PDA

View Full Version : Should Turkey Join The EU?



Pages : [1] 2

Silverbackman
27-02-06, 04:09
In my opinion it shouldn't. In fact I think it should give up some of its European, such as Istanbul and the lands West of it. Most of its land is in the Middle East and it would be better if they were to join the Middle Eastern or West Asian Union if such a union takes place. I don't even think it should be a candidate.

What do you think?

bossel
27-02-06, 05:18
This topic has already been covered here:

EU agree to start entry talks for Turkey (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19694&highlight=turkey+eu)

Islamic Europe? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19318&highlight=turkey+eu)

Not yet a poll, though.

Duo
27-02-06, 13:42
I voted yes. If one has been to turkey they will realize that it has the attributes of South Eastern/Balkan European country. Turkey is interconected with Europe, especially greece, the gene and cultural exchange they have haid is un parralleled in Europe. So when people say that turks are not european think again. I agree there are some issues with the lands on the east, ie kurdistan, in fact many times i joke with my turkish friends about lettin those areas go so the country is more stable, but I think the issues there can be resolved with the european integration process. Turkey is btw the only secular muslim country of its size. I don't see why Islam should come inundate europe from citizens raised in a secular society.

Maciamo
28-02-06, 11:50
The only arguments I see against Turkey's accession would be pretty much the same as for other countries in the region like Bulgaria, Romania, ex-Yugoslavia or Albania, i.e. mostly economical, with maybe a need to adapt laws to EU standards. Actually, Turkey also has some small human right issues, but not as bad as Bosnia or Serbia, and if we really want to be nitpicky, we could say that Britain, France or other countries are not 100% clean either.

nurizeko
04-03-06, 12:28
I voted no, if turkey can join the EU with its little sliver of land on europe, then spain should get to join the organization for african unity or whats it called because it has the canary islands and a few enclaves on the morroccan coast.

Its got nothing to do with islam bashing or turkey bashing, i dont care, its the fact turkey isnt in europe with botheres me, why is the EU ignoring this completely un-assailable fact?.

road-finder
12-02-09, 20:32
I think that Turkey is rather Asia, not Europe...

ukbulldog
01-03-09, 00:57
I beleive other countries in the EU or in a larger scale the world should have effect on if a country should or should'nt join the EU and should be 100% for the public to decide. I know this wouldnt happen but i wish it happened for the UK as since England joined the EU as we are no longer ruled by our selfs but instead by the laws that the European union have set. Back on subject, One thing is for sure, if Turkey joins the EU then it can no longer be called the EU or European Union. What next? WU or World Union? World power and world domination? Exactly what is the plan of these unelected officials who are running the EU?

Maciamo
06-03-09, 20:41
The more I learn about the history and population genetics of Turkey, the more I see how closely Turks are related to Greeks or other South-East Europeans. It can be argued that Western Turks are closer to the European average than people from northern Greece, Albania, Kosovo and even Serbia.

Economically Turkey is more advanced than most of the Balkans, even Romania and Bulgaria, which are already in the EU.

If religion is the only strong argument against the Turkish accession, let's not forget that most of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Central Albania are also predominantly Muslim.

Mycernius
08-03-09, 15:22
Cyprus is a member and that is off the coast of the Asian continent, noy Europe, so why not Turkey? At least some of Turkey is in Europe. Then there are all the overseas territories of the UK, France, Demark, The Netherlands, Spain and Portugal that have a special status because of links to member countries.

Marianne
27-03-09, 16:33
The more I learn about the history and population genetics of Turkey, the more I see how closely Turks are related to Greeks or other South-East Europeans. It can be argued that Western Turks are closer to the European average than people from northern Greece, Albania, Kosovo and even Serbia.


I guess that Western Turks are close to European average because all the western territories of Turkey, those close to the Aegean Sea were Greek territories during Byzantine empire and people living there at the moment are probably Greek decedents. If u take a look at Turkish people living in the mainland u will see obvious appearance differences.

As for whether Turkey should join the European Union, I dont have any problem as long as they solve some issues they have concerning human rights and women's rights. The problem is not only about their legislation but also about people's way of thinking on how to treat to a woman for example. Even if the laws change, people's minds wont and i think religion has a huge influence on that. I dont want to walk on the street or work at a company and being treated as inferior because im a woman, by people who grew up believing that women have less rights than men...

Miss Marple's nephew
30-03-09, 10:45
Should Turkey Join The EU?
In my opinion it shouldn't. ..... Most of its land is in the Middle East and it would be better if they were to join the Middle Eastern or West Asian Union if such a union takes place.
I understand very little about politics, though I probably know more about it than the average person who claims that he does.

I do know a fair bit about geography, however, and I don't feel that Turkey's geographical position ought to play much part in its' entry into the EU. If geography were all that important then several of the N.A.T.O. members wouldn't have been admitted, not being anywhere the North Atlantic, and Israel wouldn't be allowed to send its' representation to the European Song Contest.

But as I said, I know little about political issures and I think Turkey should be allowed membership simply because I like the Turks. :)

coze
02-04-09, 14:01
I guess that Western Turks are close to European average because all the western territories of Turkey, those close to the Aegean Sea were Greek territories during Byzantine empire and people living there at the moment are probably Greek decedents. If u take a look at Turkish people living in the mainland u will see obvious appearance differences.


I would say it's little bit racist assumption to make. Though the cultural and political differences between coastline and mainland Turkish people kind of verifies this assumption. Just have a look at this map of the 2009 local elections in Turkey ...

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009turkeyelections.jpg

aside from istanbul (which has been flooded by migrants from the mainland) most coastlines have been taken by the opposition :wave:

Maciamo
02-04-09, 18:21
I would say it's little bit racist assumption to make. Though the cultural and political differences between coastline and mainland Turkish people kind of verifies this assumption. Just have a look at this map of the 2009 local elections in Turkey ...

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009turkeyelections.jpg

aside from istanbul (which has been flooded by migrants from the mainland) most coastlines have been taken by the opposition :wave:

I don't see how it is racist to state the fact that many Western Turks are closely related to Greeks. I don't see what politics has to do with this either.

coze
04-04-09, 18:20
I dunno. The way I read her statement she says like you can look at the faces of two Turkish people from mainland and the coast and you can tell they're different - and Turkish person from the coastline is Greek descendent. It's straighforward and not exactly true. Turkey is a very mixed country, there're people descendants of balcan countries, slavic people, caucasian people (I mean georgians, azeris) arabs, albanians, persians ... Even celtic people if you go back far enough in history. You just can't cut it out saying they're Greek descendants. Besides it can always be argued Greek people of today are descendants of Ottomans. Turkey and Greece was together for centuries so I think it can't be said who descended from who. Not that it's very important anyway, I prefer to call us Aegean people.

Maciamo
05-04-09, 12:28
I dunno. The way I read her statement she says like you can look at the faces of two Turkish people from mainland and the coast and you can tell they're different - and Turkish person from the coastline is Greek descendent. It's straighforward and not exactly true. Turkey is a very mixed country, there're people descendants of balcan countries, slavic people, caucasian people (I mean georgians, azeris) arabs, albanians, persians ... Even celtic people if you go back far enough in history. You just can't cut it out saying they're Greek descendants. Besides it can always be argued Greek people of today are descendants of Ottomans. Turkey and Greece was together for centuries so I think it can't be said who descended from who. Not that it's very important anyway, I prefer to call us Aegean people.

I suppose that she meant similar to "modern Greek", so also a mixture of Balkanic, Slavic, Caucasian, Celtic and Near Eastern people. The admixture is quite clear from the Y-DNA haplogroup composition (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). Turkey has more diversity overall, but the country is bigger, and to be fair most of the Asian haplogroups (H, L, N, O, Q) are found in Eastern Turkey, not on the Aegean coast.

What is interesting is that Greece also has different admixture in each region. The Peloponese and Crete have a lot of J2 and R1b, like Northern and Central Turkey, while the mountainous region of North-West Greece has a high percentage of haplogroups E and G, more like southern Anatolia.

Marianne
06-04-09, 13:14
I suppose that she meant similar to "modern Greek", so also a mixture of Balkanic, Slavic, Caucasian, Celtic and Near Eastern people. The admixture is quite clear from the . Turkey has more diversity overall, but the country is bigger, and to be fair most of the Asian haplogroups (H, L, N, O, Q) are found in Eastern Turkey, not on the Aegean coast.

What is interesting is that Greece also has different admixture in each region. The Peloponese and Crete have a lot of J2 and R1b, like Northern and Central Turkey, while the mountainous region of North-West Greece has a high percentage of haplogroups E and G, more like southern Anatolia.

that's exactly how i meant it.
Greece, located between Europe, Asia and Africa, has always been a place where many tribes settled since ancient years and modern Greeks are now a mixture of all those. This also applies for the western part of Turkey and if u consider the fact that up to 1922 modern Greeks were living at the territories of Turkey close to the Aegean sea (for example Smyrni), i don't see why it is racist to say that people living in those territories have similar haplotypes as opposed to the Turks living in the mainland :P


To be honest though, i don't think that there were mixtures between Turks and Greeks during the Ottoman empire due to the major religious differences. Of course it is possible that occasional "incidents" might have occurred but that definitely wasn't the rule so i don't think that Greeks' and Turks' genes have changed since Greece was conquered by the Ottomans during the middle ages. I believe that more people might get married and have kids nowadays that religious differences are outdated than 300 years ago when Greeks and Turks had this hate going between them...
For example I wouldn't have a problem getting married to a Turkish guy but I'm pretty sure my great grand parents wouldn't even consider it.

Minty
05-06-09, 00:46
Cyprus is a member and that is off the coast of the Asian continent, noy Europe, so why not Turkey? At least some of Turkey is in Europe. Then there are all the overseas territories of the UK, France, Demark, The Netherlands, Spain and Portugal that have a special status because of links to member countries.


As far as I know only the Greek part of Cyprus is part of the EU, and it is not part of the schengen area. We have a lot of students here from there; they have no rights to work here. However a lot of them do and they get paid by cash (underground money) same for those Eastern European countries’ people outside of the European Union or those Mainland Chinese or those Turkish students.


Only a small part of Turkey is on the European continent the rest are in Asia, but to ease Muslim tensions I got this feeling at some point they probably will be offered the deal.

Maciamo
07-06-09, 14:04
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the fact that Turkey is geographically in Asia. After all, the ancestors of Europeans have come from Anatolia at one period of history or another. The first were the Palaeolithic haplogroup I, but it was followed more recently by the Neolithic E, T, G and J, then by the huge wave of Indo-European R1b from northern Anatolia.

All the European haplogroups can be found in Turkey. What makes Turkey less European is that it also has a sizeable percentage (over 20%) of non-European haplogroups, such as the Arabic J1 (about 12.5%), South Asian L and P, African A and ExE1b1b, and North/East Asian C, Q and O.

The main issues about Turkey joining the EU are :

- Turkey is Muslim (on the other hand the state is not religious, so it's not so bad)

- the status of Kurdistan, which I think should be made an autonomous region (like the Basque country) or semi-independent state (like Scotland).

- the human right record (although it isn't perfect in EU member states either)

- the strong disparity between east and west in terms of education and economic development

I personally wouldn't have a problem with the North-Western half of Turkey joining the EU. But it is not practically feasible.

Chris
22-07-09, 19:09
The EU is too large to be sustainable as it is, with the obvious economic and social imbalances, let alone the lack of accountability to the voters. It's hard enough making the politicians in one's own country accountable (virtually impossible in the UK); even less so an EU politician.

To me, a 'European Union' is counter-intuitive. An economic trading entity, sure. No more than that, and certainly no bigger.

Maciamo
23-07-09, 13:18
The EU is too large to be sustainable as it is, with the obvious economic and social imbalances, let alone the lack of accountability to the voters.

The USA is over twice bigger than the EU, geographically. The gap between the rich and the poor is actually higher in the US than between say a poor Romanian and a rich northern European. The US has many times more billionaires than the EU, and many times more people living in precarious conditions, without health insurance, in trailer parks. Yet few people would argue that the USA are too big and should be split.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-07-09, 14:01
In my opinion Turkey is not European, culturally, geographically and, to a significant extent, ethnically. I also believe that Cyprus should not have been given membership. I understand there are political issues involved for both countries but I just can't see either as part of the E. U. For me Europe ends where Greece's borders end.

Marianne
23-07-09, 14:44
For me Europe ends where Greece's borders end.


We grew up knowing that the southeast borders of Europe are where Greece's borders with Turkey are and with all the fuzz about Turkey joining EU and Europe it feels a bit weird when Turkey appears in everything related to Europe.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-07-09, 14:59
We grew up knowing that the southeast borders of Europe are where Greece's borders with Turkey are and with all the fuzz about Turkey joining EU and Europe it feels a bit weird when Turkey appears in everything related to Europe.

I agree. The mere concept of Turkey as European feels awfully "forced".

Miss Marple's nephew
23-07-09, 16:38
... The mere concept of Turkey as European feels awfully "forced".

Come on, guys. The definition of Europe, Asia and all the rest is a mere plotted line on a map, drawn up long ago. It is completely useless but for the fact that map-makers thought the world had too little lines across it and after having decided the east-west frontier between Europe and Asia had to find something (anything) to use as referrence point in laying out the north-south frontier.

Today, no-one is courageous enough to suggest redrawing that line and so here we sit argueing over abstract "rules of thumb" and the collapse of pseudo-indignant identities which, they themselves, are products of historical progression and change.

Chris
24-07-09, 22:49
The USA is over twice bigger than the EU, geographically. The gap between the rich and the poor is actually higher in the US than between say a poor Romanian and a rich northern European. The US has many times more billionaires than the EU, and many times more people living in precarious conditions, without health insurance, in trailer parks. Yet few people would argue that the USA are too big and should be split.

You're right about their disparities. But I lived in the States for over ten years. In my day, someone from Georgia was seen a a real novelty to those of us in California. But - same language; national government; customs; cultural identity; education structure/curriculum, entertainment values; legal framework etc.

The size is an issue, but you can't compare the two models, given the EU's massive disparity in cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, historic and legal frameworks, education systems, etc. It's like comparing apples with pears.

I used to be very pro-EU on an intellectual level, but in practice, the disparities make the concept completely impractical and counter-intuitive.

Ask the average guy in the street - are you European first and foremost? I guarantee most would say "no". It's a political and economic construct, not social. Without the social element, it's like building a castle on sand.

Miss Marple's nephew
24-07-09, 23:33
..... The size is an issue, but you can't compare the two models, given the EU's massive disparity in cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, historic and legal frameworks, education systems, etc. It's like comparing apples with pears.
.....
Precisely.

Cambrius (The Red)
25-07-09, 02:40
The E.U. has expanded much too fast. Some countries should never have been admitted...

Miss Marple's nephew
25-07-09, 09:46
The E.U. has expanded much too fast. Some countries should never have been admitted...
Yes. There are 2 countries in particular ..... I cannot for the life of me understand why they´ve been admitted. Who in hell makes these decisions? :annoyed:

Maciamo
25-07-09, 11:33
You're right about their disparities. But I lived in the States for over ten years. In my day, someone from Georgia was seen a a real novelty to those of us in California. But - same language; national government; customs; cultural identity; education structure/curriculum, entertainment values; legal framework etc.

The EU has a government with laws applying in all member states and a European court of justice with power to overrule member-state courts. The EU has harmonised the education system is all member states, so that diploma and degrees are valid everywhere. Exchange programmes (like Erasmus) exist between all EU universities and funded by the EU. There really isn't much difference between the USA and the EU, except than US states are less autonomous.



The size is an issue, but you can't compare the two models, given the EU's massive disparity in cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, historic and legal frameworks, education systems, etc. It's like comparing apples with pears.

Religious disparity ? The US has much more religious disparity. The Bible Belt is strongly (some might say fundamentalist) Christian but mostly Protestant, New Mexico is mostly Catholic, and places like New York and California are a melting pot of every world religion, but are not very religious overall.

Economic disparities are bigger within the USA than the EU, although the gap is mostly social rather than geographic.

Europe has one common history, just like the USA. British history differs from Italian history just like Texan history differs from Massachusetts history.

I agree that European education systems were quite different 20 years ago. But that's not the case anymore since the EU introduced a common minimum curriculum (example (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc36_en.htm)). For universities this was achieved through the Bologna process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_process).



Ask the average guy in the street - are you European first and foremost? I guarantee most would say "no". It's a political and economic construct, not social. Without the social element, it's like building a castle on sand.

That may be true in the UK, but not everywhere. Let's not forget that the UK is by far the most eurosceptic country. Ask Belgians whether they feel themselves as European as Belgian, and most would say yes (there has been polls).

Marianne
25-07-09, 15:11
Greeks strongly identify as Europeans.

I keep reading the news about the polls in UK and I see that many people there want their country to leave the EU.

Chris
25-07-09, 15:26
Let's not forget that the UK is by far the most eurosceptic country. Ask Belgians whether they feel themselves as European as Belgian, and most would say yes (there has been polls).

That's for sure, but Norway (albeit a non-member) is even more Euro-sceptic! I think in principle, the EU is a great concept. I am 100% certain (having spent my whole career in management and business) that in an organisational sense, it is unaccountable, bloated and massively bureaucratic. That's probably a sound reason to engage with the process and help get it changed, rather than turning away from it!!

I find it odd for example, how I have a number of Euro MEPs in my constituency. Who can I nail down as accountable? Which one? All?

In a global economy, I think the EU is our best refuge against the mega economies (e.g. USA, China).

I honestly think though, there is much scope for reform. Or am I being a typical Anglo Saxon?! :thinking:

Kivanch K
02-08-09, 21:34
In my opinion it shouldn't. In fact I think it should give up some of its European, such as Istanbul and the lands West of it. Most of its land is in the Middle East and it would be better if they were to join the Middle Eastern or West Asian Union if such a union takes place. I don't even think it should be a candidate.

What do you think?

Well your argument suggests that the EU is a geographical entity, which is paradoxical as it is. First of all EU is not just a land mass but a union formed by "ideas" like equality, freedom, human rights and many others as stated in the EU constitution.

But let us assume that EU is a geographical union:

1.Where does it start and where does it end? If it ends in Thrace and Istanbul, why Cyprus is in the EU? Cyprus is located in the easten meditterranean region. It's a couple hundred miles away from Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Egypt. So what makes Cyprus in Europe? And what doesn't make Turquie in Europe while 70% of her land mass is more westward than Cyprus is?

2.Again according to your suggestion, UK, Ireland and Iceland are not in the European continent.

3.The idea of a unified Europe has its basis in Ancient Greek and Roman Empire which includes Anatolia, Middle-East and North Africa. Isn't Roman Empire european enough?

4.Another attempt to unify Europe was Ottoman Empire (Which is the descendant of Roman and Byzantine Empires) Her 2 capitals (Adrianopolis and Constantinopolis) were in Europe and her borders started from Wien and included today's Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Romania,Ukraine, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Poland (as an ally), Greece, Makedonia and Albania most of which are EU countries.

5.You stated that the majority of Turquie's lands are in Asia. That's not entirely true. Because Anatolia is a peninsula and it forms a bridge that connects Europe to Asia.

6.Turquie's lands in Europe is much larger than many countries in Europe.

Blah blah blah...

But of course we all know that geographical location has nothing to do with the common tendency of rejecting Turquie's admission to EU.
For all I know, if Turquie was located in Switzerland it would still be rejected by the average people in the EU.

Because the real cause of rejection lies beneath the misbelief that "Turks are the others" This idea was planted by the Roman Church after the collapse of the Roman Empire, to unify the european kingdoms under the Church's rule. Infact, Turks were not the enemy of Christianity. Even the Mehmet the conqueror of Istanbul was a son of an Orthodox Queen of ours as well as almost all other Ottoman sultans. And yes Turks commited acts of violence not only against christians but also muslims. Yet it was nothing when compared to secterian violence commited by european christians to other christians. This is basic European History 101.

The church used this propaganda to recruit ordinary farmers as soldiers to fight against "the enemies of God". So it was all political. Typical use of religion to decieve people.

But today that status quo has changed. Today's Turquie is the ally of EU and, her soldiers fighted side by side with Western soldiers in Korea, Balkans, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. Also Turquie fights Islamic fundamentalists everywhere in the globe efficiently. And she is doing that not because of political engagements (like Pakistan) but because she is a secular, constitutional, democratic republic.

Also, unlike Germany, japan and Iraq, Turquie has chosen the path of democracy by herself with a revolution and not pressed or forced to do so. Women rights were given in 1920's, long before the U.S. and many european countries.

Also I'm not naive and I know that my country has a lot of democratic issues to be resolved such as the Kurdish identity and reinforcing civil society. Call me an optimist, but I believe that such issues will be resolved in a couple of years. Never forget: This nation has changed its alphabet, revolutionized the society, wiped out the Sharia, found the democratic republic in less than 10 years at the begining of the last century. And I myself am the product of that revolution. I studied in Turkish state schools where I learned ancient Greek philosophy, Magna Carta, tunes of Bach, English, Spanish and other languages and I grew up in the streets of Istanbul. I represent the average Turkish citizen (with a little more effort:)

And I'm asking to my fellow european friends: Do you prefer to sustain the hostility of the medieval times, pushing Turquie away from Europe to Islam world and create an anthagonist and a powerful, potential threat? or Do you prefer to encourage a more democratic country which will strenghten the EU and show the world that EU is not a christian club or a bunch of pious nationalists?

Please answer..


Kivanch K


Musician

Istanbul, TR

Starship
18-08-09, 12:51
I would in general be in favour of Turkey joining the EU I think the advantages out weigh any disadvantages, the EU has been a stabilising force encouraging prosperity, democracy and the rights of individuals and bringing a large Muslim country into the fold could act as a be-con to Muslims in other countries who might be tired of the status quo in their own homelands.
As an Irish man I could never make the argument that Turkey is to poor to be considered for membership but my one main concern is the relative instability between the secular and religious forces at play. Maybe its just the western media slant but it does appear to be a rolling back of secular independence in government and a indirect treat to Turkeys continued democracy.

sfanky
19-08-09, 00:19
i believe europe dont want turkey because europe is not democratic enough..
EU is just a new name of holy crusade in this years.

thats why if they accept turkey there will be no more holy crusade;
it will became open for every religion every people, so the real democracy will come:)

i dont believe any other needles reasons that eu tells turkey.
turkey is 10times better then so many countrys in EU.

EU can accept turkey or not;
its realy not important for me,because i know we are in europe since 1453,and no one can chance this...

Maciamo
19-08-09, 12:02
i believe europe dont want turkey because europe is not democratic enough..
EU is just a new name of holy crusade in this years.

This is because you think of Europe as Christian. Only lower class, low intelligence, elderly or seriously indoctrinated people are Christian nowadays.



thats why if they accept turkey there will be no more holy crusade;
it will became open for every religion every people, so the real democracy will come:)

You imagine the future as a world of religions. I hope it will be a world of reason instead. Religion is always worse than reason. It leads to wars, it keeps people ignorant, it impedes scientific an social progress, and it make people live with very outdated moral and lifestyle principles.

The future of Europe is not freedom of religion but freedom from religion !

The only reason I think Turkey could possibly join the EU is because it is a secular state and many Western Turks aren't very religious. But it is people like you who make me hesitant about letting Turkey entering the EU.

Cambrius (The Red)
19-08-09, 16:09
This is because you think of Europe as Christian. Only lower class, low intelligence, elderly or seriously indoctrinated people are Christian nowadays.



You imagine the future as a world of religions. I hope it will be a world of reason instead. Religion is always worse than reason. It leads to wars, it keeps people ignorant, it impedes scientific an social progress, and it make people live with very outdated moral and lifestyle principles.

The future of Europe is not freedom of religion but freedom from religion !

The only reason I think Turkey could possibly join the EU is because it is a secular state and many Western Turks aren't very religious. But it is people like you who make me hesitant about letting Turkey entering the EU.


Too right, Maciamo ... :good_job:

Cambrius (The Red)
19-08-09, 16:17
i believe europe dont want turkey because europe is not democratic enough..
EU is just a new name of holy crusade in this years.

thats why if they accept turkey there will be no more holy crusade;
it will became open for every religion every people, so the real democracy will come:)

i dont believe any other needles reasons that eu tells turkey.
turkey is 10times better then so many countrys in EU.

EU can accept turkey or not;
its realy not important for me,because i know we are in europe since 1453,and no one can chance this...

Your perspective is all wrong on this... Turkey has a VERY long way to go on many fronts.

Only a small sliver of Turkey can be considered as forming part of Europe.

Chris
19-08-09, 18:40
You imagine the future as a world of religions. I hope it will be a world of reason instead. Religion is always worse than reason. It leads to wars, it keeps people ignorant, it impedes scientific an social progress, and it make people live with very outdated moral and lifestyle principles.

The future of Europe is not freedom of religion but freedom from religion !

The only reason I think Turkey could possibly join the EU is because it is a secular state and many Western Turks aren't very religious. But it is people like you who make me hesitant about letting Turkey entering the EU.

