provide security for Americans - others will benefit as well - the Iraqis, Kurds - but Turkey has proven it's worth in this alliance, and found lacking IMHO
Posted by Frank G  2003-03-18 08:00:08||   2003-03-18 08:00:08|| Front Page Top

#10 Frank, To criticize without offering real solutions (more time, more inspections, listen to the U.N.!) is bullshit,

???? Sorry but did the US realise that after 12 years after Gulf war 1? I really would like to believe those security concerns, but how for heavens sake is it not possible to find the slightest proof of mass destruction weapons. Where is the mighty CIA, these guys have the full cooperation of MOSSAD, MI5, MIT and all the other secret services, where is the proof. If there is one it is not possible to hide them unless Saddam is a magician, the great Houdini.
Posted by Murat 2003-03-18 08:20:53||   2003-03-18 08:20:53|| Front Page Top

#11 Murat,

You seem to share the common misperception on the purpose of the UN inspections. The burden of proof is not on the UN inspectors (or the intelligence agencies) to prove that Saddam has those weapons, the burden of proof is on Saddam to provide proof of their destruction. The UN inspectors are there simply to verify that the weapons were, indeed, destroyed.

Does Turkey not have an interest in seeing Saddam deprived of all of his nasty weapons? Perhaps not, as Saddam has proven a valuable partner to Turkey in oppressing his Kurdish population...Perhaps also Turkey is realizing that it had better play ball w. the US if they don't want an independent Kurdistan on their doorstep. I think Turkey is scared that US "Imperialism" will result in the self-determination of the Kurdish population spread between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. (My how imperialism has changed since colonial times) Speaking of Imperialism, it has been reported that the Turkish government is going over treaties from the Ottoman empire to assess whether they will have a claim to territory around kirkuk and other N. Iraq cities...is this true?

You seem to consider yourself an expert on the US motives and interests in the Iraq situation. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to Turkey's true interests here...

(BTW, still waiting on your response to El ID's post above regarding Turkey's own unilateralism)
Posted by mjh  2003-03-18 09:08:09||   2003-03-18 09:08:09|| Front Page Top

#12 mjh, exactly. Murat, like many of his kind, is intentionally ignoring the subtlety that it was not up to the inspectors to find anything. Hussein had one last chance, and thanks to Germany,France,Russia (Germancia?), decided he could get away with it, again.
But then again, it could be that Murat genuinely believes Hussein that he does not have WMD.
Posted by RW 2003-03-18 09:21:36||   2003-03-18 09:21:36|| Front Page Top

#13 MJH and RW,
C'mon guys, we have seen Colin Powells proof of a few misty satellite photos, I am sure the CIA can do better than that. WMD weapons are not pocket-sized weapons which you can bury in you backyard. I personally honestly don’t believe that Iraq has these weapons (anymore), sure they have used these kind of weapons against Iran and Kurds some 13 – 14 years ago, but that’s a long time ago.

The burden of proof is not on the UN inspectors (or the intelligence agencies) to prove that Saddam has those weapons, the burden of proof is on Saddam to provide proof of their destruction.

I think the burden of proof should be on Bush (but he has no problem of conscience sending people wrongly to the electrical chair, in this case a whole country without credible proof), he surely lacked the credibility to convince the world (including me)
Posted by Murat 2003-03-18 09:49:17||   2003-03-18 09:49:17|| Front Page Top

#14 "a few misty satellite photos"
So now you qualify yourself as an intelligence officer, do you?
"WMD weapons are not pocket-sized weapons which you can bury in you backyard"
Actually they are. Perhaps bigger than pocket-size, but certainly you can conceal parts in every backyard in Baghdad.
"I personally honestly don’t believe that Iraq has these weapons"
Well there you go.... that about explains your entire stance.
"he surely lacked the credibility to convince the world (including me)"
You couldn't be convinced if a WMD fell on your head, not if the "proof" came from an American source. And don't deny it, doesn't matter if it was Bush, Clinton, Gore, or a green dog dressed in a suit.
Posted by RW 2003-03-18 10:08:02||   2003-03-18 10:08:02|| Front Page Top

#15 You know Murrat,just being Joe Six-pack,I'm not all that bright a guy.
But even I could tell that the U.N didn't have the courage to stand-up to Saddam(if the U.N. had stood-up to it's responsibilities,then it would have to take a long hard look at how it selects members for admitince as well as how it selects countries for leadership roles i.e.UNSC).
As I said above,the day France stated it would veto ANY resolution authorising force,is the day France gutted(like a fish)the U.N.S.C.
The U.N. has done nothing to reign in Dictators,religious fanatics and terrorists,trafficurs and prevaours of WMD.nor has it done much to stop genicide/ethnic cleansing.
Years ago I realized the U.N.is not an orginazation that promotes/protects peace,and freedom.But it's purpose is to protect the status quo.And as such it's usefullness has ended.
Posted by raptor  2003-03-18 10:08:57||   2003-03-18 10:08:57|| Front Page Top