Hear, hear. Zealous Christians are as worrying as zealous Muslims. Religion divides. Always has and always will. Since the Bush era, we have been sliding backwards towards a Crusades mentality in the polarisation of politics/religion. Both sides are barking mad.

Instead of asking why Turkey should be admitted to the European Union, I would ask why it should? Where is the compelling social or economic reason?

As posted earlier, I feel strongly that although the EU has much in its favour logically and rationally, there is much work to be done to make the existing membership/structures more accountable to the people and effective, organisationally. No more expansion before that happens, is my vote.

sfanky
19-08-09, 19:16
at first i am a turk who is living intanbul(west enough:P) and i am Muslim ..

the thing is i am trying to tell. eu peoples always saying that muslim turkey,turkey is muslim ,religious.... ,

everyone can believe to anything its not my problem i have respect for all of them.

and after hearing from most of eu people that kind a we dont want turkey because most of is muslim.

because many people know muslims wrong and it makes them to think wrong.
they are not even thinking how it can be good or bad.
most of people thing just says things like we dont want muslims in europe.
they know wrong and they fear.. what they dont know

Chris
29-08-09, 13:20
at first i am a turk who is living intanbul(west enough:P) and i am Muslim ..

the thing is i am trying to tell. eu peoples always saying that muslim turkey,turkey is muslim ,religious.... ,

everyone can believe to anything its not my problem i have respect for all of them.

and after hearing from most of eu people that kind a we dont want turkey because most of is muslim.

because many people know muslims wrong and it makes them to think wrong.
they are not even thinking how it can be good or bad.
most of people thing just says things like we dont want muslims in europe.
they know wrong and they fear.. what they dont know


There are a few aspects to that. Firstly, that people object because Turkey is Muslim. That is probably true for many, but what people see of Islam in world affairs cannot be considered acceptable, especially to those who hold European values. See the contradiction in values? We do.

Secondly, most Europeans do not value Turkey's approach to democracy and civil rights. I read a poll recently about Turkish attitudes to everyday issues, and it was very concerning - not to the Turks obviously, but to those of us who hold European values dear. (Perhaps someone can assist in finding the survey on the web? It illustrates my point in this paragraph clearly.)

I am not a Christian. My objections are based on the differences in values. Turks are welcome to their views. So are Europeans.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-08-09, 19:11
The overwhelming majority of Turks are not European; in social values, mores or ethnicity. Including Turkey in the E.U. is akin to putting a round peg in a square hole. Membership in the E.U. will never happen for Turkey.

Maciamo
25-10-09, 12:55
I have come across an article that could change my opinion on Turkey's admission to the EU if it is confirmed to be true.

The most secular Islamic country is Creationist (http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/10/the_most_secular_islamic_count.php)

It explains that Turkey is more friendly to Creationism and more religious than the United States.

Historically and genetically there is every reason to see Turkish people as Europeans. In fact, Y-DNA studies have shown that a big part of the European population descend from ancient Anatolian (most of haplogroups G2a, J2 and R1b - and some E1b1b).

The geographic issue (saying that Turkey is not physically part of Europe) is just nonsense as it is just a matter of definition. Why should Cyprus or Georgia be seen as part of Europe if Turkey isn't ?

The human rights issue is hypocritical because many EU countries also violate them frequently (notably by having compulsory religion classes at school effectively proselytising one particular form of Christianity).

I thought that the Turkish government's general secularism was good enough to assure it a place in the EU. But if Creationism is the official view of the Turkish government, then this should disqualify them from any EU admission talk. This is just too backward an opinion to be acceptable. A belief in Creationism automatically rule out the theory of evolution and places Earth at the centre of the Universe (usually as a flat entity, not a round planet). Creationists therefore have no understanding of genetics, astronomy and physics. As all sciences are linked, a Creationist government would be unable to provide a proper scientific education to its population, unable to fairly support scientific research, and fail to have a compatible world view with non-Creationist nations.

^ lynx ^
09-12-09, 20:21
The Turkey into EU debate is rubbish, they aren't an european country. Period.

He has to be a solid ally but not a member of the EU.

brendo
22-12-09, 23:16
No :good_job:

Wilhelm
22-12-09, 23:42
They are not european culturally, geographically, ethnically, religiosly and a large etc.
They are not European, and there should be no debate. But, as we all know, the EU is just a business, nothing more nothing less.

Cambrius (The Red)
24-12-09, 05:05
I have come across an article that could change my opinion on Turkey's admission to the EU if it is confirmed to be true.
The most secular Islamic country is Creationist (http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/10/the_most_secular_islamic_count.php)
It explains that Turkey is more friendly to Creationism and more religious than the United States.
Historically and genetically there is every reason to see Turkish people as Europeans. In fact, Y-DNA studies have shown that a big part of the European population descend from ancient Anatolian (most of haplogroups G2a, J2 and R1b - and some E1b1b).
The geographic issue (saying that Turkey is not physically part of Europe) is just nonsense as it is just a matter of definition. Why should Cyprus or Georgia be seen as part of Europe if Turkey isn't ?
The human rights issue is hypocritical because many EU countries also violate them frequently (notably by having compulsory religion classes at school effectively proselytising one particular form of Christianity).
I thought that the Turkish government's general secularism was good enough to assure it a place in the EU. But if Creationism is the official view of the Turkish government, then this should disqualify them from any EU admission talk. This is just too backward an opinion to be acceptable. A belief in Creationism automatically rule out the theory of evolution and places Earth at the centre of the Universe (usually as a flat entity, not a round planet). Creationists therefore have no understanding of genetics, astronomy and physics. As all sciences are linked, a Creationist government would be unable to provide a proper scientific education to its population, unable to fairly support scientific research, and fail to have a compatible world view with non-Creationist nations.

I don't view Cyprus or Georgia as European either.

Maciamo
24-12-09, 12:19
I don't view Cyprus or Georgia as European either.

True that Cyprus and Georgia do not have a typically European genetic make-up, but more of a Middle-Eastern one. But be careful that with that kind of reasoning, you could say that if Cyprus isn't European, then Greece isn't either, and if Greece isn't well South Italy isn't, and if it isn't then southern France isn't that European either, and so on... Until you realise that our ancestors all came from the Middle East after all.

Now if you just mean purely geographically, Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, New Caledonia and French Polynesia are all part of the EU and use the euro (except the two latter). Their populations are overwhelmingly non-European too. The Canary Islands are part of Spain and the EU although they are geographically in Africa.

The EU is first and foremost an economic and political union, not a genetic or cultural one. Cultural diversity and expressed in the regions of Europe, not even at the member-state level.

It may not be entirely consistent that French overseas possessions are in the EU, while Dutch and British ones aren't (not even those that are in Europe, like Jersey & Guernsey or Gibraltar !). But that's politics !

Consequently, the decision of Turkey joining the EU will be, after all, a political one, not one based on geography, language, genetics or history. Needless to say that religion has a big impact on politics, though.

Cambrius (The Red)
24-12-09, 18:18
True that Cyprus and Georgia do not have a typically European genetic make-up, but more of a Middle-Eastern one. But be careful that with that kind of reasoning, you could say that if Cyprus isn't European, then Greece isn't either, and if Greece isn't well South Italy isn't, and if it isn't then southern France isn't that European either, and so on... Until you realise that our ancestors all came from the Middle East after all.
Now if you just mean purely geographically, Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, New Caledonia and French Polynesia are all part of the EU and use the euro (except the two latter). Their populations are overwhelmingly non-European too. The Canary Islands are part of Spain and the EU although they are geographically in Africa.
The EU is first and foremost an economic and political union, not a genetic or cultural one. Cultural diversity and expressed in the regions of Europe, not even at the member-state level.
It may not be entirely consistent that French overseas possessions are in the EU, while Dutch and British ones aren't (not even those that are in Europe, like Jersey & Guernsey or Gibraltar !). But that's politics !
Consequently, the decision of Turkey joining the EU will be, after all, a political one, not one based on geography, language, genetics or history. Needless to say that religion has a big impact on politics, though.

I understand what you are saying, but we need to draw a LOGICAL line somewhere that accounts for both culture and geography, at the very least.

^ lynx ^
24-12-09, 21:14
You can't compare the Canary Islands or Martinique with Cyprus or Georgia. Cyprus and Georgia are sovereign states while the Canary Islands and Martinique are just a former part of two european states (Spain and France respectively).

LeBrok
24-12-09, 22:10
Hmmm, there is a way for them to join if they really want to.

They have to attack Greece or Bulgaria, when they fight back Turkey surrenders and becomes a province of Greece or Bulgaria. Therefore they'll be eligible to join EU as such. It's like a back door way in.

Cambrius (The Red)
24-12-09, 22:36
For certain, Turkey does not fit in culturally. I won't even deal with the ethnic / racial aspects...

Sirius2b
26-12-09, 03:48
For certain, Turkey does not fit in culturally. I won't even deal with the ethnic / racial aspects...

Then you complain that I call some Iberian of this forum "vulgar racists" :confused2:

Sirius2b
26-12-09, 03:54
In my opinion it shouldn't. In fact I think it should give up some of its European, such as Istanbul and the lands West of it. Most of its land is in the Middle East and it would be better if they were to join the Middle Eastern or West Asian Union if such a union takes place. I don't even think it should be a candidate.

What do you think?

I voted "NO"... not so much for the "benefit" of Europe (I will not discuss that here), but for the benefit of Turkey.

In the last years, the CIA, Mossad and Bundesnachrichtendienst have been trying to promote a Coup in Turkey. They failed in 2008, with the arrest of a Israeli spy.

Since then, Erdogan have been trying to improve relationship with Iran (a decent neighbor that doesn't try to topple him), Russia, and all its neighbours.

No, Turkey should give up to continue to approach the EU (maybe it should try to keep more or less the gains of the current relationship), and try to make more business with China, Iran, Russia (recently they created a joint venture in space exploration).

If the Turkish get adventurous, they have the whole Central Asia, that culturally have a lot in common with Turkey.

Regards.

Sirius2b
26-12-09, 04:23
It was true, that for a long time the Turks didn't really know where they belonged. They really really belived they would be admited in Europe, and many though as European themselves.
However, I am surprised how fast, as soon as the evidence was clear about the attitude of the European right and right wing against Turkey, many of them take immediate conciousness of themselves, at least, the most educated Turks, and many of those living in Germany.
Example...

In this German Forum, a western spy tries to create hate against the Goverment of Turkey...
http://forum.politik.de/forum/mittelmeer/218629-wie-gefaehrlich-ist-die-akp-mit-tayip-erdogan-fuer-die-tuerkei.html



Wie gefährlich ist die AKP mit tayip erdogan für die Türkei ?
Die türkei betreib momentan ein undurchsichtige politik, sowohl innen als auch aussenpolitisch. Ist die politische Zukunft der Türkei gefährdet?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How dangerous is the AKP with Tayip Erdongan for Turkey? Turkey operates right now a non-transparent policy, as much in inside Turkey and in diplomacy. Is the politic future of Turkey in danger?


Sagt wer? Sarkozy, Lieberman und Merkel?
Keine sorge, eine EU Mitgliedschaft wird nicht zustande kommen
+++++++++++++++++++++
Who says that? Sarkozy, Lieberman or Merkel? No problem, a membership in the EU will never happen.


Undurchsichtige? Die Politik der jetzigen Regierung ist klar und deutlich, sich vom der tückischen westlichen Klammer befreien und eigene Interessen verfolgen. Die einzige Gefahr kommt von innen. Einige Holzköpfe glauben immer noch, dem Westen anzugehören aber gottseidank werden sie immer weniger. Eine neue Ära hat begonnen, lass es uns genießen,während andere uns beneiden.
++++++++++++++++++++
Non-transparent? The policy of the current government is clear and precise, to liberate from the western constrains and follow our own interests. The only dangers are internal, from some "wood-heads" that still believe, that we belong to the West, but thank god, they are less and less. A new Era has dawned, we should rejoice, while others envy us.

Sirius2b
26-12-09, 04:37
New approachment Turkey - Iran:


'Iran is our friend,' says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan

• We have no difficulty with Ahmadinejad – Erdogan
• Warning to Europe not to ignore Turkey's strengths

With its stunning vistas and former Ottoman palaces, the banks of the Bosphorus – the strategic waterway that cuts Istanbul in half and divides Europe from Asia – may be the perfect place to distinguish friend from foe and establish where your country's interests lie.

And sitting in his grandiose headquarters beside the strait, long the symbol of Turkey's supposed role as bridge between east and west, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had little doubt about who was a friend and who wasn't.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's radical president whose fiery rhetoric has made him a bête noire of the west? "There is no doubt he is our friend," said Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister for the last six years. "As a friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at all."
What about Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, who has led European opposition to Turkey's bid to join the EU and, coincidentally, adopted a belligerent tone towards Iran's nuclear programme? Not a friend?

"Among leaders in Europe there are those who have prejudices against Turkey, like France and Germany.

... Previously under Mr Chirac, we had excellent relations [with France] and he was very positive towards Turkey. But during the time of Mr Sarkozy, this is not the case. It is an unfair attitude. The European Union is violating its own rules.

"Being in the European Union we would be building bridges between the 1.5bn people of Muslim world to the non-Muslim world. They have to see this. If they ignore it, it brings weakness to the EU."

Friendly towards a religious theocratic Iran, covetous and increasingly resentful of a secular but maddeningly dismissive Europe: it seems the perfect summary of Turkey's east-west dichotomy.

Erdogan's partiality towards Ahmadinejad may surprise some in the west who see Turkey as a western-oriented democracy firmly grounded inside Nato. It has been a member of the alliance since 1952. It will be less surprising to Erdogan's secular domestic critics, who believe the prime minister's heart lies in the east and have long suspected his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development party (AKP) government of plotting to transform Turkey into a religious state resembling Iran.

Erdogan vigorously denies the latter charge, but to his critics he and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather: devout religious conservatives from humble backgrounds who court popular support by talking the language of the street. After Ahmadinejad's disputed presidential election in June, Erdogan and his ally, the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, were among the first foreign leaders to make congratulatory phone calls, ignoring the mass demonstrations and concerns of western leaders over the result's legitimacy.
Talking to the Guardian, Erdogan called the move a "necessity of bilateral relations". "Mr Ahmadinejad was declared to be the winner, not officially, but with a large vote difference, and since he is someone we have met before, we called to congratulate him," he said.

"Later it was officially declared that he was elected, he got a vote of confidence and we pay special attention to something like this. It is a basic principle of our foreign policy."

The gesture will be remembered when Erdogan arrives in Tehran this week for talks with Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, that will focus on commercial ties, including Turkey's need for Iranian natural gas. Ahmadinejad has voiced his admiration for Erdogan, praising Turkey's recent decision to ban Israel from a planned Nato manoeuvre in protest at last winter's bombardment of Gaza.

Since the election, Iran has witnessed a fierce crackdown on opposition figures that has resulted in activists, students and journalists being imprisoned and publicly tried. Detainees have died in prison, and there have been allegations of torture and rape. Some of those alleging mistreatment have sought refuge in Turkey.

But Erdogan said he would not raise the post-election crackdown with his hosts, saying it would represent "interference" in Iranian domestic affairs.
He poured cold water on western accusations that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, saying: "Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only."

Erdogan has overseen a dramatic improvement in the previously frigid relations between Turkey and Iran, which was viewed with suspicion by the pro-secularist high command of the powerful Turkish military. Trade between the two countries last year was worth an estimated £5.5bn as Iran has developed into a major market for Turkish exports.

Erdogan's views will interest US foreign policy makers, who have long seen his AKP government as a model of a pro-western "moderate Islam" that could be adopted in other Muslim countries. They will also find an audience with President Barack Obama, who signalled Turkey's strategic importance in a visit last April and has invited the prime minister to visit Washington. They are unlikely to impress Israel, which has warned that Erdogan's criticisms risk harming Turkey's relations with the US.

Erdogan dismissed the notion, saying: "I don't think there is any possibility of that. America's policy in this region is not dictated by Israel."
He insisted that the Turkey-Israel strategic alliance – which some AKP insiders have said privately is over – remains alive but chided the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who he said had threatened to use nuclear weapons against Gaza.

Massive anti-Israeli demonstrations in Istambul:

http://video.google.com.mx/videoplay?docid=153831964783113782&ei=vGk1S8vDB4GmqQOZnvHZDg&q=Anti+israeli+demonstrations+in+Turkey&hl=es

http://video.google.com.mx/videoplay?docid=4884611058015672381&ei=vGk1S8vDB4GmqQOZnvHZDg&q=Anti+israeli+demonstrations+in+Turkey&hl=es

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In this forum it has been discussed the adecuacy of Turkey in Europe on a basis of Racial or Religious matters... its ok.

I try to give the political situation, and try to do so, from a "Turkish" point of view. Really, its a theme I have been following for some years.

Its a discussion that really interest me.

Wilhelm
26-12-09, 04:57
Then you complain that I call some Iberian of this forum "vulgar racists" :confused2:
Why it is racist to say Turks are not ethnically European ??

Sirius2b
26-12-09, 05:11
Why it is racist to say Turks are not ethnically European ??

I saw written the word "racial"... but OK, even if I read the statement of Cambria Red a little hastly... but some of the posts in this thread, try to use as argument "genetic compatibility" with the Turks. No matter how much you try to "embelish" that, it is about plain racism.

Really, it surprises me that is the argument and not simply "religion and culture".

On the other hand, I think that it is obcene that the EU have promised for 30 or more years the possibility of joining of Turkey, only to end up that Turkey is not worthy on racial, cultural and religious grounds. Because if the thing is about development and economic argument, the joining of Turkey is more defensible as some other countries that did enter.

On the other hand, I want to stress I am deeply satisfied, the sportmanship with which the Turks see the matter.

I think it is admirable.

Sirius2b
26-12-09, 05:59
I for one, find very illustrative the attitude of the turkish users that entered this thread…

The first one, @Coze, enters immediatly defending the possibility of entrance of Turkey in the EU, and for that, following the spirit of the previous posts, he claims that there is “white/european” blood in the turkish too… and besides, he claims that this “blood” has its influence in how the different turkish people vote:


I would say it's little bit racist assumption to make. Though the cultural and political differences between coastline and mainland Turkish people kind of verifies this assumption. Just have a look at this map of the 2009 local elections in Turkey ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/2009turkeyelections.jpg/800px-2009turkeyelections.jpg

aside from istanbul (which has been flooded by migrants from the mainland) most coastlines have been taken by the opposition

+++++++++++++++++++++



The other user, @Sfanky, enters immediatly putting forward a kind of turkish patriotism… refusing to play the "European game", and plainly refusing to see himself through European eyes…


i believe europe dont want turkey because europe is not democratic enough..
EU is just a new name of holy crusade in this years.

thats why if they accept turkey there will be no more holy crusade;
it will became open for every religion every people, so the real democracy will come:)

i dont believe any other needles reasons that eu tells turkey.
turkey is 10times better then so many countrys in EU.

EU can accept turkey or not; its realy not important for me,because i know we are in europe since 1453, and no one can chance this...

I don’t agree with him, that “Europe do not accept Turkey because it is not democratic”, and some other things.

However, my sympathies are for this last user. He has the attitude that I recommend for every Turk and for Turkey itself: Do not play the European game.

Now, it may sound as “radical” and “offensive” to some European readers. Here, I will say that the issue of Turkey IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK.

You may think, that whats going on is simply if Turkey enters or not the EU.

In reality, the issue is not if Turkey will enter the EU (it will not), but if the regime of Turkey, could be used as a tool to create problems to Russia, Iran and others… and for that, the regimes of Germany, Israel and the USA (I am not sure if France too), require a mafiosi regime in Turkey.

That is whats going on. And only a strong Turkish nationalism, not deluded with the “European illusion” will prevent that to happen.

@Sfanky is concious of that, and @Cozy, is not.

Regards.

Maciamo
26-12-09, 14:47
For certain, Turkey does not fit in culturally. I won't even deal with the ethnic / racial aspects...

In my experience, many Aegean-coast (upper-middle class) Turks could just pass for Europeans physically, as well as in their behaviour and values. Many of them don't care much about religion, dress scantily at the beach, drink alcohol and are more secular than many Poles or Irish. Eastern Turks are quite different though. Had Morocco been part of Spain like the Canaries, I don't think it would have been accepted as an EU member. If there was a way for Western Turkey only to join the EU, I am pretty sure they'd already be in. But that's not possible. Turkey's problem is that it has people who would qualify as EU members and others who certainly wouldn't. It's not really the same, but how would you feel about granting visa exemption to South African citizens ? I am sure nobody here would have any problem with the rich, educated Anglo-Dutch part of the population. But what about the rest ? Many Europeans opposed Romania's accession to the EU because of the gypsies. They were a minority, so they were overlooked for the benefit of the larger Romanian population. Now there are gypsies begging at every traffic light in Brussels. lol

^ lynx ^
26-12-09, 17:06
baddy baddy spaniards and portugueses racists :rolleyes2:

Here it comes europhobia/spanishphobia and harassment... some latinamericans just can't let go their traumas.


I voted "NO"... not so much for the "benefit" of Europe (I will not discuss that here), but for the benefit of Turkey.

Excuse me but why did you vote? Is Mexico part of the EU now? :indifferent:

This is not your problem. Just like Ciudad Juarez or Chiapas is not an european problem. :disappointed:

Chris
10-01-10, 22:51
One can rationalise this issue on a political level or listen to the people. I know - that's a radical concept, given the paternalistic 'government knows best' nature of modern democracy. Give the issue to referenda in each EU country. I know - it's radical, but I know what the result would be, and this debate would become irrelavent.

Michael Folkesson
20-02-10, 21:34
I think that Turkey is important for Europe for a number of reasons. Security, energy and trade are some important issues. It's a neighbor country along the important Black Sea, the gate to middle-east and through it goes some of the very important pipelines to Europe.
I don't think the argument that Turkey is not a European culture is correct as it is both European and middle-eastern in it's character, and the Geographical Criteria - even as meaningless as it is - doesn't exclude Turkey either.
But for yet a number of reasons I don't see that this country qualifies to membership, and it doesn't seem like they will in the close future. We need good relations with Turkey, and with a status of Privileged Partner I think the benefits would be mutual. I think compromising the values of the European Union to squeeze in another member, however important, would be detrimental.
One problem with Turkey is that it has since long clearly stated sine qua non regarding relations with EU and membership. I don't know about the likelihood of Turkey distancing itself from Europe in case of failed accession, but that is not in the interest of Europe either. As I've said, I think the future holds other solutions than full membership, and I think the negotiations should turn in that direction. If Turkey don't make significant improvement and make concessions regarding the Cyprus issue, my guess is that is what will happen.

edao
21-02-10, 19:01
I voted yes, however I think the religious issues within the country would have to be resolved before hand. I have no issue with muslims or a predominantly muslim culture if certain issues are resolved. I do think that the expansion of the EU is perhaps moving to quickly and more time should be given to allow greater stability between the various countries.

One point I think we all have to get over is this idea of us and them, the idea that the arab world is to be shunted and diregarded, and that if Turkey has ties to a different culture it should stick with them because they are not "one of us". In this day and age I find that a remarkable backward idea.

I agree any arguements based on genetic or geographic reasoning are ridiculous. In the modern world ideas of nationality are being redefined, so just because your ancestors are from one nation doesnt mean a second generation african immigrant residing in your country is any less part of your culture. If genetic heritage was the only consideration the entire French national side (football/soccer) should be disqualified from their right to play under the french flag.

Andalublue
23-02-10, 22:43
Why can't I vote?

Andalublue
23-02-10, 22:56
But for yet a number of reasons I don't see that this country qualifies to membership, and it doesn't seem like they will in the close future. We need good relations with Turkey, and with a status of Privileged Partner I think the benefits would be mutual. I think compromising the values of the European Union to squeeze in another member, however important, would be detrimental.

what are these "numbers of reasons", Michael? Please be specific so that they can be addressed.


As I've said, I think the future holds other solutions than full membership, and I think the negotiations should turn in that direction. If Turkey don't make significant improvement and make concessions regarding the Cyprus issue, my guess is that is what will happen.

The Cyprus issue is a difficult one but the entire burden of concessions does not fall upon Turkey. Had the Greek Cypriots accepted the Annan Plan in the referendum, as the Turkish Cypriots did, then the issue would have been resolved. Why should Turkey be penalised for the behaviour of an EU member over which they have no control?

Michael Folkesson
24-02-10, 07:21
@Andalublue

Well, there are many issues with Turkey. These are some.

Yes, the Cyprus issue does not fall on Turkey alone, though Turkey must be forthcoming in that respect, accepting greek cypriot rights and work for unification of Cyprus from the Turkish side.

Furthermore cultural, democratic and representative rights for the Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.

Reverse and refrain from banning minority parties and representatives in parliament, and the lowering the 10 % electoral threshold making it hard or impossible for minority representation.

A Strengthened status of Christian and other religious minorities.

Stalling. With only one chapter closed out of 33 there seems to be a lack of political will in the acquis reform process. How many years will they stay in process?

Full disclosure and commitment to combat Grey Wolves activity in Turkey and Europe.

Human trafficking. Turkey is a significant destination and transit country of human trafficking. This must be addressed and significantly combated.

The indications of Turkey as a "deep state".

Removing or dampening outspoken anti-semite propaganda from tv and other media and resumed relations with Israel.

Lack of support. The approval number of membership in Turkey is 45 % and falling and in Europe it is 31 %.

Enlargement fatigue. There has been a rapid and impressive enlargement of EU in a few years. I think that the EU needs time to consolidate as a Union, deal with current issues and fluctuating support. There is risk for failure of legitimacy of EU policy and institution with a lack of support for further enlargement of the magnitude of Turkish membership.

---

Let me ask you this in turn, why are you against a "Privilieged Partner" status? Why do you want to let a strong pseudo-democracy into the EU? Becoming a Privileged Partner does not exclude future membership, but it does not condone faltering democracy either. Why should we compromise with European democratic values for yet another member, a member that could become a member when they show that they can live up to European values. They are being shoe horned into the Copenhagen political criteria. Why would we accept less of Turkey than demanded of previous candidates?

The plus of Turkish membership

- They have a large market, strong production and economy.
- A Muslim nation. A strengthened international credibility of EU and influence for cooperation in Great Middle-East and the muslim world.

Andalublue
24-02-10, 20:37
@Andalublue

Well, there are many issues with Turkey. These are some.

Yes, the Cyprus issue does not fall on Turkey alone, though Turkey must be forthcoming in that respect, accepting greek cypriot rights and work for unification of Cyprus from the Turkish side.

Furthermore cultural, democratic and representative rights for the Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.

Reverse and refrain from banning minority parties and representatives in parliament, and the lowering the 10 % electoral threshold making it hard or impossible for minority representation.

A Strengthened status of Christian and other religious minorities.

Stalling. With only one chapter closed out of 33 there seems to be a lack of political will in the acquis reform process. How many years will they stay in process?

Full disclosure and commitment to combat Grey Wolves activity in Turkey and Europe.

Human trafficking. Turkey is a significant destination and transit country of human trafficking. This must be addressed and significantly combated.

The indications of Turkey as a "deep state".

Removing or dampening outspoken anti-semite propaganda from tv and other media and resumed relations with Israel.

Lack of support. The approval number of membership in Turkey is 45 % and falling and in Europe it is 31 %.

Enlargement fatigue. There has been a rapid and impressive enlargement of EU in a few years. I think that the EU needs time to consolidate as a Union, deal with current issues and fluctuating support. There is risk for failure of legitimacy of EU policy and institution with a lack of support for further enlargement of the magnitude of Turkish membership.

---

Let me ask you this in turn, why are you against a "Privilieged Partner" status? Why do you want to let a strong pseudo-democracy into the EU? Becoming a Privileged Partner does not exclude future membership, but it does not condone faltering democracy either. Why should we compromise with European democratic values for yet another member, a member that could become a member when they show that they can live up to European values. They are being shoe horned into the Copenhagen political criteria. Why would we accept less of Turkey than demanded of previous candidates?

The plus of Turkish membership

- They have a large market, strong production and economy.
- A Muslim nation. A strengthened international credibility of EU and influence for cooperation in Great Middle-East and the muslim world.

Okay, that was specific. Thanks for taking the time to go into detail.

You make a few good points and a few very poor ones.

Firstly, let me say that I am not Turkish but spend a month or two there each year. I am English and live in Spain. I support the EU and wish to see it strong and successful. There are some types who argue for Turkish EU membership from a point of view of simply attacking the European project, these types often come from a Euro-sceptic or Atlanticist perspective. I'm not one of those.

I would like to see Turkish accession to full EU membership for a number of reasons.


We are building a Europe based on neighbourliness and shared goals and ambitions for prosperity, peace and development. Turkish membership would greatly enhance the prospects of fulfilling these ambitions.
Geographically Turkey has as good a claim to being European as many EU members and better than several such as Cyprus and Malta. It's certainly a better claim than candidate nations like Iceland.
Some arguments for preventing Turkish accession are based on arguments that have no basis in the EU constitution, such as cultural or religious differences.

Now to your points:



Cyprus. As I said previously, had Cyprus reunited via the Annan Plan all these issues would have been resolved. Turkey is not blocking negotiations on reunification, quite the reverse, it has attempted to support the process. What it cannot do is unilaterally accede to all Greek Cypriot demands without ensuring the safety and fair treatment of the Turkish Cypriot population. Reciprocity is the key to a resolution of the Cyprus situation.
Cultural and democratic rights for minority communities. All Turkish citizens have the right to vote and seek election. Neither Kurds nor Armenians are prevented from participating in the democratic process. Do you mean by your point that the Kurdish secessionist movement should be allowed freedom to campaign for a separate state? If so, I agree, provided such campaigning is peaceful. There are several EU members who have such secessionist movements but none have negotiated with violent, insurgent groups (think of the IRA and ETA). Please be more specific about what you would like Turkey to do.
Human trafficking. Yes, Turkey needs to be serious about this. It also needs help because it is being used as a transit country for trafficking into the EU. The EU has failed equally lamentably to tackle the end market for human traffickers. Several states e.g. Italy and Spain, deliberately fail to clamp down because of the effect of ending the trade would have on their agricultural sector.
Deep state. Are you referring to the strong role of the military in the Turkish state? If so, you are right, it is an issue. The establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 accorded the military with an important role in safe-guarding the secular nature of the republic. It is seen as one of the checks-and-balances that prevents Turkey from becoming a theocracy or oligarchy. Not all EU states have the same checks-and-balances. Some have established churches which perform a similar function. Again, what would you have Turkey do?
Israel. This is a non-issue. The Turkish relationship with Israel has been one of the strongest and most important in maintaining some kind of Moslem-Jewish dialogue. The bonds of friendship are very strong. The Turkish Jewish population is large and well integrated into Turkish society. The current situation was created by the Gaza invasion and by the current Israeli government's aggressive defence of its actions. Turkish responses to this have been considerably more diplomatic and non-confrontational than a number of EU members.
Lack of support. Domestically support for EU membership is falling, no doubt. This is happening because of what the Turkish population sees as discriminatory and prejudiced behaviour on behalf of the EU. Turkey is being called upon to fulfil demands that no other candidate nations have been asked to fulfil, especially in economic terms. You can't treat a candidate unfairly and then use the disenchantment that this causes as another stick with which to beat it.



Pseudo-democracy. What do you mean by this? Turkish democratic institutions do require updating and improving. Certainly issues of free speech need to be tackled. Banning peaceful political parties using spurious references to the constitution is not acceptable. You will find that much of this kind of activity still goes on in a number of EU members too. Spain, the UK, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece have all seen comparable democratic failings whilst maintaining or gaining EU membership.

Turkish patience with EU double standards may not last forever. Who could blame them for beginning to forge stronger links with Middle Eastern neighbours in preference to European neighbours when it seems that for the EU neighbourliness only seems to work one way.

I have nothing against privileged partner status for Turkey, it would be an excellent solution for those Europeans who want the benefits of Turkish membership without any of them returning to benefit the Turkish people. I asked a few people about this when I was in Turkey during December and January. Most people I spoke to told me that the EU could, in more or less similar terms, shove it up its arse! They see the suggestion as an insult, something to try to disguise Europe's inherent anti-Turkish, Islamophobic prejudice.

Michael Folkesson
25-02-10, 02:37
Double post

Michael Folkesson
25-02-10, 02:42
I am not sure what you mean by Turkey is more European than Iceland. I can only gather that Turkey is more in agreement with who you are as a person. It sure is more sprawling, with the gigantic metrolpol that is Istanbul, Europe's biggest city. I think that you didn't mean to imply that Scandinavia is less European than other parts of Europe, but to illustrate how much more European than Asian Turkey is.

• I would have them not banning parties that is elected into the parliament, like the Kurdish Democratic Society Party with thin evidence from what I can tell, when they push for reform.

• I was talking about that political parties have to win 10 percent of overall votes to join the parliament in a general election in Turkey. This can prove difficult or impossible for a minority to get representation in that parliament. I just read a statement that they "might" drop that after pressure from EU. If that happens it is good.

• Are you saying that a huge portion of the work in the agrucultural sector in Spain and Italy depends on victims of trafficking from the east? I think you are talking about clandestines. I was referring to Turkish sex slave trade. They kept or sold further to the Middle-East and further into Europe. From what I have read, this is not insignificant and the "natashas" are not uncommon. Of course, Turkey is not alone in this a trade that it has in common with most of the f. eastern bloc; Romania, Albania, the Balkans et al. A problem is that the sex trade - which is legal with registration - is used to "recruit" these women without their consent. I am aware that there are eastern women who work willingly and that you cannot easily see on a person if she has been raped and beaten into submission or has made a consensual choice. It is a problem the police have to deal with. As Turkey is a major country in this trade, they have to take the responsibility for it. They are actually doing a lot, and the trade is of course international, which is a problem by itself. Maybe you can agree that a persistent problem like that, if it's not significantly combated, might just surge with open borders.

• Yes. They are the diplomats of the muslim world. But their squabble over who has the highest chair in the room was not their proudest moment. I am not sure it is a non-issue though. As it seems like turks have increasingly turned to Islamic extremism, in travels to and association with extremists and training in pakistan, as well as rising anti-semitism I think it's more important than ever to have a good relationship with Israel. This is my impression from news. I could be wrong. I do know that Turkey has increased islamification and is the source and center of the Muslim version of Intelligent Design. I could only speculate that with such a young population, nationalism and an Islamic identity might appeal. It usually does. One need only look at youth in Europe, with parties like BNP shooting up. With that I mean to say that there is a radicalization that we in that case have in common, as there is a rise of extreme right support all over Europe.

• Ok. What are the demands that are more than normal? Troop withdrawal from Cyprus? Implementing the Ankara Protocol? Is that what you mean? Why would that be uncalled for?

• I think one also have to consider - regarding Enlargement Fatigue -that the admission of Romania and Bulgaria was less than a win-win, and people are less excited by enlargement even further east at the moment. Little support for this makes it's possible that there is disturbance to the negotiations from EU's part. It is no secret that - for one - France is not in favor. Of course, that is pure speculation.

• Yes. Pseudo-democracy was a bit much I agree. Iran is a pseudo-democracy. Although, I still have the impression of a country with democratic problems. Like the article 301 insulting Turkey etc., banning gay rights organisations for "violating morality". Even though the ban was revoked, it speaks of a problematic attitude.


__________

I do read that Turkey is making improvements. Probably more than I know about. The Honor killings in Turkey is a problem, as they are predominantly recurring due to Kurdish honor culture and in that area. As far as I know, Turkey does work to change that. Though I understand that this is hard to influence directly, and little is stopped.

I think it would help though, if they were to address and make up with the past and the Armenian genocide. And consider the Grey Wolves and nationalism a societal problem.

Yes, all or nothing, I know. Though, I feel like you have the impression of a Turkey that is being victimized, that they are very complying but is worked against during the negotiations, and that there is little or nothing for Europe to be concerned about in Turkish society, at least nothing that would be a cause for reconsidering or delaying their admission. Is this so?

LeBrok
25-02-10, 06:46
Gentlemen, I stand enlightened, great discussion. I learned more through 15 minutes of reading here about Turkey, than 20 years of watching Canadian TV, lol.

TurkYusuf1
25-02-10, 10:13
I'm originally from Baghdad, Iraq and am what is called an "Iraqi Turkmen/Turk" and have spent most of my life in Ankara, Turkey. For those of you who don't know, the Iraqi Turkmens are the descendants of the Turkic tribes that migrated to Anatolia/Asia Minor, Southeastern Europe (specifically the Balkans) and Middle East from their original homeland in the Altai Mountains (where China, Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, most specifically Kazakhstan connect and is considered the birthplace of Turks and Turkic culture and heritage as well as history of it's people). They are descendants of the Oghuz Turks who in turn come from the Ak (white) and Kara (black) Koyunlu (sheep) Turcomans or Turkmens. Anyway to sum it up, I consider myself a pure Turk. Now to the issue of Turkey's accession into EU. I understand that many Europeans are worried and do not want this to become true due to several reasons that they provide. I believe that the religious and cultural issues are nonsense as it seems like a second degree treatment leading to racism for the Turks because there are already predominantly Muslim countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania in EU already. Also Turkey is a uniquely constructed Muslim country as it is perhaps the only real secular democracy in the Muslim world despite it's population being 99% Muslim. Turkey has been part of Europe since the beginnings and conquests of the previous Ottoman Turkish Empire (1299-1923) and has shared and integrated its culture into European culture especially with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples. It was perhaps the only empire during it's time to have been known where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived and coexisted peacefully for the most part despite some problems between these religions at certain times. Like someone already mentioned here before Turkey (and especially the former Ottoman Empire) is considered a Muslim successor to the Roman and Byzantine Greek Empires. Today in Turkey you can see evidence of this as many Turks especially in the Central and Western parts of the country look "white and European" as they have features like blue/green eyes, brown or even some blond haired people, etc. Also these people in those parts of the country also have Western and European behavior as well as they are not very religious and often drink, smoke, go to clubs, dress in t-shirt, jeans, skirts, shorts, etc. However the people in the Eastern parts of the country especially in the areas where the Kurds make up the majority are very religious and might I say backward thinking. But despite everything most of the Turks do not want to be part of EU as they don't want European laws to apply to them and for several other reasons as they still respect their somewhat Islamic and Turkish way of life. Now economically and especially militarily Turkey would make an excellent addition to EU as it is a rapidly growing economy (17th in GDP nominal and 15th in GDP PPP - Purchasing Power Parity), and the largest and richest Islamic economy/country, is also between the 6th-8th biggest military spender/budget of the world with over $40 billion dollars. It is also ranked between the 8th-10th most powerful militaries in the world according to many sources and are considered the most powerful Islamic as well as Middle Eastern, Central and Western Asian military power. I live in Canada and am studying in my second year in university in a double major in political science and history and have done my own research on militaries, economies, etc. on Turkey and many other nations of the world so I speak from my studies as well as my own personal research from many sources with these statistics. The Kurdish problem is often misunderstood in the Western and European world as it is not a Kurdish problem but a problem with a separatist/terrorist/communist organization called PKK (Partiye Karkeriye Kurdistan or Kurdistan Workers' Party) as they have been fighting in a civil war against the Turkish Army and Armed Forces overall for 25+ years since 1984 in southeastern parts of Turkey. This organization does not represent the Kurdish people in Turkey as I personally know many Kurds in and outside of Turkey as well as having Kurdish blood in me that they don't agree or support this group (my father is half Kurd and half Turkmen while my mother is full Turkmen making me 75% Turkmen or Turk and 25% Kurdish ethnically). This is due to the attacks on Kurds themselves from PKK on grounds that they are helping the Turkish military. The population of Turkey is 76 million people according the latest results from 2010, which consists of 50 million Turks, 15-18 million Kurds and 5-7 million Laz, Circassian, Chechens, Armenian, Greek, Bosniac, and other non-Turkish mainly Balkan and Caucasus even Central Asian people. So the Kurds are not really a minority but a large group of people inhabiting mostly southeastern but even some small parts of central as well as western Turkey. I do agree that the Kurds should be given some rights perhaps political or more open cultural representation rather than geographical like the PKK is pursuing to achieve from the Turkish government. The Kurds also inhabit neighbouring Iraq (where they consist 7-8 million or 20% of the population), Iran (another 7-8 million or about 10% of the population) and to a small extent Syria (about 1-2 million or 10% of the population) and along with the Kurdish diaspora around Europe, North America and other parts of the world make up about 45+ million Kurds in total. So a geographical recognition and the establishment of Kurdistan is out of the question as none of these nations I listed above will allow this to happen because parts of all 4 of these countries would have to be ceded to the Kurds, which is an unrealistic solution as it would lead to more problems and hostility between everyone in the region. The Armenian dispute should be looked more into and the Turkish government has invited Armenia and everyone else willing to work on it to open up archives and documents from both Turkey and Armenia to look into details of the issue and the tragic events that happened during WWI with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and actions of both Armenians and Turks against each other. Turkey has also opened its border with Armenia and the governments are willing to resume diplomatic relations and resolve the issues between them. The Cyprus dispute should be agreed upon both by Greece and Turkey as the island consists of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Unification should be achieved under mutually benefitial and fair agreements between the Turks, Greeks and the Cypriots as a whole. I know this was a very long response but hope I was clear enough and tried to back up my opinions and facts as well as I could. Greetings to everyone.

Starship
25-02-10, 14:56
Yeah I agree with Lebrok a very decent discussion.

I was pro Turkey joining the EU before and nothing here has changed my mind, but I tell you what, to sweeten the deal give us back Constantinople and your a shoe in.:grin:

Cambrius (The Red)
25-02-10, 16:52
I'm originally from Baghdad, Iraq and am what is called an "Iraqi Turkmen/Turk" and have spent most of my life in Ankara, Turkey. For those of you who don't know, the Iraqi Turkmens are the descendants of the Turkic tribes that migrated to Anatolia/Asia Minor, Southeastern Europe (specifically the Balkans) and Middle East from their original homeland in the Altai Mountains (where China, Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, most specifically Kazakhstan connect and is considered the birthplace of Turks and Turkic culture and heritage as well as history of it's people). They are descendants of the Oghuz Turks who in turn come from the Ak (white) and Kara (black) Koyunlu (sheep) Turcomans or Turkmens. Anyway to sum it up, I consider myself a pure Turk. Now to the issue of Turkey's accession into EU. I understand that many Europeans are worried and do not want this to become true due to several reasons that they provide. I believe that the religious and cultural issues are nonsense as it seems like a second degree treatment leading to racism for the Turks because there are already predominantly Muslim countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania in EU already. Also Turkey is a uniquely constructed Muslim country as it is perhaps the only real secular democracy in the Muslim world despite it's population being 99% Muslim. Turkey has been part of Europe since the beginnings and conquests of the previous Ottoman Turkish Empire (1299-1923) and has shared and integrated its culture into European culture especially with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples. It was perhaps the only empire during it's time to have been known where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived and coexisted peacefully for the most part despite some problems between these religions at certain times. Like someone already mentioned here before Turkey (and especially the former Ottoman Empire) is considered a Muslim successor to the Roman and Byzantine Greek Empires. Today in Turkey you can see evidence of this as many Turks especially in the Central and Western parts of the country look "white and European" as they have features like blue/green eyes, brown or even some blond haired people, etc. Also these people in those parts of the country also have Western and European behavior as well as they are not very religious and often drink, smoke, go to clubs, dress in t-shirt, jeans, skirts, shorts, etc. However the people in the Eastern parts of the country especially in the areas where the Kurds make up the majority are very religious and might I say backward thinking. But despite everything most of the Turks do not want to be part of EU as they don't want European laws to apply to them and for several other reasons as they still respect their somewhat Islamic and Turkish way of life. Now economically and especially militarily Turkey would make an excellent addition to EU as it is a rapidly growing economy (17th in GDP nominal and 15th in GDP PPP - Purchasing Power Parity), and the largest and richest Islamic economy/country, is also between the 6th-8th biggest military spender/budget of the world with over $40 billion dollars. It is also ranked between the 8th-10th most powerful militaries in the world according to many sources and are considered the most powerful Islamic as well as Middle Eastern, Central and Western Asian military power. I live in Canada and am studying in my second year in university in a double major in political science and history and have done my own research on militaries, economies, etc. on Turkey and many other nations of the world so I speak from my studies as well as my own personal research from many sources with these statistics. The Kurdish problem is often misunderstood in the Western and European world as it is not a Kurdish problem but a problem with a separatist/terrorist/communist organization called PKK (Partiye Karkeriye Kurdistan or Kurdistan Workers' Party) as they have been fighting in a civil war against the Turkish Army and Armed Forces overall for 25+ years since 1984 in southeastern parts of Turkey. This organization does not represent the Kurdish people in Turkey as I personally know many Kurds in and outside of Turkey as well as having Kurdish blood in me that they don't agree or support this group (my father is half Kurd and half Turkmen while my mother is full Turkmen making me 75% Turkmen or Turk and 25% Kurdish ethnically). This is due to the attacks on Kurds themselves from PKK on grounds that they are helping the Turkish military. The population of Turkey is 76 million people according the latest results from 2010, which consists of 50 million Turks, 15-18 million Kurds and 5-7 million Laz, Circassian, Chechens, Armenian, Greek, Bosniac, and other non-Turkish mainly Balkan and Caucasus even Central Asian people. So the Kurds are not really a minority but a large group of people inhabiting mostly southeastern but even some small parts of central as well as western Turkey. I do agree that the Kurds should be given some rights perhaps political or more open cultural representation rather than geographical like the PKK is pursuing to achieve from the Turkish government. The Kurds also inhabit neighbouring Iraq (where they consist 7-8 million or 20% of the population), Iran (another 7-8 million or about 10% of the population) and to a small extent Syria (about 1-2 million or 10% of the population) and along with the Kurdish diaspora around Europe, North America and other parts of the world make up about 45+ million Kurds in total. So a geographical recognition and the establishment of Kurdistan is out of the question as none of these nations I listed above will allow this to happen because parts of all 4 of these countries would have to be ceded to the Kurds, which is an unrealistic solution as it would lead to more problems and hostility between everyone in the region. The Armenian dispute should be looked more into and the Turkish government has invited Armenia and everyone else willing to work on it to open up archives and documents from both Turkey and Armenia to look into details of the issue and the tragic events that happened during WWI with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and actions of both Armenians and Turks against each other. Turkey has also opened its border with Armenia and the governments are willing to resume diplomatic relations and resolve the issues between them. The Cyprus dispute should be agreed upon both by Greece and Turkey as the island consists of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Unification should be achieved under mutually benefitial and fair agreements between the Turks, Greeks and the Cypriots as a whole. I know this was a very long response but hope I was clear enough and tried to back up my opinions and facts as well as I could. Greetings to everyone.

Thank you for the information. At best, Turkish E.U. membership is highly problematic. In my opinion, the E.U. has expanded far too fast and it would actually be much better off with fewer members, not more.

BTW, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania are NOT part of the E.U.

Andalublue
25-02-10, 20:51
I am not sure what you mean by Turkey is more European than Iceland. I can only gather that Turkey is more in agreement with who you are as a person. It sure is more sprawling, with the gigantic metrolpol that is Istanbul, Europe's biggest city. I think that you didn't mean to imply that Scandinavia is less European than other parts of Europe, but to illustrate how much more European than Asian Turkey is.

I didn't mention Scandinavia. I was talking about so-called "geographical" criteria. Turkey is contiguously European. It is a part of the European continental land-mass. It's a slightly daft criterion but if you are using it off-shore islands such as the British Isles, Iceland, Malta and Cyprus are geographically less European than Turkey.




• I would have them not banning parties that is elected into the parliament, like the Kurdish Democratic Society Party with thin evidence from what I can tell, when they push for reform.
Not thin, but certainly dubious and contentious. My whole point, however, is that Turkey must be judged by the same criteria that are applied to current EU members and other candidate states. Spain and the UK have both banned political parties represented in parliament on almost identical justifications as those used by the Turkish Constitutional Court.



• I was talking about that political parties have to win 10 percent of overall votes to join the parliament in a general election in Turkey. This can prove difficult or impossible for a minority to get representation in that parliament. I just read a statement that they "might" drop that after pressure from EU. If that happens it is good. Normally candidate countries need to implement a whole raft of constitutional changes, usually approved by plebiscite, in order to meet EU regulations. Turkish accession would require the same, I'm sure. Have they indicated that they reject constitutional changes?


• Are you saying that a huge portion of the work in the agrucultural sector in Spain and Italy depends on victims of trafficking from the east? I think you are talking about clandestines. I was referring to Turkish sex slave trade. They kept or sold further to the Middle-East and further into Europe. From what I have read, this is not insignificant and the "natashas" are not uncommon. Of course, Turkey is not alone in this a trade that it has in common with most of the f. eastern bloc; Romania, Albania, the Balkans et al. A problem is that the sex trade - which is legal with registration - is used to "recruit" these women without their consent. I am aware that there are eastern women who work willingly and that you cannot easily see on a person if she has been raped and beaten into submission or has made a consensual choice. It is a problem the police have to deal with. As Turkey is a major country in this trade, they have to take the responsibility for it. They are actually doing a lot, and the trade is of course international, which is a problem by itself. Maybe you can agree that a persistent problem like that, if it's not significantly combated, might just surge with open borders. International sex trafficking is a problem for the whole of Europe. You admit Turkey is doing a lot to combat it. What is the difference between Turkish efforts and those of existing EU members? What makes this a stumbling block to accession?



• Yes. They are the diplomats of the muslim world. But their squabble over who has the highest chair in the room was not their proudest moment. I am not sure it is a non-issue though. As it seems like turks have increasingly turned to Islamic extremism, in travels to and association with extremists and training in pakistan, as well as rising anti-semitism I think it's more important than ever to have a good relationship with Israel. This is my impression from news. I could be wrong. I do know that Turkey has increased islamification and is the source and center of the Muslim version of Intelligent Design. I could only speculate that with such a young population, nationalism and an Islamic identity might appeal. It usually does. One need only look at youth in Europe, with parties like BNP shooting up. With that I mean to say that there is a radicalization that we in that case have in common, as there is a rise of extreme right support all over Europe. The "highest chair" issue was nothing to do with Turkey. It was entirely the invention of an extremist, right-wing Israeli minister. He was the one hosting the meeting, placing the Turkish ambassador in a subservient position and then having it pointed out by the media present. Had this happened to a Swedish diplomat you would have been rightfully outraged too. It was extremely undiplomatic behaviour on Israel's part - an act of revenge for Turkey expressing its disapproval of Israel's invasion of Gaza, something the EU protested too.