#16 Murat,
"I think the burden of proof should be on Bush" Again, didn't you read 1441? Wrong, wrong. Have you been reading Le Monde? BTW, I think I deserve a raise despite what my contract says. Unfair, unfair.
Posted by Michael 2003-03-18 10:21:30||   2003-03-18 10:21:30|| Front Page Top

#17 Murat: "I wonder if the UN is going to survive this US torpedoing."

Murat, the U.N. Security Council did not enforce its own resolutions for 12 years. It has proven itself irrelevant. It deserves torpedoing, but instead it just withered away slowly. The U.S. is not going to wait 12+ years to address every new threat. [Take note, North Korea. Take note, Iran. The paradigm has changed.]
Posted by Tom 2003-03-18 10:36:45||   2003-03-18 10:36:45|| Front Page Top

#18 Murat...You're being way too easy on me here. You keep changing the focus of your criticism. First, it was unilateralism/imperialism, then you abandoned that after Turkey was criticized for having unilateralist/imperialist tendencies of its own. Then, you criticize the fact that the US did not ever INTEND to follow the UN even as they pursued diplomacy(In fact, it was the other way around-the UN passed a resolution which they did not intend to ever enforce). Now, you are questioning the quality of our intelligence and ad hominem attacks on W for his stance on capital punishment. (Speaking of Executions...this is an interesting tidbit from the Republic of Turkey's constitution:"The cases of carrying out of death penalties under court sentences, the act of killing in self-defense, the occurrences of death as a result of the use of a weapon permitted by law as a necessary measure in cases of: apprehension, or the execution of warrants of arrest, the prevention of escape of lawfully arrested or convicted persons, the quelling of a riot or insurrection, the execution of the orders of authorized bodies during martial law or state of emergency are outside of the provision of paragraph 1.")

Anyway, setting aside the ad hominem attacks, the quality of the intelligence is immaterial. The reason is that no explanation of either the photgraphs or the recorded conversations were ever forthcoming from the Iraqis, other than to say they were "American lies" or some such thing.

I know I speak for America that we are happy that YOU believe that Iraq does not have those weapons. But, since Iraq is not willing to prove they have destroyed them, we're going to send in 250,000 of our weapons inspectors to have a look ourselves.

Posted by mjh  2003-03-18 10:37:28||   2003-03-18 10:37:28|| Front Page Top

#19 Murat: You still haven't answered about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
Posted by 11A5S 2003-03-18 11:21:53||   2003-03-18 11:21:53|| Front Page Top

#20 11A5S: I'm a bit skeptical if he will, since the unilateral 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, if he defends it, tends to refute his own argument about "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN".
Posted by Joe  2003-03-18 12:00:22||   2003-03-18 12:00:22|| Front Page Top

#21 I'm also still waiting for Murat to answer me on the Constitutional issue. Again, no statute, article of law or international agreement may contravene or supersede any part of the Constitution, except for a constitutional amendment passed by Congress and duly ratified by the several States of the Union. President Bush made it clear that his authority derives from that granted by the Constitution. So, Murat, I put it to you; does the Constitution of the Turkish Republic contain any provision, explicit or implicit, stating that the United Nations Charter may be held to contravene or supersede that Constitution?
Posted by Joe  2003-03-18 12:11:50||   2003-03-18 12:11:50|| Front Page Top

#22 Murat, you might not think he has them, but fancypants does and has offered to help in case Saddam uses the stuff they and he claim he does't have. Check out cnn europe.
Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-18 12:14:03||   2003-03-18 12:14:03|| Front Page Top

#23 Murat, let me introduce you to the Dixie Chicks.
Right or wrong, you sure get this crown excited.
Posted by john  2003-03-18 15:14:48||   2003-03-18 15:14:48|| Front Page Top

08:24 liberalhawk
08:21 liberalhawk
07:37 Anonymous
06:36 raptor
03:41 Ptah
02:23 Anonymous
02:21 Anonymous
02:14 Anonymous
02:01 Anonymous
01:59 Anonymous
01:55 Anonymous
01:49 Jim
01:48 Anonymous
01:28 Govy
01:19 Christopher Johnson
00:25 JDB
23:58 JDB
23:40 anon
23:37 Anonymous
23:28 anon
23:26 anon
23:19 grumpy old man
23:05 Anonymous
22:57 Steve White









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com