• Ok. What are the demands that are more than normal? Troop withdrawal from Cyprus? Implementing the Ankara Protocol? Is that what you mean? Why would that be uncalled for?No, I'm talking about the fact that the solution to the Cypriot issue was not held up as a block to Greek Cypriot accession to the EU and yet it IS being used as a block to Turkish accession. This is clearly unfair and prejudicial treatment. It imposes conditions on Turkey that are over and above those imposed on Cyprus.

The issue of the Ankara Protocols is simple. The Turks are demanding that the reciprocal agreement to open ports and airports should happen simultaneously. Greek Cyprus, and thereby the EU, is refusing. It demands that Turkey accedes to open ports without the EU doing likewise.



• I think one also have to consider - regarding Enlargement Fatigue -that the admission of Romania and Bulgaria was less than a win-win, and people are less excited by enlargement even further east at the moment. Little support for this makes it's possible that there is disturbance to the negotiations from EU's part. It is no secret that - for one - France is not in favor. Of course, that is pure speculation. Well, this is where we get into muddy water. You can hardly blame the Turks for smelling something rotten when suddenly, after decades of rapid enlargement, the EU decides it's tired of enlargement, that the EU is too big. What? You mean just as the first Moslem state is poised to join, you decide you don't want any more members? Hmmm?


• Yes. Pseudo-democracy was a bit much I agree. Iran is a pseudo-democracy. Although, I still have the impression of a country with democratic problems. Like the article 301 insulting Turkey etc., banning gay rights organisations for "violating morality". Even though the ban was revoked, it speaks of a problematic attitude. Turkey will have some hard political pills to swallow if it does join. It especially has problems in regard to free speech and the rights of minorities. But if it is prepared to sign up to EU regulations it will have a major liberalising impact on the country. You talk about the culture of honour killings (although I think many EU countries are not unfamiliar with this problem) and nationalism and yet want to push Turkey away from closer cultural ties with its liberal democratic EU neighbours. That makes no sense.

As far as the Grey Wolves issue (that's a very outdated name, btw), you mean militarist nationalism undermining democratic process, no? Well Turkey couldn't be giving you a better signal by the ongoing inquiries and arrests and trials of right-wing coup plotters. They are taking a much stronger line than did Spain after the 1981 coup attempt or did Greece with the Colonels.

The Armenian Genocide is not really a matter for debate in this context. It took place before Turkey existed as nation and must be seen as something that the Turkish people have to sort out for themselves. The EU did not demand Spain implement the law of historical memory in order to gain EU accession. It did not demand the UK apologise for the concentration camps of the Boer War, the genocide of Australian aborigines, or the massacres of the Indian mutiny. Spain did not have to accept, explain or make reparations for the genocide of the pre-Colombian populations of Latin America. Again, it is operating double standards to suggest that this should have bearing on Turkish accession.

Is Turkey being victimised? No. Is it having double standards applied to it's accession negotiations? Most certainly, yes.

TurkYusuf1
26-02-10, 00:54
Yeah no problem my friend. Yes I agree it is a problematic issue for both Turkey and EU but it will eventually have to be acknowledged and although I don't fully support their accession into the union, I do believe that they will eventually be allowed to be let in as Turkey's is pursuing projects that are vital to Europe and EU's needs such as the deals that Turkey has signed with Azerbaijan and Russia that will bring gas and oil to Europe through Turkey, also like I mentioned earlier Turkey's rapid economic growth as well as their growing military power will also make the idea of letting them in more attractive as it will make the EU more powerful. However I do agree that it has its pros and cons for both Turkey and EU if this happens but I guess we will all just have to wait and see what happens in the next 5 or so years when time is up and a decision has to be made. Oh yeah and I'm sorry about mentioning Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania as members of EU when they weren't I forgot about that after you said that they weren't I checked and sorry about my mistake. Greetings.

Beefree
01-03-10, 17:53
In my opinion it shouldn't. In fact I think it should give up some of its European, such as Istanbul and the lands West of it.
What do you think?


:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: Of couurseeee... Why didn't we think of it before???
One morning, Prime Minister of Turkey wakes up and makes an anouncement to the Turkish public: "Ok guys, What about a kind donation to our European buddies who love us sooooo much? Let's give up the western part of our country. The pieces of it will be distributed by lottery to the EU members... What do you say? Are you in?" And the Turkish public will applaud.....
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: :laughing:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, what about a piece of Greece given to America? Are you in???:good_job::good_job:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you come from outer space, man, or what?????
I don't think that there's an intelligent person somewhere in this world who would make such a suggestion!!!
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: :laughing::laughing:

Cambrius (The Red)
01-03-10, 20:58
Why all this discussion about adding Turkey to the E.U.? Very unlikely it will happen anyway, for reasons already presented repeatedly. The last thing the E.U. needs is more expansion, given its many problems.

Tautalos
02-03-10, 01:48
Turkey is not geografically European.
Turkey is not ethnically European, generally speaking.
Turkey is an old enemy of Europe.
Turkey is Muslim - and, contrary to what many people think, is leaving secularism behind and returning to Islamism.
Turkey does not respect human rights in Kurdistan, it does not respect Cyprus and, above all, it did not recognize the Armenian genocide, and it even tries to avoid the world recognition of such massacre (now imagine the German State refusing to admit the Holocaust, or Austria being ruled by some new Haider who dare to doubt the holocaust, how many international boycotts would then take place against this Central European Nation...)

Indeed, there is absolutely no reason to accept Turkey in EU. And all the reasons are against it.

Andalublue
04-03-10, 15:36
Turkey is not geografically European.
Turkey is not ethnically European, generally speaking.
Turkey is an old enemy of Europe.
Turkey is Muslim - and, contrary to what many people think, is leaving secularism behind and returning to Islamism.
Turkey does not respect human rights in Kurdistan, it does not respect Cyprus and, above all, it did not recognize the Armenian genocide, and it even tries to avoid the world recognition of such massacre (now imagine the German State refusing to admit the Holocaust, or Austria being ruled by some new Haider who dare to doubt the holocaust, how many international boycotts would then take place against this Central European Nation...)

Indeed, there is absolutely no reason to accept Turkey in EU. And all the reasons are against it.

This is quite an ignorant and prejudiced contribution.
*Ignorant because Turkey is geographically contiguous with the rest of Europe (unlike Malta, Cyprus, the UK; Ireland).
*Ignorant because you cannot define what "Ethnically European" means.
*Ignorant because since when was Turkey an old enemy of "Europe"? Turkey as a nation did not exist before 1923. What are you talking about?
*Turkey is a secular, Muslim country. Portugal is a secular, catholic country. Britain is a secular, Protestant country. So what? You want a crusade to rid Europe of its historical religious diversity? You want it to be 100% Christian... as it has NEVER been before?
*Tell us, what do you know of the human rights situation of Turkish Kurds? What is your fact-based assessment of the events of 1910-1915 in relation to the deaths of the Anatolian-Armenians under the last days of the Ottoman Empire. If you want to use historical events to attack a modern country you should be able to demonstrate that you understand those events. Do you?

Tautalos
04-03-10, 18:06
This is quite an ignorant and prejudiced contribution.

That's quite an imbecile opinion.



*Ignorant because Turkey is geographically contiguous with the rest of Europe

Contiguous does not mean part of - it means contiguous, i.e., neighbour. Now, if it is neighbour, it is not ours. It's neighbour. It's the other placed nearby us. By your «reasoning», Turkey would be a part of the EU because «it's contiguous» to Europe. Now, Lebanon is contiguous to Turkey, and Israel is contiguous to Lebanon, and Egypt is contiguous to Israel, and Sudan is contiguous to Egypt, and so on... within one year, South Africa would be a part of the EU because «it's contiguous».

So, the above objection is futile.



(unlike Malta, Cyprus, the UK; Ireland).

Malta and Cyprus, and UK and Ireland, and Iceland, belong to another area, entirely European - they are islands, but not pieces of another continent.
So, the above objection is futile and dishonest.



*Ignorant because you cannot define what "Ethnically European" means.

Yes, I can - Ethnically European is Indo-European, or pre-indo-european, like the Basque. Turkey is foreign to that.
So, the above objection is futile and dishonest.



*Ignorant because since when was Turkey an old enemy of "Europe"? Turkey as a nation did not exist before 1923. What are you talking about?

Oh, really. So, Attaturk created an entire new nation, perhaps with aliens from Mars... the entire Turkish past was erased, I see. Funny that still today the oh so modern Turkish State considers as a major offense that someone, in any part of the world, recognizes the genocide against the Armenians, which ocurred before 1923. Now, which could be the reason for that, since Turkey did not exist before 1923? :innocent:



*Turkey is a secular, Muslim country.

First of all, any secular Muslim country is easily turned into a radical Islamic country. Secondly, today's Turkey is getting more and more Islamist by the day. Erdogan is not really secular. Turkey is not acting in a secular way and is against Freedom of Speech in Europe, the very essence of the European spirit.



Portugal is a secular, catholic country. Britain is a secular, Protestant country. So what? You want a crusade to rid Europe of its historical religious diversity? You want it to be 100% Christian...

No. In fact, I want no Christianity at all. But Muslim is even worst.



*Tell us, what do you know of the human rights situation of Turkish Kurds?

They are being oppressed in their own territory. Now, what do YOU know that can deny that?

Not to mention the situation in Cyprus, of course...


What is your fact-based assessment of the events of 1910-1915 in relation to the deaths of the Anatolian-Armenians under the last days of the Ottoman Empire.

The fact-based assessment that nearly one million Armenians were chased and murdered by Turks. And many had to run away, like the Greeks. Again, what do YOU know that denies that?

TurkYusuf1
04-03-10, 19:24
That's quite an imbecile opinion.




Contiguous does not mean part of - it means contiguous, i.e., neighbour. Now, if it is neighbour, it is not ours. It's neighbour. It's the other placed nearby us. By your «reasoning», Turkey would be a part of the EU because «it's contiguous» to Europe. Now, Lebanon is contiguous to Turkey, and Israel is contiguous to Lebanon, and Egypt is contiguous to Israel, and Sudan is contiguous to Egypt, and so on... within one year, South Africa would be a part of the EU because «it's contiguous».

So, the above objection is futile.




Malta and Cyprus, and UK and Ireland, and Iceland, belong to another area, entirely European - they are islands, but not pieces of another continent.
So, the above objection is futile and dishonest.




Yes, I can - Ethnically European is Indo-European, or pre-indo-european, like the Basque. Turkey is foreign to that.
So, the above objection is futile and dishonest.




Oh, really. So, Attaturk created an entire new nation, perhaps with aliens from Mars... the entire Turkish past was erased, I see. Funny that still today the oh so modern Turkish State considers as a major offense that someone, in any part of the world, recognizes the genocide against the Armenians, which ocurred before 1923. Now, which could be the reason for that, since Turkey did not exist before 1923? :innocent:




First of all, any secular Muslim country is easily turned into a radical Islamic country. Secondly, today's Turkey is getting more and more Islamist by the day. Erdogan is not really secular. Turkey is not acting in a secular way and is against Freedom of Speech in Europe, the very essence of the European spirit.




No. In fact, I want no Christianity at all. But Muslim is even worst.




They are being oppressed in their own territory. Now, what do YOU know that can deny that?

Not to mention the situation in Cyprus, of course...



The fact-based assessment that nearly one million Armenians were chased and murdered by Turks. And many had to run away, like the Greeks. Again, what do YOU know that denies that?


Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, Turkey has been geographically, somewhat culturally, ethnically, and politically part of Europe for many centuries. The Ottoman Empire was built on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire and is considered by many historians and analysts as the Muslim successor to both the Roman and Byzantine Empires look it up. Modern Turkey has been part of Europe since the Seljuks came to Anatolia and defeated Byzantines in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 and settled in parts of today's Turkey, then Ottomans came destroyed and ended Byzantines and claimed their territories and expanded further. Even today despite being a very small percentage (3%), Turkey is still geographically part of Europe, ethnically if you go to Central and especially Western even some Eastern parts of Turkey you will see many "European" and "Western" looking Turks with features like blue/green eyes, blond/light brown hair, white, etc. These people are a result of mixing of Turkish culture with Balkan and other European peoples mainly Greeks and other neighbouring areas. Original or pure Turks such as myself have slightly yellowish white skin, Mongoloid, Central Asian looking eyes, facial characteristics and have brown eyes and black hair. I'm not saying Turkey is Indo-European or whatever but over centuries have mixed and become part of Europe ethnically. Ataturk was an admirer of Westernism, modernism, European and Renaissance cultures and is known to have been a fan of French philosophers like Montesquieu, Voltaire and others. Despite fiercely fighting and standing up to European powers of Britain, France, Italy, Greece in and after WWI, he worked tirelessly to build a western and modern nation that resembled Europe as he saw the backwardness and isolation that old traditional Islamic values had done to the Turks. Turkey is perhaps the only Muslim majority country (99% of the nation) with a secular democracy as its system, Islamic sympathizing powers come and go in Turkey. Erdogan despite what people think is actually a perfect balance for Turkey as he is not pressing too much on Islamic policies and still trying to get Turkey in EU and improve relations with Europe. It is considered a major offense in Turkey to acknowledge the so-called Armenian Genocide because people are often biased and ignorant about what really happened in the time period. There were instances of Armenians killing Turks so it was not unprovoked, also only a small portion (mainly the perpetrators and criminals caught) were killed, the rest were deported out of the country to ensure safety of Turkish citizens. Where did you get your facts that Erdogan is against Freedom of Speech, do you have any real proof? "No. In fact, I want no Christianity at all. But Muslim is even worst." what an ignorant comment, why because Christianity is such a great tolerant religion right lol, just look at Spanish Inquisition, British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, French treatment of occupied territories, such a great record isnt it? Don't by hypocritical, atheists like u are even worse, people who don't believe in God or anything are more dangerous and open to inhumane treatment and prejudice than Muslims or Christians. Also the Kurds and PKK (the terrorist organization fighting Turkey) are two different things, get ur facts straight, Turkey is not killing innocent Kurds but fighting against a dangerous radical extremist organization that is seeking territories from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria (where Kurds exist) which is an unrealistic solution to the issue and they are creating hatred and animosity between Turks and Kurds, many Kurds I know personally condemn PKK's actions and have no ill feelings towards Turks. In my opinion political and cultural representation is a more fair solution than a geographic country for the Kurds. Cyprus consists of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots so when Greece attempted to unite the island under Greek "supervision" and started killing and oppressing the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey defended its people and invaded and took over half the island and continues to protect them, there is nothing wrong with that. Get your facts straight, don't be ignorant and biased then come argue in a civilized and respectful manner.

Andalublue
04-03-10, 20:03
That's quite an imbecile opinion.




Contiguous does not mean part of - it means contiguous, i.e., neighbour. Now, if it is neighbour, it is not ours. It's neighbour. It's the other placed nearby us. By your «reasoning», Turkey would be a part of the EU because «it's contiguous» to Europe. Now, Lebanon is contiguous to Turkey, and Israel is contiguous to Lebanon, and Egypt is contiguous to Israel, and Sudan is contiguous to Egypt, and so on... within one year, South Africa would be a part of the EU because «it's contiguous».

So, the above objection is futile.


The word contiguous derives from the Latin for "touching". Hence, Turkey is a part of Europe, touching the rest of Europe, sharing a border with Greece, Bulgaria, Armenia and Georgia. That you don't want to recognise it does not make it incorrect.



Malta and Cyprus, and UK and Ireland, and Iceland, belong to another area, entirely European - they are islands, but not pieces of another continent.
So, the above objection is futile and dishonest.

What "other area, entirely European"? You're now making things up.



Yes, I can - Ethnically European is Indo-European, or pre-indo-european, like the Basque. Turkey is foreign to that.
So, the above objection is futile and dishonest.

I see, Indo-European. You mean Aryan. Or Basque. Or basically whatever you want to define as "European". But definitely NOT Turkish, presumably not Jewish (who are definitely not Indo-european), not Hungarian or Finnish (linguistically definitely not Indo-european). Do you see the idiocy of your definition? Indo-european is a linguistic definition, nothing more. Europe is full of people who do not share Indo-european/Aryan linguistic roots. Your definition is both worthless and, I fear, verging on the racist.



Oh, really. So, Attaturk created an entire new nation, perhaps with aliens from Mars... the entire Turkish past was erased, I see. Funny that still today the oh so modern Turkish State considers as a major offense that someone, in any part of the world, recognizes the genocide against the Armenians, which ocurred before 1923. Now, which could be the reason for that, since Turkey did not exist before 1923? :innocent:


Many historians and governments question the validity of the definition of the Armenian disasters as "genocide". Indeed only a handful insist on using the term. No one denies that widespread killings took place. If you think that they do, please provide evidence. However, what this has to do with Turkish accession to the EU is beyond me. Many, many EU countries have witnessed appalling atrocities in the past 100 years, many have passed into history without acknowledgement, apology or reparation (the British in Ireland, the role of Austria in WWII, civil wars in Greece, Spain etc etc. You are singling out Turkey for special condemnation because you don't like Turkey, not because it has committed any unique misdemeanour.



First of all, any secular Muslim country is easily turned into a radical Islamic country. Secondly, today's Turkey is getting more and more Islamist by the day. Erdogan is not really secular. Turkey is not acting in a secular way and is against Freedom of Speech in Europe, the very essence of the European spirit.

This is just pure Islamophobia. Turkey is not perfect, it does have issues of free speech (so do most EU nations, BTW - jail for a young Catalan who burned the Spanish flag? British libel laws available only to the rich?) and membership of the EU would help in improving the situation.



They are being oppressed in their own territory. Now, what do YOU know that can deny that?
How? Where? Their own territory? Could you tell me where exactly the historical nation of Kurdistan is geographically? Of course, there has never been an independent Kurdish state, ever, in history. That doesn't mean that Kurds have no right to self-determination but if you want to do this youy need to gather together Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran to negotiate with the Kurds.

As it is, the Kurds in Turkey are almost totally assimilated into the Turkish state. There are Kurds in government, the media, the judiciary, the military. There is a Kurdish separatist movement (as there is a Basque separatist movement) but what has that got to do with EU membership?



Not to mention the situation in Cyprus, of course...

Cyprus is not an issue. If it were an issue for the EU as a whole, the Greek Cypriot state would never have been allowed to join the EU. That they did join the EU without there having been a settlement to the unification issue means that unification has no bearing on the EU. You can't have one rule for the Greeks and another for the Turks, can you? Well, perhaps in your little club you could.



The fact-based assessment that nearly one million Armenians were chased and murdered by Turks. And many had to run away, like the Greeks. Again, what do YOU know that denies that?
I also know that an awful lot of people were murdered by British, German, French, Italian, Greek, Polish, Romanian, Austrian, Spanish, Portuguese people in the course of the last 100 years. The point of the EU is to prevent that happening again. Are you saying that the Turks are the only ones guilty?

LeBrok
04-03-10, 21:28
Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, Turkey has been geographically, somewhat culturally, ethnically, and politically part of Europe for many centuries. The Ottoman Empire was built on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire and is considered by many historians and analysts as the Muslim successor to both the Roman and Byzantine Empires look it up. Modern Turkey has been part of Europe since the Seljuks came to Anatolia and defeated Byzantines in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 and settled in parts of today's Turkey, then Ottomans came destroyed and ended Byzantines and claimed their territories and expanded further. Even today despite being a very small percentage (3%), Turkey is still geographically part of Europe, ethnically if you go to Central and especially Western even some Eastern parts of Turkey you will see many "European" and "Western" looking Turks with features like blue/green eyes, blond/light brown hair, white, etc. These people are a result of mixing of Turkish culture with Balkan and other European peoples mainly Greeks and other neighbouring areas. Original or pure Turks such as myself have slightly yellowish white skin, Mongoloid, Central Asian looking eyes, facial characteristics and have brown eyes and black hair. I'm not saying Turkey is Indo-European or whatever but over centuries have mixed and become part of Europe ethnically. Ataturk was an admirer of Westernism, modernism, European and Renaissance cultures and is known to have been a fan of French philosophers like Montesquieu, Voltaire and others. Despite fiercely fighting and standing up to European powers of Britain, France, Italy, Greece in and after WWI, he worked tirelessly to build a western and modern nation that resembled Europe as he saw the backwardness and isolation that old traditional Islamic values had done to the Turks. Turkey is perhaps the only Muslim majority country (99% of the nation) with a secular democracy as its system, Islamic sympathizing powers come and go in Turkey. Erdogan despite what people think is actually a perfect balance for Turkey as he is not pressing too much on Islamic policies and still trying to get Turkey in EU and improve relations with Europe.

Agreed




It is considered a major offense in Turkey to acknowledge the so-called Armenian Genocide because people are often biased and ignorant about what really happened in the time period. There were instances of Armenians killing Turks so it was not unprovoked, also only a small portion (mainly the perpetrators and criminals caught) were killed, the rest were deported out of the country to ensure safety of Turkish citizens.
Now this is really backward. The organized and systematic genocides of minorities, are excused in your eyes or even justified. I'm sure you've learnt this history only through Turkish Public Education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide


"No. In fact, I want no Christianity at all. But Muslim is even worst." what an ignorant comment, why because Christianity is such a great tolerant religion right lol, just look at Spanish Inquisition, British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, French treatment of occupied territories, such a great record isnt it?

Don't say that middle ages Christianity is today Christianity, it's like two different things. Now, Islam is still stuck in middle ages with it's teachings, and behaves exactly like Christianity from middle ages.
When Islam hits Renaissance era, times will be much easier for the world.





Don't by hypocritical, atheists like u are even worse, people who don't believe in God or anything are more dangerous and open to inhumane treatment and prejudice than Muslims or Christians.
Lol, now we can truly understand where you're coming from. Now we have your world structure: 1st are Muslims, then second grade of people, Christians, and third the dogs atheists.
How come the most atheist countries like Scandinavians are the most prosperous and peaceful? Why Allah rewarded unbelievers with prosperity? He has weird sense of humor, obviously.
This is the huge problem with Islam. All new generations are brain washed in Mosques and religious schools believing in their special and higher status, demeaning other religions, beliefs and cultures, preaching that Islam will be the only world religion one day, and ridiculing scientific understanding of the world and people. Where are you going???!!!



Also the Kurds and PKK (the terrorist organization fighting Turkey) are two different things, get ur facts straight, Turkey is not killing innocent Kurds but fighting against a dangerous radical extremist organization that is seeking territories from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria (where Kurds exist) which is an unrealistic solution to the issue and they are creating hatred and animosity between Turks and Kurds, many Kurds I know personally condemn PKK's actions and have no ill feelings towards Turks. In my opinion political and cultural representation is a more fair solution than a geographic country for the Kurds.

Hopefully when you'll be a politician in Turkey's government one day, you'll start this process of building Kurds country. I was mad at Bush for not giving the Kurds of Iraq and independent country, that would have been a great beginning. It's inevitable and one day it will happen, sooner the better, and fewer people killed in the process.

Please, get off your nationalistic horse. It's important in order to understand the world, and most importantly your own country.

Tautalos
04-03-10, 21:49
The word contiguous derives from the Latin for "touching". Hence, Turkey is a part of Europe,

No, it is not. Asia is also «touching» Europe, and that does not make it entirely European. Egypt is «touching» Asia, but it is African, not a country from Asia. And Turkey was always named Asia Minor, not Europe. Thus, the fact that you prefer to call it «Europe» does not make it European.


touching the rest of Europe, sharing a border with Greece, Bulgaria, Armenia and Georgia

Iraq also «touches» Armenia, and Azerbaijan does it also, but that does not make neither Iraq nor Azerbaijan European nations. That you want to «extend» Europe and change geography is another subject alltogether.



«What "other area, entirely European"?»

The Atlantic coast at northern Europe. That you don't know «your» geography is already a given.



I see, Indo-European. You mean Aryan. Or Basque.

I meant Indo-European. And Basque. Yes. And?...



Or basically whatever you want to define as "European".

No. Just whatever is European. Not just whatever you want to put inside Europe, just because it «touches» it.



But definitely NOT Turkish, presumably not Jewish (who are definitely not Indo-european),

Correct.



not Hungarian or Finnish (linguistically definitely not Indo-european).

Yes, that is a problem. However, those are minorities that were absorbed by Indo-European people and are now culturally European. It would be better if that never happened, but it did and that's all. That is not an argument to allow such proccess of absortion to continue, quite the contrary. Besides, Europe could absorb those small nations, culturally speaking, but it cannot do the same with seventy million of Turks (nor should it - as your leader said, «absortion is a crime against humanity»).



Do you see the idiocy of your definition?

What is here to see is the idiocy of your failed and rather feeble objections.



ndo-european is a linguistic definition, nothing more

Wrong. Indo-European is not just linguistic, it haves an ancient cultural and ethnic root.



Europe is full of people who do not share Indo-european/Aryan linguistic roots.

Not really. The vast majority of Europe is Indo-European. The few exceptions do not change the rule.



Your definition is both worthless

No, it's quite good.



and, I fear, verging on the racist.

Your fear is a problem of yours. This definition is ethnicist.



Many historians and governments question the validity of the definition of the Armenian disasters as "genocide".

And many historians and governments accept the validity of the Armenian genocide. Meanwhile, many historians also question the validity of the Jewish holocaust. And?...



Indeed only a handful insist on using the term

No, not just «a handful». Many organizations. There is general agreement among genocide scholars (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/International_Association_of_Genocide_Scholars) that the events constituted genocide (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Genocide). Several international organizations, conducting studies of the events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1918."(Wikipedia).



If you think that they do, please provide evidence.

No. If YOU think they don't, YOU are the one who have to provide evidence to this people:
In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/International_Association_of_Genocide_Scholars) (IAGS) passed a resolution unanimously recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide. (Wikipedia).



However, what this has to do with Turkish accession to the EU is beyond me.

It haves a lot - if Germany had to admit the holocaust, Turkey haves to admit the Armenian genocide AS A CONDITION to enter EU. Didn't you even knew that?



This is just pure Islamophobia. Turkey is not perfect, it does have issues of free speech (so do most EU nations, BTW - jail for a young Catalan who burned the Spanish flag? British libel laws available only to the rich?) and membership of the EU would help in improving the situation.

Or in worsening the situation in Europe.



How? Where? Their own territory? Could you tell me where exactly the historical nation of Kurdistan is geographically?

In part of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria... would you deny that? Or say that the Kurds invaded Turkey?



Of course, there has never been an independent Kurdish state,

And so?...



That doesn't mean that Kurds have no right to self-determination

Oh, good...



but if you want to do this youy need to gather together Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran to negotiate with the Kurds.

Correct.



There is a Kurdish separatist movement (as there is a Basque separatist movement) but what has that got to do with EU membership?

Respect for human rights of the Kurds is an issue for the membership of Turkey. Why are you pretending not to know that?



Cyprus is not an issue.

Yes it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus#Human_rights



If it were an issue for the EU as a whole, the Greek Cypriot state would never have been allowed to join the EU.

Wrong again. The Greeks did not invade Cyprus. Turkey did.

Tautalos
04-03-10, 22:28
Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, Turkey has been geographically, somewhat culturally, ethnically, and politically part of Europe for many centuries

No. Whether you, and your people, like it or not, Turkey was neither geographically, nor culturally, ethnically and politically a part of Europe - and it will never be.



The Ottoman Empire was built on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire

Yes - the Ottoman Empire was made by those who ruined the Byzantine Empire.



and is considered by many historians and analysts as the Muslim successor to both the Roman and Byzantine Empires

Many historians say many things. That the Muslims were always enemies of the West, is a given.



Even today despite being a very small percentage (3%), Turkey is still geographically part of Europe,

But the vast majority of Turkey is not. Namely it's capital. The Turks were always invaders and the really European nations of that area of Europe - Greece, Serbia, Armenia, Bulgaria - know that.



ethnically if you go to Central and especially Western even some Eastern parts of Turkey you will see many "European" and "Western" looking

That's racially. Not ethnically. Turkic language and roots are not European.



Ataturk was an admirer of Westernism, modernism, European and Renaissance cultures and is known to have been a fan of French philosophers like Montesquieu, Voltaire

Yes, but Ataturk was a secular man, and Turkey is highly religious. Ataturk was also probably of Albanian descendence. Not a real Turk.



Erdogan despite what people think is actually a perfect balance for Turkey as he is not pressing too much on Islamic policies

That depends on the perspective... but his speeches, and his attempts against European free speech, place him definitely on the Muslim side. For some reason, there were people plotting a military revolution in Turkey, recently... that shows how bad things are now when it comes to re-Islamification.



It is considered a major offense in Turkey to acknowledge the so-called Armenian Genocide because people are often biased and ignorant about what really happened in the time period.

So, different opinions about what happened are «offensive». I see your concept of «Democracy»...

Meanwhile, I repeat - if Turkey did not exist before 1923, what's the problem with the Armenian genocide?... :innocent::innocent::innocent:



There were instances of Armenians killing Turks so it was not unprovoked,

Oh, I see... now, there were justifications for the genoci... aham, massac... oops, well, a few killings...:grin:



also only a small portion (mainly the perpetrators and criminals caught) were killed,

Yes - a million. A small portion...



Where did you get your facts that Erdogan is against Freedom of Speech, do you have any real proof?

Several.


In fact, I want no Christianity at all. But Muslim is even worst." what an ignorant comment, why because Christianity is such a great tolerant religion right lol, just look at Spanish Inquisition, British, Dutch, Spanish,

I say that I don't want Christianity, and you presume that I am defending Christianity and consider it tolerant?...

Yes, Christianity, as the older brother of Islam, is also intolerant - but, today, it is fading away, at least in Europe. It's not a menace anymore, at least for now. But Islam is different - even more intolerant and growing.



Don't by hypocritical, atheists like u are even worse,

I am not an atheist. And you are being hypocritical, «forgetting» about the Islamic intolerance by diverting the discussion towards Christianity.



In my opinion political and cultural representation is a more fair solution than a geographic country for the Kurds. Cyprus consists of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots so when Greece attempted to unite the island under Greek "supervision" and started killing and oppressing the Turkish Cypriots,

Wrong. The United Nations Security Council (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) has challenged the legality of Turkey's action, because Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs.[15] (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#cite_note-14) The aftermath of Turkey's invasion, however, did not safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but had the opposite effect; such as the de facto partitioning of the Republic in two (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Taksim_(politics)), the creation of a separate political entity in the north and the forceful expulsion of Greek Cypriots from it. (Wikipedia).



Get your facts straight, don't be ignorant and biased then come argue in a civilized and respectful manner.

Actually, YOU are the one needing to take lessons about arguing in a civilized and respectful manner, since the insult is stupidly coming from you. So, do behave, boy, this is not Turkey, this is Europe and here there is Freedom of Speech.

Mycernius
05-03-10, 20:19
Malta and Cyprus, and UK and Ireland, and Iceland, belong to another area, entirely European - they are islands, but not pieces of another continent.
Take a good long look at a map and you will see that Cyprus is off the coast of the Asian continent, and should be more recognised as an asian island that a european one. It is only recognised as European because of its history.
In the past the coast of Turkey was colonised by Greeks, and conquered by the Romans. It has a history with Europe.


First of all, any secular Muslim country is easily turned into a radical Islamic country. Secondly, today's Turkey is getting more and more Islamist by the day. Erdogan is not really secular. Turkey is not acting in a secular way and is against Freedom of Speech in Europe, the very essence of the European spirit.
Which radical evenagelicals are trying to do in the US. I know atheists that live in some parts of the southern US that dare not reveal that they are atheist because of death threats and violence.


No. In fact, I want no Christianity at all.
I prefer no religion full stop.


Original or pure Turks such as myself have slightly yellowish white skin, Mongoloid, Central Asian looking eyes, facial characteristics and have brown eyes and black hair.
That is because the Sejik were descendened from the warriors of the Mongol Empire that settled in the region. The were eventually converted to Islam.

I do not really understand the problem with this argument of Turkey is part of Europe because it is contiguous with Europe. Well part of it is within the area defined as Europe, fact. There is also the case of Russia. Most people will refer to them as European, but most of Russia is in Asia. So are Russians European or Asian? The taken from a land mass view Europe is only a continuation of Asia to the atlantic. Then if you want to argue along cultural lines then why not have Canada, Australia or the US become part of the EU? They have a strong Europen culture and history linked to Europe.
As for Islam being a problem, what about Bosnia or Albania, both countries with a high Muslim population? Want to exclude them because the might radicalise?

Andalublue
06-03-10, 12:00
No. Whether you, and your people, like it or not, Turkey was neither geographically, nor culturally, ethnically and politically a part of Europe - and it will never be....


I think we have established that you have your own idea about what constitutes "European". It's mostly a racialist (you call it "ethnicist" although that is not a word in the English language) argument but with some nods towards some faulty geography. Okay. Got it.

You are to be commended for your clarity if not your logic or tolerance.

Gwyllgi
06-03-10, 12:39
Turkey should not become an EU member state.

It has nothing to offer that we either want or need and a great deal that it would bring that we absolutely neither want or need.

A line must be drawn, that line is already being thinned by what is in effect uncontrolled immigration by people and with them an ideology that runs counter to that of Europe, and that line must be re-established with Turkey on the other side certainly from the EU states prior to the last expansion, a thing which itself should be re-visited.

Maybe it’s even time to introduce a process for expulsion of EU states from the Union, goodness knows there are some that are not coming up to requirements made of them.

In my opinion the major drive for Turkish accession, apart from the Turks who see a place they can exploit, is down to the influence by the US, a country that time and again has showed it is no friend of the EU and no friend of any country that was not of use to it in some way.

So never mind about geography, never mind about the ottoman Empire, never mind about ‘multi-culturalism (that’s a disease that will have to resolved separately) instead of trying to justify why we should say no, instead we should just say no and make damm sure our MEP’s are aware of the grass roots feelings, especially from the major contributing states of Europe.

No to Turkey.

Turkey, be a neighbour by all means, and engage with us as a neighbour.

But let us all never forger that strong and well maintained fences make for the best neighbours.

^ lynx ^
06-03-10, 15:43
100% agreed with Gwyllgi.

Beefree
06-03-10, 17:28
No. Whether you, and your people, like it or not, Turkey was neither geographically, nor culturally, ethnically and politically a part of Europe - and it will never be.

1) ok, so Greece isn't European either... To the eyes of a northern European, the influences of Turkey are obvious in Greece.. Unless we are willing to dismiss most of our dishes, many of our words and some of our music, right? And send back our grandparents from Asia minor, who, in Greece were treated like Turks anyway when they first came (I know it for sure, my grandparents came from Asia Miror), right???



Yes - the Ottoman Empire was made by those who ruined the Byzantine Empire.

2) The Byzantine empire, was already falling apart because of the extreme corruption! It was inevitable. If it wasn't the Ottoman, It would be someone else..



Many historians say many things. That the Muslims were always enemies of the West, is a given.

2) Bullshit! Each nation of the "West" was enemy with other nations in the "West".And still are... And What the F**k is the "West" anyway???


But the vast majority of Turkey is not. Namely it's capital. The Turks were always invaders and the really European nations of that area of Europe - Greece, Serbia, Armenia, Bulgaria - know that.




That's racially. Not ethnically. Turkic language and roots are not European.

3) Shall I repeat what I said in no 1)?????


Yes, but Ataturk was a secular man, and Turkey is highly religious. Ataturk was also probably of Albanian descendence. Not a real Turk.
4) Yeah, I know your way of thinking: What's turkish is not good, and if it's good, it's not turkish

That depends on the perspective... but his speeches, and his attempts against European free speech, place him definitely on the Muslim side. For some reason, there were people plotting a military revolution in Turkey, recently... that shows how bad things are now when it comes to re-Islamification.




So, different opinions about what happened are «offensive». I see your concept of «Democracy»...
5) Did you see ours (the greeks)??

Meanwhile, I repeat - if Turkey did not exist before 1923, what's the problem with the Armenian genocide?... :innocent::innocent::innocent:




Oh, I see... now, there were justifications for the genoci... aham, massac... oops, well, a few killings...:grin:




Yes - a million. A small portion...




Several.



I say that I don't want Christianity, and you presume that I am defending Christianity and consider it tolerant?...

Yes, Christianity, as the older brother of Islam, is also intolerant - but, today, it is fading away, at least in Europe. It's not a menace anymore, at least for now. But Islam is different - even more intolerant and growing.




I am not an atheist. And you are being hypocritical, «forgetting» about the Islamic intolerance by diverting the discussion towards Christianity.




Wrong. The has challenged the legality of Turkey's action, because Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs.The aftermath of Turkey's invasion, however, did not safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but had the opposite effect; such as the de facto the creation of a separate political entity in the north and the forceful expulsion of Greek Cypriots from it. (Wikipedia).




Actually, YOU are the one needing to take lessons about arguing in a civilized and respectful manner, since the insult is stupidly coming from you. So, do behave, boy, this is not Turkey, this is Europe and here there is Freedom of Speech.

To the rest, I don't disagree. Just one thing....(because I suspect you are greek). Before you blame other people for something, look into the mirror first...

Andalublue
06-03-10, 19:56
Turkey should not become an EU member state.

It has nothing to offer that we either want or need and a great deal that it would bring that we absolutely neither want or need.

A line must be drawn, that line is already being thinned by what is in effect uncontrolled immigration by people and with them an ideology that runs counter to that of Europe, and that line must be re-established with Turkey on the other side certainly from the EU states prior to the last expansion, a thing which itself should be re-visited.

Maybe it’s even time to introduce a process for expulsion of EU states from the Union, goodness knows there are some that are not coming up to requirements made of them.

In my opinion the major drive for Turkish accession, apart from the Turks who see a place they can exploit, is down to the influence by the US, a country that time and again has showed it is no friend of the EU and no friend of any country that was not of use to it in some way.

So never mind about geography, never mind about the ottoman Empire, never mind about ‘multi-culturalism (that’s a disease that will have to resolved separately) instead of trying to justify why we should say no, instead we should just say no and make damm sure our MEP’s are aware of the grass roots feelings, especially from the major contributing states of Europe.

No to Turkey.

Turkey, be a neighbour by all means, and engage with us as a neighbour.

But let us all never forger that strong and well maintained fences make for the best neighbours.

A few points. How would you know what "grass roots" feeling is on this matter? I reckon if you put it to a vote, Turkey would be warmly welcomed into the EU. I think it's just politicians like Sarkozy and Merkel who like to play the Islamic boogieman card for their own domestic political purposes who are sticking a spanner in the works.

Please list the things that the other members of the EU "have that we want"? I think you're missing the whole point of the EU if you just think it's about sharing out common goods.

Now, about this uncontrolled immigration business. Since EU accession, the number of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants to Western Europe has dropped dramatically. Accession has brought greater prosperity and jobs to Romania and Bulgaria, as it would to Turkey, and people are more likely to return home than flood your poor Welsh valleys. That's what has always happened in the past and the "we'll all be swamped with immigrants" argument has never been proved to have any basis in fact. Prove it if you can.

Gwyllgi
07-03-10, 10:50
A few points. How would you know what "grass roots" feeling is on this matter? I reckon if you put it to a vote, Turkey would be warmly welcomed into the EU.

Then, based on the people that I deal with in Germany, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain (especially) who are not recent immigrants you ‘reckon’ wrongly.


I think it's just politicians like Sarkozy and Merkel who like to play the Islamic boogieman card for their own domestic political purposes who are sticking a spanner in the works.

Sarkozy and Merkel are, as you say, politicians. One of the essentials of remaining in office for a politician is to at least try to reflect popular opinion. In both cases it goes further.

In the case of France their experience of immigrants from North Africa and The East is far from good. A thing that can be seen on a daily basis.

In Germany there is considerable experience of ‘gastarbeiters’ from Turkey, and here again it has not been a positive experience for the German population, most of whom detest them with a vengeance.


Please list the things that the other members of the EU "have that we want"? I think you're missing the whole point of the EU if you just think it's about sharing out common goods.

We have wealth, money, opportunities, freedom, and a future. We also have the Euro.

We have worked for them. I believe the inclusion of the Balkan states was fundamentally wrong, I believe that the Eurozone was about two years premature in being established, and I believe that PIGS were allowed to loin too soon.


Now, about this uncontrolled immigration business. Since EU accession, the number of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants to Western Europe has dropped dramatically.

Accession has brought greater prosperity and jobs to Romania and Bulgaria, as it would to Turkey, and people are more likely to return home than flood your poor Welsh valleys.

Who gives a stuff about Romania or Bulgaria? I certainly don’t, and nor do a great many people who see what has taken place as the exchange of money for increased poverty and fiscal liability by the mistaken inclusion of those Balkan states into an area in which they have no justifiable place. They have nothing we want or need.


hat's what has always happened in the past and the "we'll all be swamped with immigrants" argument has never been proved to have any basis in fact. Prove it if you can.

All I have to do is look at the metrics. Free movement of labour within a group of countries that are within spitting distance of each other culturally, economically, and historically is understandable, manageable, and even in most, not all but most, cases desirable.

Bring a cuckoo into the nest and pretty soon you have a bird that is fattening itself at a cost of the other family members.

And that is before we even start to factor in Islam, an ideology that is absolutely opposed to Democracy as WE understand it, let alone freedom and the modern civilised world, and that is presently making such ‘progress’ (and I sue that word loosely) in what can no longer justifiably called a secular state in the case of Turkey. (if indeed ever was really the case)

Then there is the little matter of Turkey dealing with truth on a national level. National honesty you might say.

Let’s start with the Armenian genocide. A thing that gets you in deep trouble to even hint at in Turkey, and yet a thing of historical fact. Treatment of the press, laws against ‘bringing the state into disrepute’ and other such archaic garbage that is a part of Turkish law, culture, and character.
Oh yes. Included in the past record and still a highly offensive thing to continue to perpetrate, lets’ not forget then illegal occupation of part of Cyprus eh? Or the treatment of the Kurds. Or human rights, or more likely human degradation but behind closed doors.

Turkey?

Be a neighbour behind strong fences, but keep to your OWN side.

And clean up your act come what may.

Andalublue
07-03-10, 14:33
Then, based on the people that I deal with in Germany, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain (especially) who are not recent immigrants you ‘reckon’ wrongly.



Sarkozy and Merkel are, as you say, politicians. One of the essentials of remaining in office for a politician is to at least try to reflect popular opinion. In both cases it goes further.

In the case of France their experience of immigrants from North Africa and The East is far from good. A thing that can be seen on a daily basis.

In Germany there is considerable experience of ‘gastarbeiters’ from Turkey, and here again it has not been a positive experience for the German population, most of whom detest them with a vengeance.



We have wealth, money, opportunities, freedom, and a future. We also have the Euro.

We have worked for them. I believe the inclusion of the Balkan states was fundamentally wrong, I believe that the Eurozone was about two years premature in being established, and I believe that PIGS were allowed to loin too soon.



Who gives a stuff about Romania or Bulgaria? I certainly don’t, and nor do a great many people who see what has taken place as the exchange of money for increased poverty and fiscal liability by the mistaken inclusion of those Balkan states into an area in which they have no justifiable place. They have nothing we want or need.



All I have to do is look at the metrics. Free movement of labour within a group of countries that are within spitting distance of each other culturally, economically, and historically is understandable, manageable, and even in most, not all but most, cases desirable.

Bring a cuckoo into the nest and pretty soon you have a bird that is fattening itself at a cost of the other family members.

And that is before we even start to factor in Islam, an ideology that is absolutely opposed to Democracy as WE understand it, let alone freedom and the modern civilised world, and that is presently making such ‘progress’ (and I sue that word loosely) in what can no longer justifiably called a secular state in the case of Turkey. (if indeed ever was really the case)

Then there is the little matter of Turkey dealing with truth on a national level. National honesty you might say.

Let’s start with the Armenian genocide. A thing that gets you in deep trouble to even hint at in Turkey, and yet a thing of historical fact. Treatment of the press, laws against ‘bringing the state into disrepute’ and other such archaic garbage that is a part of Turkish law, culture, and character.
Oh yes. Included in the past record and still a highly offensive thing to continue to perpetrate, lets’ not forget then illegal occupation of part of Cyprus eh? Or the treatment of the Kurds. Or human rights, or more likely human degradation but behind closed doors.

Turkey?

Be a neighbour behind strong fences, but keep to your OWN side.

And clean up your act come what may.

Lord! You make so many sweeping statements that you can't and don't back up with any facts. I'm not interested in the opinions of "the people I deal with" . They are no more representative of public opinion than are those people I deal with. I said I reckon they'd agree with Turkish accession, of course I could be wrong. The difference between your position and mine is that I'm guessing whereas you're stating that you know "grass roots" opinion. You don't.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Please list the things that the other members of the EU "have that we want"? Not what things we have that your phantom migrants might want. The logic of your position is that we can only accept new EU members who have stuff we want or need. Please tell me what those things might be.

When you say, "We have the Euro", who is the "We"? You appear to be from Wales. When did you get the Euro?

"Look at the metrics". The what? What are metrics? I'm pretty sure that is something to do with poetry.

I do note that you don't try to refute my assertion that EU accession leads to a reduction of migration from accession states into the rest of the EU.

Gwyllgi
07-03-10, 18:29
Lord! You make so many sweeping statements that you can't and don't back up with any facts. I'm not interested in the opinions of "the people I deal with" . They are no more representative of public opinion than are those people I deal with. I said I reckon they'd agree with Turkish accession, of course I could be wrong. The difference between your position and mine is that I'm guessing whereas you're stating that you know "grass roots" opinion. You don't.

I do know that the people that I deal with are of the same opinion as myself and that they’re a pretty fair cross section of the populations as a whole in the countries that I travel to.


I notice that you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Please list the things that the other members of the EU "have that we want"? Not what things we have that your phantom migrants might want. The logic of your position is that we can only accept new EU members who have stuff we want or need. Please tell me what those things might be.

I have listed the things. In essence we represent a resource that Turkey can and more would exploit if ever allowed to become an EU member.


When you say, "We have the Euro", who is the "We"? You appear to be from Wales. When did you get the Euro?

We as in the EU. The EU has the Euro as a common currency in many member states. The number will grow.


"Look at the metrics". The what? What are metrics? I'm pretty sure that is something to do with poetry.

Then you really should learn more about statistics.


I do note that you don't try to refute my assertion that EU accession leads to a reduction of migration from accession states into the rest of the EU.

What it results in is the free movement of people masking the flow of people.
In Britain the place is crawling with East Europeans, once they would have shown up on the immigration stats, now they don’t.

There is a bottom line. Most people when asked do not want anything to do with Turkey, especially not as a member of the EU.

TurkYusuf1
10-03-10, 01:37
Thank you for your fair, well-written and strong arguments.

TurkYusuf1
10-03-10, 01:51
Agreed




Now this is really backward. The organized and systematic genocides of minorities, are excused in your eyes or even justified. I'm sure you've learnt this history only through Turkish Public Education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

I'm not excusing anything but there were atrocities on both sides, I have seen and read sources that indicate there were in fact Armenian gangs killed and raped many Turks and burned their villages and possessions. Actually I lived in Turkey but went to a private school with western education and learned this stuff there, it was based on the British school system.



Don't say that middle ages Christianity is today Christianity, it's like two different things. Now, Islam is still stuck in middle ages with it's teachings, and behaves exactly like Christianity from middle ages.
When Islam hits Renaissance era, times will be much easier for the world.

Ok sorry if I came off as ignorant myself, but middle age Christianity was just as bad or even worse than what people perceive Islam caused in Europe and the world. Yes modern countries that have Islam as the predominant religion like Turkey will help improve its image in the world;.



Lol, now we can truly understand where you're coming from. Now we have your world structure: 1st are Muslims, then second grade of people, Christians, and third the dogs atheists.
How come the most atheist countries like Scandinavians are the most prosperous and peaceful? Why Allah rewarded unbelievers with prosperity? He has weird sense of humor, obviously.
This is the huge problem with Islam. All new generations are brain washed in Mosques and religious schools believing in their special and higher status, demeaning other religions, beliefs and cultures, preaching that Islam will be the only world religion one day, and ridiculing scientific understanding of the world and people. Where are you going???!!!

Ok again I'm sorry for my seemingly ignorant and disrespectful comments. No according to the Holy Quran (holy book of Muslims/Islam) it is indicated strongly that Muslims, Christians and Jews are equal as they all believe in God despite what misperceptions and wrong information people have about Islam and the Quran. I just don't agree with atheism, but yes religion has nothing to do with progress in several areas but I do believe that belief in God will inspire people to be more successful and prosper. What you say is the extremist view of Islam, as people like myself are not taught in Mosques and religious school that they are higher than other religions, we respect Jews, Christians and other religions. Every religion including Christianity and Judaism see themselves as higher than Muslims or whatever this is not just how some Muslims views the issue.


Hopefully when you'll be a politician in Turkey's government one day, you'll start this process of building Kurds country. I was mad at Bush for not giving the Kurds of Iraq and independent country, that would have been a great beginning. It's inevitable and one day it will happen, sooner the better, and fewer people killed in the process.

Please, get off your nationalistic horse. It's important in order to understand the world, and most importantly your own country.

Hopefully one day you will be realistic and realize a Kurdish geographical country will never exist because parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria will never be allowed to secede. Perhaps more political and cultural representation in the Turkish government will help solve the situation. Also I study political science and history and plan to study law so I feel like I'm entitled to comment on the issue or its political or other solutions also I know much about Turkish politics I read many sources and news everyday. I'm very glad that Bush went away and Obama came, Bush is a nut job who drove his country to a long, tiring, exhausting bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe Afghanistan had some reason but he just made up the WMD issue to attack and take Saddam off power. Obama realized the importance of Turkish contribution and progress so he fixed relations with Turkey hope it continues. Please learn more about the issue from reliable sources and do not act like you know more about my own country than I do.

TurkYusuf1
10-03-10, 02:18
No. Whether you, and your people, like it or not, Turkey was neither geographically, nor culturally, ethnically and politically a part of Europe - and it will never be.




Yes - the Ottoman Empire was made by those who ruined the Byzantine Empire.




Many historians say many things. That the Muslims were always enemies of the West, is a given.




But the vast majority of Turkey is not. Namely it's capital. The Turks were always invaders and the really European nations of that area of Europe - Greece, Serbia, Armenia, Bulgaria - know that.




That's racially. Not ethnically. Turkic language and roots are not European.



Yes, but Ataturk was a secular man, and Turkey is highly religious. Ataturk was also probably of Albanian descendence. Not a real Turk.





That depends on the perspective... but his speeches, and his attempts against European free speech, place him definitely on the Muslim side. For some reason, there were people plotting a military revolution in Turkey, recently... that shows how bad things are now when it comes to re-Islamification.




So, different opinions about what happened are «offensive». I see your concept of «Democracy»...

Meanwhile, I repeat - if Turkey did not exist before 1923, what's the problem with the Armenian genocide?... :innocent::innocent::innocent:




Oh, I see... now, there were justifications for the genoci... aham, massac... oops, well, a few killings...:grin:




Yes - a million. A small portion...




Several.



I say that I don't want Christianity, and you presume that I am defending Christianity and consider it tolerant?...

Yes, Christianity, as the older brother of Islam, is also intolerant - but, today, it is fading away, at least in Europe. It's not a menace anymore, at least for now. But Islam is different - even more intolerant and growing.




I am not an atheist. And you are being hypocritical, «forgetting» about the Islamic intolerance by diverting the discussion towards Christianity.




Wrong. The United Nations Security Council (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) has challenged the legality of Turkey's action, because Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs.[15] (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#cite_note-14) The aftermath of Turkey's invasion, however, did not safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but had the opposite effect; such as the de facto partitioning of the Republic in two (http://www.eupedia.com/wiki/Taksim_%28politics%29), the creation of a separate political entity in the north and the forceful expulsion of Greek Cypriots from it. (Wikipedia).




Actually, YOU are the one needing to take lessons about arguing in a civilized and respectful manner, since the insult is stupidly coming from you. So, do behave, boy, this is not Turkey, this is Europe and here there is Freedom of Speech.




Believe what you want, it was and still is geographically, culturally, ethnically and politically part of Europe. This is fact, I know it, people who matter know and accept it that's it.Lol so what, Byzantine Empire would have collapsed anyway sooner or later, we just finished them off, Byzantines destroyed many civilizations when they made their conquests why are those conquests not seen as destruction to their societies and Turkey does?Hahahaha another ignorant comment, this is only said by some Islamophobia sympathizing countries and peoples that's all, fear that Islam will one day again dominate Europe, which is not Turkey's fault if Europe feels insecure.Lol and what the Byzantines and ancient Greeks were tolerant angels when they conquered and killed and invaded lands in Middle East and other parts of Europe that weren't under Hellenistic or European culture?So what? Actually modern Turkish not Turkic is based on the Latin alphabet and English and French words can be found in it as well. Old Turkic is completely different though.Ok lol you're going to teach me my own history now are you, hahaha, first of all Ataturk was a secular man yes, but both his parents were Muslims in fact his mother was a very religious woman, Turkey is not very religious at least it hasn't been in the last century after Ottoman collapse. Ataturk may have some Balkan European blood in him but he had Turkic blood in him too which was more dominant. Today many Turks have mixed blood in them. "Not a real Turk" lol ok is there true European?Nope it depends on if you follow the issues going on Turkey since he came to power. He has been a big advocate in entering Turkey in EU and excellent diplomatic relations with many European and Western leaders. Military rule is not democratic and they have falsified fears of re-emergence of Islamic government which is not true as Turkey is still secular.Turkey did not commit these crimes, it was committed by a group of three pashas/rulers (Enver, Talat, Jamal) search them up and their role in the Armenian issue if u want. These people had a puppet sultan (Mehmed V) and atrocities were committed on both sides, the attacks were not provoked and there were deportations as well, shows how unreliable and biased European and Western sources are lol.Again you don't know anything, come back when you have some unbiased and reliable sources to back up ur claim, most western and european sources will of course say it was genocide.Nope about a few hundred thousands, exxaggerated and unreliable numbers by unreliable and biased sources.Nope it is only the extremist Islam that you and other people look at, if people even make attempts at learning true Islam and it's purpose and content, you will realize you are only being racist and ignorant.Yes that was a mistake sorry, Islam is tolerant towards Christianity and Judaism as they are also considered "peoples of the book" and believe in god.Lol wikipedia where anyone can post stuff. What about what Greece tried to do, unite Cyprus as Greek Cyprus and their plans for the Turkish Cypriots living in the island? Why doesn't anyone talk about that? Turkey acted to protect its Turkish brothers. If it was illegal countries like UK and US would have acted and stopped us as they are one of the two top democratic liberal democracies in the world but they didn't so your argument is weak.Well I'm not going to stand by and say nothing while you completely disrespect and spread lies about my country. Lol really funny don't tell me what to do, this is an open forum I can say whatever I want unless warned by the administrator so mind your own business and watch you own language and so called "freedom of speech". Lol

TurkYusuf1
10-03-10, 03:07
So funny to see comments of people like Beefree and Gwyllgi. Shows how much Islamophobia and may I say Turkophobia they have which is probably due to the Ottoman and earlier Turkich legacy and influence left in Europe and the Western World. First of all everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect them to a level where they don't become offensive, ignorant, racist, hateful, ill-informed, biased/unreliable ones that are tried to passed off as facts. Turkey is the 17th largest economy in the world in terms of GDP nominal, 15th in GDP PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and is part of G20 (top 20 richest countries in the world). It has seen much economic progress and continues to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It's military is very powerful (ranked between 8th-10th in the world according to many sources) and has immense influence in the Middle East and Central Asia (two key areas for the Western world, the former being rich in oil and resources and a key strategical location and the latter being rich in oil, gas and other resources as well). So economically and militarily Turkey would make excellent addition to EU in my educated and personal opinion. I currently study political science and history in university and do my own vast personal research to make these claims. Politically and diplomatically it has excellent relations with many countries and has some problems with a few countries. It is both part of European and Western society through many organizations like NATO, G20, etc. and a Muslim majority (99%) but secular democratic country as it maintains great relations with Middle Eastern countries such as Israel, Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. as well as fixing relations with older enemies such as Russia. Please make fair, respectful, unbiased and most importantly educated comments with facts if possible about Turkey and it's issue of joining EU, I'm sorry if I contradicted myself and acted like a hypocrite if I did just that in my previous comments but I will be more respectful in future comments. Cheers and Greetings to everyone reading this.

Gwyllgi
10-03-10, 10:42
Maybe someone could spell out just what Turkey would bring to us in the EU that we either want or need?

Maybe also "TurkYusuf1" should learn a bit more about what a GDP is, what it means, and how far from being an indicator of the health of an economy it is nothing more than an indicator of economic activity. An indicator that, as we in Britain know only too well, is meaningless when it is being fueled by ever mounting external debt.

Maybe also take account of NATO now being well past its use by date as the reasons that NATO came into being are now long defunct and the only purpose that NSATO presently serves is to allow the US to have a presence where they are increasingly not wanted or needed.

In fact had it not been for NATO Blair’s dragging Britain into the US hegemony in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have triggered the involvement of other countries through the NATO treaty

Turkey secure secular democracy? Purleese! The place is heading faster and faster towards becoming the precise opposite, a thing that resulted in the recent trouble in which a number of Army officers were arrested because they were working for the retention of Secular rule.

Excellent relations with other countries? Get real. Look at the way that Turkey figuratively jumped out of its pram when reminded about the Armenian genocide. Look at the dreadful human rights record, the laws against freedom of press and other news media. In short the whole place is so absolutely un – European that the possibility of it being included in OUR home lands should be dismissed out of hand.

And that is the point.

Europe is our HOME.

WE should decide who we do or do not invite in and just because someone comes whining about wanting to be let in should, indeed MUST not result in the door being opened top them, especially when most of the other people in the ‘house’ don’t want them, don’t need them and yes, don’t like them.

Starship
10-03-10, 13:37
Maybe someone could spell out just what Turkey would bring to us in the EU that we either want or need?



Here is an open letter from Prof. Ahmet Davutoglu - Turkeys foreign affairs minister, in the Irish Times yesterday, perhaps he answers some of your questions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0309/1224265878209.html

Gwyllgi
10-03-10, 14:00
So the Turks are trying to play the “you owe us” and the “we’ve both been misunderstood and maltreated’ card. What a surprise.

Then the supposed benefits. Access to the Black Sea. What benefits does that bring Europe? We’re not the US, we have no military ambitions that an easy path through Turkey or its neighbours would prove to be advantageous. Interesting that in the letter reference is made to the close ties between Ireland and the US.

Very telling.

Closer access to the Middle East is hardly a benefit, it’s a thing we certainly do NOT want as that door swings both ways and it means that the Middle East and all that entails would therefore have greater access to Europe. Thanks, but no thanks.

As for Turkeys “special relationships”, since that is “lingua codex” for our close ties with Muslim countries, again, thanks, but no thanks. Neighbours, sure. Members of the same household? Nein danke.

Then there’s access to markets. The world is now a global market. We don’t need political links to access markets and in any case market access works both ways. We don’t want cheap goods swamping our home markets and so increasing our unemployment and reducing our standard of living.

Every imported item is a job lost in Europe.

Then there’s a wonderful statement. And I quote :-

“Since the 14th century, and even before, the bulk of our history has been wrought in this continent.”

I’ll correct that. It SHOULD read :-

“Since the 14th century, and even before, the bulk of our history has been wrought in this continent mostly involving war and bloodshed”.

There. Fixed.

I could continue to rubbish the letter and its contents but there’s no point.

Turkey has nothing we either want or need, sad to say the reverse is not true. We are an evolving federation and hopefully soon to be a nation in our own right. The United States of Europe. Turkey has no place in that.

Starship
10-03-10, 16:43
MMMMMMMmmmmmmmm well I haven't made up my mind just yet I'll still listen to all the arguments however I'll be honest and up front with you I would be more in favour of including Turkey in the future.

Not that you don't make some valid arguments gwyllgi but my experience of similar debates like the Lisbon 1 and 11 (The empire Strikes Back) made it obvious how any point you pick can be turned and used by the other side. Point in case you mention Turkeys early involvement in Europe being soaked in blood, but how much of European history has been violent, the Americans invented machine guns so we Europeans could kill each other more efficiently. The EU has allowed us move on from this, surely that's an argument for greater inclusion than any other.

In the end you start to look at the people making the arguments and what they stand for as much as the arguments them selves. You said you don't like Turks and that's fine no has to like anyone else but you can see how this might colour your position going forward.

You said you look forward to an early federation of Europe a super state can I go one step further a fortress Europe? Us and them, well back in 1963 the French black balled Britain's attempt at joining the EEC, Charles de Gaulle felt Britain lacked commitment to EU integration and he wasn't mad about their special relationship with the US (sound familiar). What if things had remained static ever since, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I do agree with you on the democracy issue, how long can we feel confident that a secular democracy will survive in Turkey? I have no answer because I cant know any more than anyone else can. But the secular forces or society within Turkey would be far better served, supported and guaranteed with in the EU and are far more likely to falter if Turkeys membership is turned down.

In 20 years time would you prefer a secular democratic Turkey with in the EU or a militant Islamic republic with the 10th largest military at your gate?

Anyway we dont have to make up our minds today:rolleyes2:

TurkYusuf1
12-03-10, 00:51
Maybe someone could spell out just what Turkey would bring to us in the EU that we either want or need?



Maybe also "TurkYusuf1" should learn a bit more about what a GDP is, what it means, and how far from being an indicator of the health of an economy it is nothing more than an indicator of economic activity. An indicator that, as we in Britain know only too well, is meaningless when it is being fueled by ever mounting external debt.



Maybe also take account of NATO now being well past its use by date as the reasons that NATO came into being are now long defunct and the only purpose that NSATO presently serves is to allow the US to have a presence where they are increasingly not wanted or needed.



In fact had it not been for NATO Blair’s dragging Britain into the US hegemony in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have triggered the involvement of other countries through the NATO treaty

Turkey secure secular democracy? Purleese! The place is heading faster and faster towards becoming the precise opposite, a thing that resulted in the recent trouble in which a number of Army officers were arrested because they were working for the retention of Secular rule.


Excellent relations with other countries? Get real. Look at the way that Turkey figuratively jumped out of its pram when reminded about the Armenian genocide. Look at the dreadful human rights record, the laws against freedom of press and other news media. In short the whole place is so absolutely un – European that the possibility of it being included in OUR home lands should be dismissed out of hand.


Europe is our HOME.

WE should decide who we do or do not invite in and just because someone comes whining about wanting to be let in should, indeed MUST not result in the door being opened top them, especially when most of the other people in the ‘house’ don’t want them, don’t need them and yes, don’t like them.

This is what Turkey would bring into EU, read and learn and don't just prejudge, these are not my words, I copied and pasted it from the internet so you won't say shit like it's only my opinion but opinions of political analysts and experts:

"Proponents of Turkey's membership argue that it is a key regional power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-30) with a large economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Turkey) and the second largest military force of NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-31)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-32) that will enhance the EU's position as a global geostrategic player; given Turkey's geographic location and economic, political, cultural and historic ties in regions with large natural resources that are at the immediate vicinity of the EU's geopolitical sphere of influence; such as the East Mediterranean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea) and Black Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea) coasts, the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East), the Caspian Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea) basin and Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia).[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-Atat.C3.BCrk-33)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-Ottoman_Turkey-34) According to the Swedish foreign minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Foreign_Affairs_%28Sweden%29), Carl Bildt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Bildt), "the accession of Turkey would give the EU a decisive role for stability in the eastern part of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which is clearly in the strategic interest of Europe."[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-ihtbildt-35) One of Turkey's key supporters for its bid to join the EU is the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom).[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-36)Turkey has the world's 15th largest GDP-PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-WB-GDP-PPP-40) and 17th largest Nominal GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29).[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-WB-GDP-Nominal-41) The country is a founding member of the OECD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD) and the G-20 major economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies)."

GDP is what a country produces it's gross domestic product, yes it does not necessarily mean a country's wealth but it' still a huge factor in determining a country's economic capabilities, let's compare China and US for example, US is by far richer than China in wealth but China can outproduce US or any other nation in the world due to their population and several other factors such as industrial and infrastructural success and strength. Turkey is the same way, 75% of it's population lives in great conditions and only 25% lives in so called poverty which is not nearly as bad as what some other countries have in Middle East, Africa or even in Eastern Europe. Turkey however has excellent infrastructure and equally good industrial capacity and their economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Regarding religion this is what I got off from the internet:
"Turkey has a secular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution), with no official state religion.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-59) Nominally, though, 99% of the Turkish population is Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-60)[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-61) of whom over 70% belong to the Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) branch of Islam. A sizeable minority, about over 25% of the Muslim population, is affiliated with the Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a) Alevi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) branch.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-62) The Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians) (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Gregorian, Syriac, Protestant) and Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) (Sephardic, Ashkenazi) were formerly sizable religious minorities in the country. Turkey would be the first Muslim-majority country to join the European Union, although Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania), Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) and Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo) are also Muslim-majority, and have been recognized as potential candidate countries.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-63) Official population census polls in Turkey do not include information regarding a person's religious belief or ethnic background due to the regulations set by the Turkish constitution, which defines all citizens of the Republic of Turkey as Turkish in terms of nationality, regardless of faith or race.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-64)
There is a strong tradition of secularism in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey). The state has no official religion nor promotes any, and actively monitors the area between the religions.[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-TR_Secularism-65) The constitution recognizes the freedom of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion) for individuals, whereas religious communities are placed under the protection of the state; but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process (by forming a religious party, for instance) or establish faith-based schools. No party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief; nevertheless, religious sensibilities are generally represented through conservative parties.[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-TR_Secularism-65) Turkey prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab) and theo-political symbolic garments for both sexes in government buildings, schools, and universities;[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-66) the law was upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) as "legitimate" in the Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla_%C5%9Eahin_v._Turkey) case on 10 November 2005.[68]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#cite_not e-67)
Well that may be true but take into account that NATO is also the only military alliance in the world that can stand up to hostile nations like North Korea or Iran or any other region in the world where the military power and assistance for example in natural disasters and crises or just military intervention to overthrow a fanatical leader who is a threat to world peace. Yes it's goals have changed since the collapse of the USSR and it's Eastern European and other allies but now the "War on Terror" is being fought not only by US but by UK and many other countries that are being targeted by the terrorism.Really? When did you become such an expert on Turkish politics. The country was built on a secular democratic model due to the heavy religious rule of the long lived Ottoman Empire. It kept it backward and let it fall behind Europe when it had surpassed militarily, economically, etc. in the first 400 hundred years of its rule during the dark ages of medieval Europe. I don`t agree with either the motives of any Islamic sympathizing government (I`m not saying the current government is) or the military dictatorship like control over the government. It is not a perfect democracy, look at how corrupt US or even UK politics are, there is not perfect democratic country in the world.

Here we go with more facts from the internet:
`Danish-Turkish relations:


The relations date back 250 years and actually started in the field of trade in 18th century. On 14 October 1756, an Agreement of Friendship and Trade was signed by the Sultan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan) Osman III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_III) and the King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King) Frederick V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_V_of_Denmark). In 1758, Denmark has appointed an extraordinary representative to the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire).
Today, Denmark has an embassy in Ankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara) and an honorary consulate in Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-5)
Turkey has an embassy in Copenhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-6)

Finnish-Turkish relations:


Turkey recognized the independence of Finland on February 21, 1918.
Finland has an embassy in Ankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara) and an honorary consulate general in Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul) and other honorary consulates in Belek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belek), Bodrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodrum) and Izmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmir).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-7)
Turkey has an embassy in Helsinki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-8)

German-Turkish relations:

Based on good Turkish-German relations from the 19th century onwards, Germany promoted a Turkish immigration to Germany. However, large scale didn't occur until the 20th century. Germany suffered an acute labor shortage after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) and, in 1961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961), the Federal Republic of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Germany) (West Germany) officially invited Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) workers to Germany to fill in this void, particularly to work in the factories that helped fuel Germany's economic miracle. The German authorities named these people Gastarbeiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter) (German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) for guest workers). Most Turks in Germany trace their ancestry to Central and Eastern Anatolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia). Today, Turks are Germany's largest ethnic minority and form most of Germany's Muslim minority

Italian-Turkish relations:

Italy has an embassy in Ankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara), a general consulate in Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul), a consulate İzmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir) and 3 honorary consulates in * Turkey has an embassy in Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) and a general consulate in Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-13)


Portuguese-Turkish relations:

Turkey's 161 years of political relations with Portugal date back to the Ottoman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) period when Viscount de Seixal was appointed as an envoy to Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul). Diplomatic relations ceased during World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) and were re-established in the Republican period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey) in 1926. A resident embassy was established in 1957. Portugal has an embassy in Ankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-15) Turkey has an embassy in Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon). Both countries are full members of NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO).

Swedish-Turkish relations:



Sweden, which will take over the rotating presidency of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union) in July, 2009, supports Turkey's European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) membership.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-Turkish-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-TurkNet-18)
Sweden's Green Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_%28Sweden%29) has criticized France and Germany's opposition to Turkey's membership.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-Zaman-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-WSJ-20)
In 12 June 2008, the Parliament of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Sweden) refused to call 1915 events as genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-21)


Turkey-United Kingdom relations:

Both countries currently maintain relations via the British Embassy in Ankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-22) and the Turkish Embassy in London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London).[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-23)
Turkey and the United Kingdom maintain strong bilateral relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_relations).[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-24) The President of Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Turkey) Cevdet Sunay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cevdet_Sunay) paid a state visit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_visit) to the United Kingdom in November 1967.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-visitstouk-25) The President of Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Turkey) Kenan Evren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenan_Evren) paid a state visit to the United Kingdom in July 1988.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-visitstouk-25) HM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majesty) Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom) paid state visits to Turkey in October 1971, and in May 2008.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Turkey#cite_note-26) Britain and Turkey are both members of the G20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20), and Britain supports the accession of Turkey to the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union).

This is an article I found online on Turkey:

`This blog mostly has discussed the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) as the main rising powers of the world. One often overlooked rising power is Turkey. Turkey has been an important bridge between the East and West for centuries (as the modern Turkish state and previous national and imperial incarnations). In the 21st century, Turkey has proved valuable as an interlocutor, serving as a value-add to both the West and to its more anti-West neighbors.
Most recently, Turkey, as a third party, brokered indirect talks between Syrian and Israeli officials, seeking for a peace deal. The talks have stalled, and the new Israeli government led by conservative Binyamin Netanyahu is unlikely to want to rekindle them, at least in the open. What is interesting is that Israelis and the international community seem to have nearly forgotten Turkey’s strong words for Israel over its Gaza war and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walk-out from the World Economic Forum’s Davos summit following an altercation with Israeli President Shimon Peres. Even when Turkey has not been host to talks, it has served as a consultant (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/11171078.asp?gid=244) to negotiations, as is the case for Egypt during Hamas-Israel peace efforts and Palestinian reconciliation attempts. Indeed, some have even referred to Turkey’s “obsession (http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2009/02/11/turkeys_obsession_with_mediation/4309/)” with mediation.
The Obama administration has been quick to capitalize on a positive relationship with Ankara. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0309/p06s01-wogn.html) to Turkey this past weekend was friendly and encouraging, and even resulted in the discussion of Turkish-brokered talks between the US and Iran. Although the talks remain simply a possibility, it is apparent that both Tehran and Washington have reached out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/24/turkey-iran-erdogan-interview) to Turkey to be the interlocutor. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan put it most succinctly when speaking about negotiations run by Ankara:

“The term mediation is used at times. This will only be realized if a concrete request is made by both sides. We could contribute to the furthering of relations between the two nations to a positive level.” Read more here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-turkey10-2009mar10,0,7606945.story).
If Turkey does succeed in bringing the US and Iran to the table, it will have accomplished a great deal. Nevertheless, it will still have a lot left to accomplish.`


Also visit these websites:


http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/beyond_the_brics.html
And that is the point.
http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20070805063759112
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35388

`Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's August 6 visit to Ankara marked a new era for "enhanced multi-dimensional partnership," between Ankara and Moscow. Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed some twenty agreements covering energy, trade and other fields. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi also attended part of the talks between Erdogan and Putin, considering the involvement of Italian companies in some of these projects. The most remarkable dimension of the various joint projects concerns energy cooperation, most notably Turkey's expression of support for Russia's South Stream project (Anadolu Ajansi, www.cnnturk.com, www.ntvmsnbc.com, August 6)In oil transportation, Russia committed to participate in the planned Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline (SCP), connecting the Turkish Black Sea city of Samsun to the Mediterranean terminal Ceyhan. Turkey has solicited Russian participation in the SCP, which will bypass the congested Turkish Straits. Moscow has proven reluctant, and has instead promoted another bypass option through Burgas-Alexandroupolis between Bulgaria and Greece. Meanwhile, Turkey took further steps to make the SCP attractive for the Russian side, by linking this project with the Turkish-Israeli-Indian energy partnership (EDM, November 25, 2008).Erdogan expressed his pleasure with the Russian decision to commit its crude. Ankara can consider this development as its greatest success in this grand bargain, given that Turkey has worked to convert Ceyhan, where the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline also terminates, into a global energy hub. However, Putin did not rule out interest in Burgas-Alexandroupolis, and instead emphasized that the two pipelines might be complementary in meeting the growing demand for export routes. This statement raises questions about how committed Russia will be to the SCP, given that Russian companies own the majority of shares in the other Burgas-Alexandroupolis option.In terms of gas cooperation, Turkey will allow Russia to conduct explorations and feasibility studies in the Turkish exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea, as part of Russian plans to construct South Stream. Since this move comes against the background of Turkey's decision to sign the rival Nabucco pipeline agreement last month, it raises many questions, as to how it will affect Nabucco, which Turkey considers a "strategic priority," as well as European energy security issues. Despite the questions surrounding its feasibility and high costs, as well as its negative implications for Nabucco, Erdogan maintained that both projects contribute to diversification efforts.

It appears that the "grand bargain" was between the SCP and Blue Stream. Ahead of the meeting, Yuri Ushakov, the Deputy Head of the Russian Government Staff said that "Turkey made concessions in South Stream and we made concessions in SCP," but added that he had doubts over the SCP's feasibility (Anadolu Ajansi, August 5). A statement from Berlusconi's office also claimed that he had helped broker a rapprochement between both countries on these two issues (Hurriyet Daily News, August 6). However, domestically, there are concerns that in this "exchange" of concessions, Turkey did not gain much. The SCP's importance was inflated, because it was developed by business interests close to the government (www.turksam.org.tr, August 7). Another gas deal concerned Ankara's request to renew the contract under which it purchases Russian gas through the Western pipeline via the Balkans. Erdogan announced that the contract (which expires in 2011) will be renewed for 20 years. Turkey had complained about the high prices and the leave-or-pay conditions in its gas deals with Russia. Putin said it was renewed on favorable terms to Turkey, but the contract's details are unclear.

Erdogan also said that they discussed the extension of Blue Stream II to transport Russian gas to Israel, Lebanon and even Cyprus. Blue Stream, running underneath the Black Sea, is the second route carrying Russian gas to Turkey. Moscow previously raised the possibility that it could use Blue Stream II in order to transport gas to Europe, but this option was rejected, since it contradicted Nabucco and Russia sought to use Turkey only as a transportation route. Now, Ankara wants to revive it as part of a North-South corridor. Based on the leaders' statements, it appears that the existing capacity of Blue Stream might be improved and gas could be transferred to the Mediterranean through this pipeline.

However, although Erdogan praised this development as another major success, there is no guarantee that Russia will grant "re-export rights," which indicates that if Blue Stream II is implemented, Moscow will continue to view Turkish territory as a mere conduit for its gas, which raises the question: how will Turkey benefit from the agreement? Russian priorities also involve Turkey's first nuclear power plant tender, which was awarded to a Russian-Turkish consortium. As the original price was too high, the tender has long awaited cabinet approval (EDM, January 26). Meanwhile, the Russian side lowered the price, and offered a compromise. Prior to Putin's visit, it was expected that with further "bargaining," a final deal might be reached, but apparently it failed. Nevertheless, Ankara and Moscow signed protocols regarding energy cooperation, including the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, early notification of accidents, exchange of information on facilities, and to continue talks on the nuclear tender.

The most controversial development is perhaps Ankara's support for South Stream. Erdogan reiterated his belief that Nabucco and South Stream are complementary, yet turned a blind eye to several Russian officials' (including Putin) statements to the contrary. It is assumed in Ankara that growing European energy demand will accommodate both projects; but this ignores the competition between both projects over the same downstream markets. Moreover, the Turkish side fails to appreciate the challenges Russia is facing in investing in its domestic gas industry, and acts on the assumption that "Russia has enormous reserves," while failing to realize that Russia is also planning to tap into the same upstream producers, namely Central Asian and Caspian gas, just as the Nabucco project envisages (www.ntvmsnbc.com, August 6).

Putin also added that a consensus was reached on Russia building gas storage facilities in the Salt Lake. Taken together with the announced joint investments between Turkish and Russian firms, including Gazprom, it is unclear whether the Turkish government recognizes the consequences of these decisions. Russia has effectively used the practice of co-opting the gas infrastructure of transport and consumer countries, as part of its efforts to monopolize downstream markets. It is unclear how this penetration into the Turkish grid might affect Ankara's future energy policies.`

Gwyllgi
14-03-10, 14:31
Let’s start with NATO.

NATO is outdated. The justification for the creation of NATO is gone, today NATO is a thing that is actually less than useless for Europe as it was the NATO treaty that allowed the US to drag European governments into conflicts that they had no reason to become embroiled in.

Moreover NATO provides the means for the US to place early warning systems into Europe, early warning systems that benefit the US but make the countries stuck with the damm things a target when they otherwise probably wouldn’t be.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Now the Turkish economy. The Turkish economy swings both ways. It is a market, but it is also a supplier to markets. A supplier of what in many cases can also be supplied from within the EU but at a lower price. Sounds good? It is until the realisation that everything we could produce but instead import is in essence the exporting of our jobs.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Turkey and stability? Yeah. Right. Tell that to the Kurds, And the Armenians. And the Greeks, and other nations where Turkish “support” is paying for the wherewithal for conflict. Thanks, but no thanks.

The UK a key supporter to Turkish accession? No.

Tony Blair and many of his New Labour fellow travelers so keen to keep the Islamic vote in order to keep their parliamentary seats may pay lip service to the thought but the majority of British people are appalled by the prospect. There is also the desire Blair had to help Shrub and his outlandish aims, aims in which a close unsinkable aircraft carrier to the theatre of his war was paramountl.

The UK wants Turkey in the EU? No thanks.

Now two points about GDP. Firstly UNDERSTAND all of the implications of GDP, secondly understand the definition of poverty. For one thing understand the huge difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Turkey is an impoverished nation desperate to sponge of the EU.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Turkish religion? True Turkey claims to have a secular constitution but that is only insofar as the population can chose their representatives by voting, and there is no stated link to Shar’is (and I use that word in the correct context). HOWEVER on the ground the situation is very different. To imagine for a New York Second that Turkey is in any way a secular nation is simply wrong.

Is NATO the only military alliance able to stand up to North Korea or Iran? Hardly. If push came to shove there’s several nations that could turn both countries into Trinitite in the blink of an eye, and the so called war on terror is actually a defensive war against the war being waged on the free world by Islam, and that is a war in which conventional weapons play no significant part.

As for the rest of your cut & paste material, it is shallow and highly partisan.

Turkey is NOT welcome by the grass roots people of Europe, it has NOTHING that we either want or need, it will, or could make a good enough neighbour, but NEVER a filial state.

Now Russia, there’s a different proposition. Russia is closer to the rest of Europe than Turkey is, ever has been, or ever will be, and Russia WOULD be a good nation to have as a member state of the EU.

Starship
15-03-10, 15:57
TurkYusuf1 are you sure the Turkish people would want to join the EU? on joining there would be an exodus of people to the wealthier regions of Europe, look at what happened in Latvia and Poland and even with the economic downturn they are not all rushing home. You would find it difficult to keep people in any sort of agricultural industry and would probably be forced to allow large numbers of foreigners from out side the EU into your country to do all the menial work.

And then there is the issue of culture, how will Turkish people react to the westernizing influence of joining the EU, its one thing to say Turkey is secular but it is still a very conservative Muslim country.

There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.

Cambrius (The Red)
16-03-10, 16:55
TurkYusuf1 are you sure the Turkish people would want to join the EU? on joining there would be an exodus of people to the wealthier regions of Europe, look at what happened in Latvia and Poland and even with the economic downturn they are not all rushing home. You would find it difficult to keep people in any sort of agricultural industry and would probably be forced to allow large numbers of foreigners from out side the EU into your country to do all the menial work.

And then there is the issue of culture, how will Turkish people react to the westernizing influence of joining the EU, its one thing to say Turkey is secular but it is still a very conservative Muslim country.

There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.

I'm sure he is thinking quite hard about the potential ramifications of Turkish E.U. membership after the recent flurry of arguments on this thread.

Wilhelm
16-03-10, 17:08
Maybe we should start first asking Turks if they feel european and/or want to join EU....Because it seems only europeans think Turkey is european..

TurkYusuf1
16-03-10, 23:17
Let’s start with NATO.




NATO is outdated. The justification for the creation of NATO is gone, today NATO is a thing that is actually less than useless for Europe as it was the NATO treaty that allowed the US to drag European governments into conflicts that they had no reason to become embroiled in.

Moreover NATO provides the means for the US to place early warning systems into Europe, early warning systems that benefit the US but make the countries stuck with the damm things a target when they otherwise probably wouldn’t be.


So thanks, but no thanks.

Now the Turkish economy. The Turkish economy swings both ways. It is a market, but it is also a supplier to markets. A supplier of what in many cases can also be supplied from within the EU but at a lower price. Sounds good? It is until the realisation that everything we could produce but instead import is in essence the exporting of our jobs.


So thanks, but no thanks.

Turkey and stability? Yeah. Right. Tell that to the Kurds, And the Armenians. And the Greeks, and other nations where Turkish “support” is paying for the wherewithal for conflict. Thanks, but no thanks.


The UK a key supporter to Turkish accession? No.


Tony Blair and many of his New Labour fellow travelers so keen to keep the Islamic vote in order to keep their parliamentary seats may pay lip service to the thought but the majority of British people are appalled by the prospect. There is also the desire Blair had to help Shrub and his outlandish aims, aims in which a close unsinkable aircraft carrier to the theatre of his war was paramountl.


The UK wants Turkey in the EU? No thanks.

Now two points about GDP. Firstly UNDERSTAND all of the implications of GDP, secondly understand the definition of poverty. For one thing understand the huge difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Turkey is an impoverished nation desperate to sponge of the EU.


Thanks, but no thanks.

Turkish religion? True Turkey claims to have a secular constitution but that is only insofar as the population can chose their representatives by voting, and there is no stated link to Shar’is (and I use that word in the correct context). HOWEVER on the ground the situation is very different. To imagine for a New York Second that Turkey is in any way a secular nation is simply wrong.



Is NATO the only military alliance able to stand up to North Korea or Iran? Hardly. If push came to shove there’s several nations that could turn both countries into Trinitite in the blink of an eye, and the so called war on terror is actually a defensive war against the war being waged on the free world by Islam, and that is a war in which conventional weapons play no significant part.


As for the rest of your cut & paste material, it is shallow and highly partisan.


Turkey is NOT welcome by the grass roots people of Europe, it has NOTHING that we either want or need, it will, or could make a good enough neighbour, but NEVER a filial state.

Now Russia, there’s a different proposition. Russia is closer to the rest of Europe than Turkey is, ever has been, or ever will be, and Russia WOULD be a good nation to have as a member state of the EU.


NATO is not outdated despite what you think, in terms of military power only UK, France and Germany and to a small extent Italy are powerful enough in Europe to stand up against other major powers and hostile nations around the globe. So without US, NATO would not have deterred the Soviets from invading and now would not be able to stand up to countries like North Korea or Iran by themselves. China, Russia and even India today are more powerful than Europe so they definitely need NATO to deter and balance the power with these nations.No that's not because of NATO, the reason Europe being a target for attacks is because geographically they are closer to Middle East and the rest of Asia than US so that's the stupidest excuse to use to discredit NATO.Turkey is a growing economy and has great industrial and infrastructural capacity and it may not be as strong as European economies but they are growing and will be in top 10 in 40 or so years, there is one major difference between European and Turkish economies and that is Europe depends too much on oil and gas to fuel their economies and militaries from Middle East and Russia while Turkey possesses other resources that are just as good and cheaper and less harmful to the environment. Yes it is a market and a supplier of markets but so what many European countries are as well, Turkey's main trading partners are Germany, UK, France, and other European nations other than US. It goes both ways in terms of trade. Both benefit.Well despite what you may think or think you know, some people are idiotic enough to not be able to let go of past animosities in those countries but most people don't give a shit and want to move forward. In fact the current Turkish government is working to fix relations with Greece and has even opened it's border with Armenia and has agreed to look into the events of 1915 and try to find a solution to the problem. About the Kurds again you are generalizing, there is a difference between local Kurdish people and the PKK (the terrorist/socialist/communist/separatist organization) which claims represents the Kurdish people in Turkey and has been fighting the Turkish army for 26 years. I have some Kurdish blood in me (my mother is Turkmen, my father half Turkmen - from father's side and half Kurdish - from mother's side) and I personally know many Kurds in Turkey that don't feel hatred to the Turks and live in peace and coexistance with them. So you are misinformed on this subject as well, I suggest you do more research before you make presumptions.I copy and pasted this from the internet it's not what I'm saying and I know several British people that claim this fact too, so it's not my opinion but a well-known fact so you can deny it all you want but it won't change the fact.Where did you get this so called information from any reliable sources? Also even if it is true, which I highly doubt, the Queen herself has visited Turkey several times in the last 10 or so years and has expressed her admiration for Turkey and it's impressive accomplishments and history. I can copy and paste this too or give you the link that confirms this if you don't believe me or want to see proof of it. Doesn't really matter anyway I know this fact and so do many people. Yes they support them in EU, opinion of people may be varied and different because they will be divided on the issue.Yes I know what GDP means and definition of poverty, but Turkey is in no way an impoverished nation compared to EU. Turkey is higher than several European countries in GDP than Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Poland, etc. so how do you figure that out when countries like Sweden and Switzerland are two countries with excellent qualities of life and their GDP is far weaker than Turkey's? Again factless and sourceless presumptions.The population is divided on the issue of religion. More than 70% of the country is not religious and only about 20-30% are religiously committed to Islam as shown in a recent survey (I can provide you with the link if you want to see it for yourself). I'm not saying this to upset any other Turkish or other Muslims who value their religion like me but it's a known fact.Yes it is the only combined force of military alliance that can do that because North Korea and Iran despite being weaker than European countries when compared one on one, still can do significant damage to Europe if a war occurs. In fact North Korea and Iran despite having old and inefficient weapons when compared to Europe have relatively large armies and are acquiring nukes which can reach Europe which will make it even more difficult for Europe to hold it's own without combined NATO support from countries like US and even Turkey to some small extent.Really I made sure to copy and paste a lot of my stuff from the internet so you won't use the excuse of calling me biased. Why would the internet (where the western world controls) would claim these things about Turkey which show positive and rapid growth in areas like economy and influence if they weren't true or proven facts?
Sorry but that statement is also nothing but a presumption with no facts to back it up. Like I copy and pasted earlier, important countries like Sweden, UK even Turkey's long time rival and neighbour Greece support Turkey's accession into EU. Actually no you are wrong again. Russia is much closer to Turkey now than it has ever been to Europe. Did you forget the Cold War where the former Soviet Union and Europe where ready to fight against each other and were bitter rivals, that hasn't really changed enough to make Russia trust Europe as they see them as continuous and strong allies of US. Turkey and Russia meanwhile have been enemies and rivals for centuries, but the last 10 years have seen dramatic improvements in relations between the two countries as they have been working on many energy projects and support and acknowledge each others roles in the area as they have even conducted joint military exercises and operations such as the recent Navy operation done together (I can also provide you with the link if you want to see it for yourself). Russia still doesn't trust Europe but since are closer with Turkey as they have interests in the area they are both in such as Central Asian Turkic nations and the Caucasus. Russia would be a good member to have in EU? I'm not sure your European colleagues would agree with you on that.

TurkYusuf1
16-03-10, 23:45
TurkYusuf1 are you sure the Turkish people would want to join the EU? on joining there would be an exodus of people to the wealthier regions of Europe, look at what happened in Latvia and Poland and even with the economic downturn they are not all rushing home. You would find it difficult to keep people in any sort of agricultural industry and would probably be forced to allow large numbers of foreigners from out side the EU into your country to do all the menial work.

And then there is the issue of culture, how will Turkish people react to the westernizing influence of joining the EU, its one thing to say Turkey is secular but it is still a very conservative Muslim country.


There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.


The Turkish people are divided on the issue, some of them especially in the Central and Western part of the country support the accession into EU but some people especially in the Eastern part of the country where Kurds, some Arabs and other religiously traditional and committed people don't want this to happen. I myself am divided and conflicted over the issue, I'm just arguing here on this forum why and when and how it will happen eventually despite the difficulties based on my studies in university and my own personal research and following the news, articles and other reports. Well there are already 5+ million Turks in Europe (2-4 million in Germany alone and UK and France having 500,000 each and the rest is dispersed around the continent) working, studying and living there so I don't see how Turkey's accession would make the situation any different. Yes many more Turks would immigrate into richer parts of Europe but Turkey has a huge population (about 76 million people) and would not lose many people and would not need to bring other people from neighbouring countries to fill in the void. Like I claimed earlier in my previous comments, Turkey in many ways including culturally is already western and european due to it's long legacy and influence in Europe for the last 1,000 years. No it's not a very conservative Muslim country and like I said earlier, only about 20-30% of the country is religiously traditional and committed to Islam while the rest are not that involved in their religion. I'm not saying this to anger any other Muslims or religious Turks but this is the case with Turkey and has been for over 70 years since the Turkish Republic was formed.
Actually no that's not true, based on my studies in university and personal research from many sources, Europe is not much stronger than Turkey in terms of military power and only UK, France and Germany and to a small extent Italy could threaten Turkey, Eastern Europe is still relatively weak and Turkey could dominate that region as easily as it did during it's Ottoman times but Western Europe, specifically the countries I listed above could hold their own against Turkey but they are not much stronger than Turkey. According to my research I found out that on average UK, France and Germany rank as 5th, 6th and 7th respectively while Turkey is ranked as 8th or 9th in world military rankings so you see they are not far behind while Italy is between 12th-17th while other European nations like Sweden, Greece, Spain, etc. are not even in top 20. Also Turkey is a major power that is growing rapidly in terms of military power and regional influence as they invest a huge amount on their military (current spending for 2010 is between $42-49 billion dollars even higher than Russia and Italy), Turkey also produces about 60% of it's own weapons and is less dependent on other nations for military equipment and hardware than it did before on US and Europe. It has impressive military projects such as the acquiring of a national self made tank in 2012 "Altay Tank Project" based on the latest German Leopards and with some help from South Korea and is a level 3 partner in F-35 aircraft planes while it possesses the 3rd largest arsenal of F-16's in the world after US and Israel (which is considered the second most effective and powerful aircraft in the world after the F-22's, which only US possesses and Eurofighter Typhoon, which several European nations like UK and Germany posses). Turkey is already a fully developed country and a major regional power economically and militarily (17th economy in GDP higher than any Muslim country and higher than many European countries as I indicated earlier and between 8th-10th most powerful military in the world).

Gwyllgi
18-03-10, 09:55
@ TurkYusuf1

Although this thread relates to Turkey and the EU the way it has developed perfectly illustrates just one reason why Turkey is and will remain out of step with the EU while Islam is such a dominant force in that country.

Answering your lengthy previous post addressed to me :-

Regarding your “religion”, a religion only if the word is used in its broadest sense, it’s interesting that you start with an assumption about my depth of knowledge. It’s an assumption that is utterly incorrect.

It’s also interesting that before Islam makes any comment about Judaism or Christianity it first redefines both. Mohammed did this for two reasons.

Firstly because although widely traveled in the region he really didn’t understand the pre-existing religions, made many schoolboy howlers, and had to cater for them when they were pointed out to him.

Secondly, and especially in the case of Christianity, what he was “teaching” runs counter to the teaching and deeds of Christ. Both those recorded in the (selected) Gospels and other Gospels. For example the Gnostic works, as well as other testaments that were not included in the Roman version of The Bible that Mohammed had to come up with an excuse for his creation being so out of step.

You’re basing your comments assuming that the King James version of The Bible is the sum total of the life, times, and teaching of Jesus as regards the knowledge and understanding of Christians. Such is not so. (let’s ignore the old chestnut that Jesus was a contemporary version of Superman, a mythical perfection for the times) which as I have alluded to in the previous paragraph it is not. .

It’s also interesting that you glibly refer to ‘The Koran’ as if there was only the one Koran.

There are several versions, and these differ quite considerably in far more than chapter order, but then, as someone who knows so much about the Christian religion and Judaism you’ll know that ----- won’t you?

As for the Koran being “to recollect the texts written in the Bible and the Torah in Christianity and Judaism that were lost or changed throughout the centuries” that really is a schoolboy howler to beat them all. Talk about “if at first you don’t succeed, redefine success”.

Mohammed invented a thing to suite his agenda. His agenda was to provide common ground, a stick, and a carrot, in order to exploit the feuding tribes in such a way as to create a super-tribe.

He did this by means of a “pick and mix” of what existed in a number of religions of the time, mostly the monotheistic as the Jews and Christians had strong and well founded “churches” as well as being, but didn’t baulk at using odds and sods from Paganism and in fact anything that suited his needs at the time.

In fact much as Hitler used parts of the political movements of his time in order to create Nazism, a thing that by its broad appeal to followers of just about anything from the socialist workers to the hard right nationalists. Once achieved, like Hitler having got the attention and established a common bond, both then started to bring in the inhuman aspects of their invented movements.

In that respect Hitler and Mohammed have a great deal in common, as does Islam and Nazism. Both oppressive, both insisting on domination of the world, and both utterly foul and inhuman to all who can not be brought under the jack-boot or jack-sandal.

The Koran? It is supposed to be the disclosed word of Allah, passed to Mohammed via Gibreel and to be learned and constantly recited sotto voce in order to ensure that the devout Mohammedan remains on the ”path to the water” --- but then, you’ll know that won’t you?

You do raise an interesting question on when I became expert on the worlds religions.

I’m not an expert on the worlds religions, just some of them.
And in answer to your question about how long, around 43 years ago.

For your information although my principle academic career has been in physics I am, or rather was, an ordained minister. I rejected Theism and became a hard atheist many years ago because the more one learns about Religions, their histories, and contrasts that with the reality of the world and the universe so any form of theism becomes obviously just plain silly and nothing more than superstition.
A superstition that acts as a comfort blanket for those who need such a thing.

Now the word Islam. Yes, it does mean submission, but submission to the dictates of Mohammed. The claim that what he produced, if indeed he did the work on his own which is a matter of more than a little doubt, is so out of kilter with the God of Christians and Jews when comparison is undertaken as to thoroughly disprove that the two deities are one and the same.

Now I can tranche through the rest of what you’ve offered in argument in fine detail but to be frank it’s becoming tedious. Instead I’ll simply address some key points.

Alcohol. Alcohol is absolutely NOT prohibited in either Christianity or Judaism. Some Christian sects reject alcohol on the basis of Mathew 26:29 though in Luke 22:19 when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me” clearly shows that as wine is key in the Eucharist those sects are in error.

So also the prohibition on pork. Even an extreme orthodox Jew may eat pork to save his life.

Maybe if you knew, really knew what Judaism and Christianity was all about, you would be aware of the principle of “Pikuach Nefesh” in Judaism, the requirement to save life that overrides virtually all demands up to but, unlike the case of Islam, not including denying his religion.

Much as the principle of lying in Islam in order to save a the life of a Mohammedan who finds himself at risk (amongst other things) is to be found in taqiyya and Kitman.

As for the rest, you simply repeat yourself regarding Turkey and the EU. Your assertion that most of us here in the EU don’t want Turkey because the majority of Turks are Muslim is partly correct but by no means the whole story.

Turkey is a nation too far. Be a neighbour, don’t try to join the family.

Starship
19-03-10, 13:31
There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.


Sorry TurkYusuf1 I didn't explain myself very well there , I wasn't implying Turkey should be worried about a military invasion from Europe but more an invasion of ideas, morals (maybe even loose ones) culture and laws.

Watch out you could be facing a phalanx of Bara Brost, the topless Swedish women's brigade:smile:

One other point you said you were not concerned about a large migration of Turks into the wealthier member states after membership. But this has been the experience of several Eastern European countries like Poland. And of the 70-80 millions Turks it wont be across the board it will be demographic specific (mostly men) in the early twenties to thirties a key demographic for any country.

Gwyllgi
19-03-10, 14:10
I’ve just spent a couple of minutes looking at what he has written and it makes for interesting reading. For starters he recognises there would be a mass migration from Turkey int Europe if Turkey was to be allowed to join us yet totally overlooks the fact that we don’t want or need such a mass migration.

Then there is the (false) claim that Turkey is in many ways including culturally is (in his words) “already western and european due to it's long legacy and influence in Europe for the last 1,000 years.”

Err, actually no, actually it isn’t.

Another telling claim he makes is that the majority of the 98% Mohammedan population are (in his words) “not that involved in their religion” and yet totally fails to grasp that the vast majority of European do not WANT any more Islamic influence of any form in our nations. What’s more the admission that (in his words) around 30% of the population ARE conservative Mohammedans (with all THAT entails) is yet another reason for Turkey to remain a neighbour.

What is also interesting is that looking at the totality of his post nearly half of it is about weapons, armaments, and by definition fighting and conflict.

Do we really need a nation with people so intent on seeing the perpetration of conflict in our Union, a thing that has the end of internecine conflict as a crucial component of its very being?

Starship
19-03-10, 14:47
Where do you see the Eu going in the future Gwyllgi, not the next 5-10 years but 50-100? this isn't a loaded question Im just curious to know what you think ?

You look at China, they already have high speed trains between their main cities and are forward planning HS trains to Russia and Europe.

A one China Policy which has been very clearly laid out.

And a foreign policy which involves doing business with any country that will supply them with natural resources to fuel their economy (regardless of how that country treats its citizens or neighbours.

Perhaps our own politicians should publish a path and clearly lay out what steps will be taken to get us there.

Starship
19-03-10, 21:39
(100 Years from now)

How about a Union that stretches as far as Russia with Japan applying for membership and down through Turkey with Armenia the Leb Israel and Jordan as members with Egypt applying (among others).

What type of Union?

1. An Economic Union.
2. A 2/3 4 or 5 speed political Union.
3. Not necessarily a military Union but certainly with the capability to reach out and impact on different world crises, natural, political or environmental.

Requirements for entry?

1. Secular democracy.
2. Implementation of EU laws and directives.
3. Guarantee of Freedoms.
a) Speech
b) Assembly
c) Union membership
d) Press
e) political parties
f) Judiciary
g) religion

Any more?

Of course we may have to lose the European from the title but that will help solve the genetic, geographic and culture debate, we would then be only restrained by the smallness of our minds and ambitions:rolleyes2:

LeBrok
19-03-10, 23:44
Give it a thousand of years and the whole world should be mixed well genetically, culturally, politically you name it, and our planet will be one big union.
I'm just afraid that something will screw up our technological civilization and will collapse into middle ages again. One of these threats is Islam I'm afraid.

Actually lately I had an idea that future countries should be based on political and economic system more than culture, language or faith. I would love to live in country with people of same political and economical views and aspirations. The rest would belong to freedom domain. We should have a freedom of selecting countries of similar views to live in.

The most of energy and time of governments is wasted around political intrigues, negotiations with other parties, and economic/fiscal issues. Everybody blames government for their shortcomings.
In new world if your country sucks, you can only blame yourself for making a bad choice, lol.

Gwyllgi
20-03-10, 09:50
Where do you see the Eu going in the future Gwyllgi, not the next 5-10 years but 50-100? this isn't a loaded question Im just curious to know what you think ?

You look at China, they already have high speed trains between their main cities and are forward planning HS trains to Russia and Europe.

A one China Policy which has been very clearly laid out.

And a foreign policy which involves doing business with any country that will supply them with natural resources to fuel their economy (regardless of how that country treats its citizens or neighbours.

Perhaps our own politicians should publish a path and clearly lay out what steps will be taken to get us there.

Fifty years? A hundred years? I would HOPE that Russia would be an EU member and I would HOPE that Islam was at least constrained, but I suspect that there may be big-time trouble coming down the line, and that Europe may well be partitioned with the map of the EU considerably changed. I wouldn’t want to live in Greece, that’s for sure. Or the Balearics, Corsica, or Sardinia.

The UK is a special case. Being isolated by the North Sea and with its dreadful multicultural experiment now yielding its fruit, a fruit that is screwing the demography of the UK so very much, I really wouldn’t be surprised to see the UK being Islamic even if not in entirety, certainly in part.

The relationship with the US will have fallen apart especially following the collapse of the US economy following the collapse of the $US that will come as an alternative reserve currency emerges. That collapse might well see the USA go the same route as did the USSR but as with all great empires their ultimate failure is associated with a war.

Norway and Sweden, in my opinion are not a good fit into the rest of Europe. It could well be that both of them along with Iceland, Greenland, and Canada will form a new political and economic grouping with the USA and Mexico to form a new North American Union. But to be honest I don’t know that much detail about the relative strengths of each and I can’t even guess what changes will come about in the US as a result of demographic changes and tye social changes that will accompany them.

China is certainly where I think most progress will take place. The links that are being created by China with Africa and now South America will see a global empire in essence if not in fact.

I believe that right now there’s too many domestic political games being played by politicians as a result of there still not being a United States of Europe. It’s getting to be a matter of great importance to establish the USE if for no other reason than to control the economies of the member states.

Look at the mess Greece has created. Look at the mess the UK economy is in. There needs to be an EU wide chancellor to govern what is, in the EURO and the European Central Bank, an almost EU wide treasury.

The one certainty is that no matter what the lifestyle enjoyed by those of us in the “old” EU states is going to tumble big time and I suspect our Golden Age is drawing rapidly to a close.

But underlying the whole sorry mess is the question of when some pandemic will emerge to cull the global population, because sure as eggs it’s going to happen.

Michael Folkesson
22-03-10, 17:40
(100 Years from now)

How about a Union that stretches as far as Russia with Japan applying for membership and down through Turkey with Armenia the Leb Israel and Jordan as members with Egypt applying (among others).

What type of Union?

1. An Economic Union.
2. A 2/3 4 or 5 speed political Union.
3. Not necessarily a military Union but certainly with the capability to reach out and impact on different world crises, natural, political or environmental.

Requirements for entry?

1. Secular democracy.
2. Implementation of EU laws and directives.
3. Guarantee of Freedoms.
a) Speech
b) Assembly
c) Union membership
d) Press
e) political parties
f) Judiciary
g) religion

Any more?

Of course we may have to lose the European from the title but that will help solve the genetic, geographic and culture debate, we would then be only restrained by the smallness of our minds and ambitions:rolleyes2:

I don't think so, for the many reasons that make up the ideas of the Union, and by the fact - which many seem oblivious or ignorant to - that most of the world is building communities - with the EU being the example - which includes the countries you mentioned. From the Maghreb to the Mashriq, there are projects moving forward.

Digressing slightly, my guess is that the GCC in time will include large parts or the whole Levant, or there will be another community taking place. That would mean a reformation of the GCC, but I think that wouldn't be very difficult. The Levant coming under greater influence of Wahabbi Islam is not very attractive though and I think that there could be resistance to that in the region. Even though it's not visible right now, there might be another option possible, even though Iraq has been accepted into the GCC once again, Iran is looking eastward towards SAARC, and the Maghreb is AMU, and even though I question the viability of the AU project, the sub communities seem to have a future.

Russia will not be a EU member, and Japan and S. Korea will likely approach the ASEAN community to an extent.

Michael Folkesson
22-03-10, 19:18
Fifty years? A hundred years? I would HOPE that Russia would be an EU member and I would HOPE that Islam was at least constrained, but I suspect that there may be big-time trouble coming down the line, and that Europe may well be partitioned with the map of the EU considerably changed. I wouldn’t want to live in Greece, that’s for sure. Or the Balearics, Corsica, or Sardinia.
No. I love Russia. I used to live in Moscow and St. P. Russia is European, but it's still more "Russia" than "Europe", an old empire and it's of no interest to have 150+ millions strong votes in the EP supported by other large slavic populations. Being blunt, we could just as well move the EP to Moscow and call it the European Duma. I don't find that the interests and the ideas of the Union is on par with the Russian. Russia is by itself a large community; a federation of republics. For what reason would it be of mutual interest with Russia as a member? We will still have bilateral agreements and cooperation. The Union is not an empire; it's not about territory and power. I think Turkey has a more obvious place in the EU than Russia, and I have issues with that as well. I don't feel that Turkey is ready for membership.



The UK is a special case. Being isolated by the North Sea and with its dreadful multicultural experiment now yielding its fruit, a fruit that is screwing the demography of the UK so very much, I really wouldn’t be surprised to see the UK being Islamic even if not in entirety, certainly in part.

Oh, come on. Sweden has a greater percentage of immigration than both the UK and Italy. The UK is a bit screwed up in parts of their democracy and justice system, but that's not by influence of immigration. That's all British. And please don't judge Islam by the extreme aspects. There are loads of Muslims eating pork and not praying 5 times a day. They are just people. I agree that fundamentalist Islam must be opposed in the EU, but there is a way between banning burqas and Niqabs and lying flat against the demands of Wahhabi interests.



The relationship with the US will have fallen apart especially following the collapse of the US economy following the collapse of the $US that will come as an alternative reserve currency emerges. That collapse might well see the USA go the same route as did the USSR but as with all great empires their ultimate failure is associated with a war.

If by comparing to the USSR you mean american interests and military stepping back, it will take another form. You may want to look into what is happening with NATO. They are reforming, and it's taking a clearer role as a US interest organisation further threaten to undermine the role of the UN making it irrelevant, and by going global it may very well threaten to not only institutionalize the current hegemony but expand it. What the reaction will be in the world we can only speculate on, but likely the CSO and Shanghai Organization will have an opinion.



Norway and Sweden, in my opinion are not a good fit into the rest of Europe. It could well be that both of them along with Iceland, Greenland, and Canada will form a new political and economic grouping with the USA and Mexico to form a new North American Union. But to be honest I don’t know that much detail about the relative strengths of each and I can’t even guess what changes will come about in the US as a result of demographic changes and tye social changes that will accompany them.

Really? I would need to have more information for the reason why Scandinavia don't fit into the Union. They are full blown working democracies with most of them good economies, net contributors to the Union with low criminality, absent corruption and a fairly positive attitude towards the EU. I would think that a country like Bulgaria would fit into your description of a country that does not fit into the Union. Start where we have a real problem.



China is certainly where I think most progress will take place. The links that are being created by China with Africa and now South America will see a global empire in essence if not in fact.

Not really. The BRIC countries are clearly taking their place on the multi-polar global arena, but USAN will not be run by the Chinese. The sino agenda in Africa is no different than that of the US. We will see a greater plurality in the world but a global sino-empire is quite unlikely. The whole world develop simultaneously. The Chinese may look scary, but the economic growth phenomenon is possible because they are rising from being an undeveloped poor country.



I believe that right now there’s too many domestic political games being played by politicians as a result of there still not being a United States of Europe. It’s getting to be a matter of great importance to establish the USE if for no other reason than to control the economies of the member states.

I can only guess that by USE, you mean a federation. I don't think there is either a convincing advantage of that, or in the interest of Europe to forge a federation. We have a form of confederation, and this is what we need to consolidate, develop and strengthen. The EU have no interest in copying old and flawed solutions, like that of the USA, USSR, Russia or anything else. The EU is unique by the fact that we are a confederation of different cultures and democracies. We must have a better fiscal policy and deepened military cooperation, but that doesn't include creating a federation. That is not a simplex solution, but a simple and inadequate. It is not consistent with the ideas of the European project, and frankly, I don't see how the populations of Europe would allow it. That might just shred the seams of the EU. Shared sovereignty is not the same as given away. Even many EU enthusiasts hesitate by the federation idea. It doesn't have much support. EU can be just as strong in a confederation as in a federation.



Look at the mess Greece has created. Look at the mess the UK economy is in. There needs to be an EU wide chancellor to govern what is, in the EURO and the European Central Bank, an almost EU wide treasury.

The EU is not a country or an empire. It seems you are constantly missing the points and the deeper meaning of the European project. You seem to look past the society building democratic peace agenda, and look at it from a Great Serbia or age-of-the-empires point of view.
Yes, we need better methods when it comes to fiscal policy. Concentrating executive power to a European federative president is not in our interests. Copying the US and Russian models is not progress, just imitating systems that don't really work that well. We are Europeans. We can do better.



The one certainty is that no matter what the lifestyle enjoyed by those of us in the “old” EU states is going to tumble big time and I suspect our Golden Age is drawing rapidly to a close.

If you mean feeding of the poor world, I agree. It is changing, and it's for the better for all. Europe will not fall into an abyss though. As it is we are in better shape than most of the world. It's definitely going to be changes in the world, it always has been. I just don't see how Europe will plunge into darkness. For what reason? The problems of the world is not only Europe's. The important thing is not who is on top. It's that we and the other parts of the world are strong enough, have enough and are developing and stable. I don't see how that will change in Europe. That immigrants will take over and the Chinese will come, resembles a bit too much far right propaganda and cold war slogans.



But underlying the whole sorry mess is the question of when some pandemic will emerge to cull the global population, because sure as eggs it’s going to happen.
I agree. There will be a potential "black death" sooner or later, and it will hit the world assymetrically. This time with the H1N1 could have been that. We didn't know. But we are better equipped than ever to meet that threat, and in time it will likely be a small issue. The main problem is that we actually don't really understand how viruses act and work fully. It's still a guessing game. That will change. Question is if we can control disease even then.

Marianne
22-03-10, 19:50
... In fact the current Turkish government is working to fix relations with Greece ....

I don't know what they say in Turkish news and if they really tell you the truth over there but, if Turkish government was actually working to fix relations with Greece, your military aircrafts wouldn't fly illegally every second day over Greece, provoking our air force.

a few minutes ago: http://www.enallaxnews.gr/index.php?mode=newsview&c=1&nid=3360 (translation: 14 turkish aircrafts above central Aegean, provoking the Greek air force)

21st of march http://www.zougla.gr/page.ashx?pid=2&aid=116478&cid=6
2 turkish F-16 aircrafts tried to take down a Greek helicopter working for the FRONTEX company, above Greek grounds

12 of march http://www.inews.gr/2/nees-tourkikes-prokliseis-sto-aigaio.htm
Turkish radars were causing problem to Greek helicopters. Also they were causing problems to Polish aircrafts telling them that they were above Turkish ground while in both cases the incidents were within the Greek borders

4 of march http://www.forums.gr/showthread.php?32239-%CD%DD%E5%F2-%F4%EF%F5%F1%EA%E9%EA%DD%F2-%F0%F1%EF%EA%EB%DE%F3%E5%E9%F2-%F3%F4%EF-%C1%E9%E3%E1%DF%EF
14 Turkish aircrafts, 6 of which were armed flew 5 times above Central Aegean and 2 times above North Aegean. They were pushed back by Greek air force

The list goes on and on. Probably you have no idea about such incidents but every 2nd day your "friendly" country does the same thing over and over.

Michael Folkesson
22-03-10, 20:38
TurkYusuf1

No, I disagree. NATO is quite outdated. There is no great interest for Europe being a part of an american security pact, having US bases in the EU. The importance is not who is the strongest in the world, it's being strong enough to deter war. We need security cooperation in the EU, but why in the world would that include the US dictating the conditions of our security policy. Really, why? Is it a European defense organisation or is it defending american interests and presence in Europe and a way to invoke European participation in american wars? They don't want to close their bases. If they do, they can never come back. No, the EU can't rule the world, and we cant attack other parts of the world in a big way, but I don't think any state in the world would come out in a great shape attacking the Union. That's all that matters. Our security is our responsibility.

You have a good point about that many turks are already living in the EU, and I agree that this is not a problem and will not change things significantly. I am convinced Turkey will become a member sooner or later. It will take some time though.

Gwyllgi
23-03-10, 09:14
TurkYusuf1



You have a good point about that many turks are already living in the EU, and I agree that this is not a problem and will not change things significantly. I am convinced Turkey will become a member sooner or later. It will take some time though.

It's one hell of a problem and not just in Britain. It's a huge problem in Austria, Italy, Greece, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and especially Germany where there is dislike bordering on (and increasingly actually crossing into hatred) and it's growing.

Turkey a member of the EU?

Not if the EU people are given a referendum on it, and on this they should be.

Starship
23-03-10, 11:13
I don't think so, for the many reasons that make up the ideas of the Union, and by the fact - which many seem oblivious or ignorant to - that most of the world is building communities - with the EU being the example - which includes the countries you mentioned. From the Maghreb to the Mashriq, there are projects moving forward.

Digressing slightly, my guess is that the GCC in time will include large parts or the whole Levant, or there will be another community taking place. That would mean a reformation of the GCC, but I think that wouldn't be very difficult. The Levant coming under greater influence of Wahabbi Islam is not very attractive though and I think that there could be resistance to that in the region. Even though it's not visible right now, there might be another option possible, even though Iraq has been accepted into the GCC once again, Iran is looking eastward towards SAARC, and the Maghreb is AMU, and even though I question the viability of the AU project, the sub communities seem to have a future.

Russia will not be a EU member, and Japan and S. Korea will likely approach the ASEAN community to an extent.


A dont get me wrong Im not saying this is how I think it should be and I certainly haven't looked at other groupings like GCC, I was just suggesting we take a look into the future and see what was possible. China is an obvious competitor who seem to have clearly defined goals, Im not sure the EU has.

Alot of people are opposed to Turkeys membership for a variety of reasons today but in a 100 years time we are bound to have expanded further, which countries are likely join? I cant see Israel being to interested in GCC.

" The Turkey foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said he expects Turkey to be a member of the EU by 2023".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0322/1224266810784.html

Starship
23-03-10, 11:26
Turkey a member of the EU?

Not if the EU people are given a referendum on it, and on this they should be.


I agree Turkey would not get in if referendums were held in all member states but the same might be argued if referendums had been held for several other states.
But do you think you'll ever see a referendum you didn't get one for Lisbon.

Gwyllgi
23-03-10, 11:59
Brown didn’t dare do other than renege on his promise.

He and the rest of the Westminster Village, (or at least those of them with an ounce of common sense) knew then and know now that a referendum against anything related to the EU would see rejection by the British public.

In the case of “Lisbon” that would have then been used by politicians anxious to protect their well cushioned backsides to press for Britain to quit the EU altogether.

And they would have won the day.

The problem is that people in Britain have been fed such a load of guff about how ‘great’ our country still is and how awful those “Eooorpeans” are and how Brussels is all cost with no gain and holding us back.

And so without the real facts being placed before them when added to British xenophobia plus denial that the country is now in reality a third world nation buoyed up only by borrowing other peoples money creating the illusion that ‘we’re doing rather well’ the anti-EU school would have won.

Trouble is that so many of the “EU bad, GB good” promoters really believe they’re right. They simply don’t understand our place in and dependence on the EU or that the vast majority of the costs we face would have to be paid anyway to trade in the Global marketplace.

But Turkey is different and it is important it should be seen as such.

Bringing Turkey into the EU would se a huge change in the centre of cultural gravity away from what we know as democracy and the scope that democratic government has, and instead toward introducing an ethos of having some aspect of society that are untouchable by democratic decision, and seeing many existing freedoms that would be demanded to be rolled back.

After all, a society that has a democratically elected government has little if anything to offer over a theocracy if the majority of the voters are of one deeply religious conviction in the first place.

Turkey, like Islam, has no place in Europe. Both are incompatible with our developed and evolved civilisation.

Michael Folkesson
23-03-10, 13:18
@Gwyllgi

Yes. Turkey is special, and I think many views it as such. I think also that many are concerned about the state of Turkey and what impact it will have on Europe. I think Turkey has a great possible future in the EU, but I also think that the problems of Turkey must be addressed before membership. Some memberships in the EMU and by some EU states in the east shows that we haven't been careful and scrutinizing enough before making them members. I think we want to be sure this time with such a possible deep impact country as Turkey, not to create an unsolvable problem and put the Union in a difficult place. I also believe that there is an enlargement fatigue and I agree to some extent when people say that we should hold it, and focus on the Union we have, addressing our existent problems and consolidating the Union. The enlargements were done before EU legislation was ready for it. I think great consideration must be done before the rest of Europe joins. At the same time, I think we want to tie those future members closer, which I think we do within the ENP. I don't think that the Turkish people is a problem. I say, let them reconcile with the Armenians, the Kurds and the Greeks, helping create a solution in Cyprus. These are just some of the concerns I think needs to be addressed which will take time. I think that the credibility and stability of Turkish democracy need time as well. I think Turkish nationalism is a concern as well. Let's see where Turkey is in 10 years.

You might wonder why I think Turkey has a future place in the Union. I consider it to be on the fringe of Europe, I consider that they have a European legacy and that they are in fact Europeans. Turkey is of importance to us, and this will increase. No matter what form of relationship Turkey will have with the rest of Europe, it will be one of importance to us, economically, politically and security wise.

I think we need to ask ourselves this concerning enlargements:

What is a European country? What is European culture? How European must one be to join the EU? What is the most European country in Europe, and what is the gold standard?

Not that easy questions.

I agree that there is a dilemma with the current population of the Union having NO say in new members accession, and the candidate states all the say. We will not have referendums concerning that though - even if referendums are just advisory - as this is a matter for the European council, whose leaders in turn needs to listen to their constituents. If the accession of new states would be up to popular vote, no states would likely ever be able to enter no matter if it would be good for the EU. I can't imagine Britain ever voting for a new member, and that goes for many countries.

Gwyllgi
23-03-10, 13:46
Yes. Turkey is special, and I think many views it as such. I think also that many are concerned about the state of Turkey and what impact it will have on Europe. I think Turkey has a great possible future in the EU, but I also think that the problems of Turkey must be addressed before membership.

Turkey is a state too far. It has NOTHING to offer the EU that we either want or need and a great deal that we certainly neither want or need.


What is a European country? What is European culture? How European must one be to join the EU? What is the most European country in Europe, and what is the gold standard?

Not that easy questions.

On the contrary. Very easy questions to answer. The only thing is that so many people don’t like the answers.


I agree that there is a dilemma with the current population of the Union having NO say in new members accession, and the candidate states all the say. We will not have referendums concerning that though - even if referendums are just advisory - as this is a matter for the European council, whose leaders in turn needs to listen to their constituents.

There are some issues that are so fundamental and so far reaching that the potential influence of political horse trading let alone the inevitable disconnect between represented and representatives that a full blown referendum is the ONLY satisfactory way forward.


If the accession of new states would be up to popular vote, no states would likely ever be able to enter no matter if it would be good for the EU. I can't imagine Britain ever voting for a new member, and that goes for many countries.

Then maybe the message to take from that is that the EU has not only reached its limits, but with the last two groups of accession actually far exceeded it.

Let’s never forget that the European Union is supposed to be just that. A union of states with a deal of commonality between them who want to progress as a single entity, NOT an empire in the making, and NOT a place where basket case countries can get hand outs and predate off the rest of us.

Michael Folkesson
23-03-10, 15:13
You might find those questions easy, and think that there is a gold standard for what is European and that one country can claim to be the most European one.
20 years ago, it was common that people in Sweden didn't consider themselves "European". In all practical aspects, the Scandinavian peninsula is an island. For us Europe was the mainland. Of course that was just an attitude and point of view that didn't correspond to reality, just as similar British sentiments don't. There are one or two Brits that considers that they are not European. Is Armenia European? I would say so. It isn't within the geographical Europe, but for whatever intents and purposes, the geographical border of Europe in the east is made up. Politically it is considered European and a member of the Council of Europe.
Do you have to be Christian? White? How much white? Do you have to have been influenced by the French revolution? Can a country become more European or move away from being European? Are the personal feelings of people towards if a country is to be considered European or not relevant? If you feel that the Ukraine is not European, would that make it Asian?
I read about a survey where people were asked about what European values were to them. Most people seem to have answered democracy, justice and human rights.
Well. What part of Europe is this Union for? What is the vision and the European idea? We can't build a Union because it is easy.
There will always be stronger and weaker regions. I am sure there are regions in the UK that is not a net provider to the British Union. The sentiments of Flanders seem to be that they are paying for the Walloon. The rich south in Sweden subsidizes the north. The difference in why that is a problem sometimes and not others is if we identify with each other and feel solidarity or not.
Europe after the WWII was not a pretty sight, and were it not for american investment things would have looked quite different, though it came with the price of West Europe becoming a part of American security policy still present. That parts of Europe need more investment than others is not a static condition. Poland from the country it was 20 years ago and now is very different, and it will keep changing. Some of these countries will most likely become net providers themselves to the Union.


Then maybe the message to take from that is that the EU has not only reached its limits, but with the last two groups of accession actually far exceeded it.
Let’s never forget that the European Union is supposed to be just that. A union of states with a deal of commonality between them who want to progress as a single entity, NOT an empire in the making, and NOT a place where basket case countries can get hand outs and predate off the rest of us.


Yet you want to exclude Scandinavia from the EU for some reason. The Union would not have existed were it based on popular vote. It was created by the same countries that killed each other in droves just a couple of years earlier. No, it hasn't exceeded it's limits. But it has been rushed.

We need to continue building this Union. The world around us changes whether we want it or not, and we need to change with it. Dissolving the Union is not an option, we have to move forward to finalization, which is not here and now.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-03-10, 15:15
One thing I completely agree with is that the question of Turkish membership should be put to a E.U. wide, binding referendum.

Starship
23-03-10, 15:30
One thing I completely agree with is that the question of Turkish membership should be put to a E.U. wide, binding referendum.

It will only be binding when you give the correct answer:wink:

Michael Folkesson
23-03-10, 16:56
Starship

The Irish referendum was not about having a treaty or not, it was about the content of the treaty. A treaty had to be made, there was no question about it. That's why the contents changed between the referendums. A content put together and agreed upon by the member states including the Irish. Claiming that the Irish had to vote until they made the right choice is correct but rather daft EuroSceptic rhetoric. It is made by people who still don't understand that it was about the content and not if we were to have a treaty or not.

A majority of those who voted didn't really understand what they were voting for or why. One can of course put most of the blame for that on the Union and the Irish government, but there was also a strong NO-campaign against it which seems to have been financed by big private money and american funds.

This and the lack of interest from the Irish about what they were voting for, got to put a veto and decide the treaty for the rest of Europe, my country included. For some reason there are people who consider that fair and democratic. The Irish had all rights to do so, but there is a inherent problem with national referendums making decisions for the rest of the Union, creating a hostage situation or what lead the Czech president to turn to a bargaining situation close to blackmail.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-03-10, 17:00
It will only be binding when you give the correct answer:wink:

The "correct answer", as envisioned by our perspective compromised governments, now-a-days is often tantamount to an Alice adventure in Wonderland, i.e., devoid of reference to reality. :petrified:

Starship
23-03-10, 18:08
It will only be binding when you give the correct answer:wink:


Tongue in cheek Michael, dont get your knickers in a not, I voted Yes twice:good_job:

I should have elaborated on my point, we only voted on Lisbon because our written constitution required it. None of the other European countries had to, Holland and France rejected their referendums so for Lisbon their politicians didn't want to risk another failure. The problem with referendums is people tend not to vote on the issue at hand but every other gripe they have, countries would be rejected not because they were a bad fit for Europe but because the National Gov of the countries voting had let their people down on some local issues. It would be a very brave or very foolish politician who championed plebiscites for all new EU entrants unless of course they didn't want any new members.

Michael Folkesson
23-03-10, 20:19
True that. Hmm. Well, I am just used to the tirades about Corporate EU and similes to various dictatorships, conspiracies and what not. It took it you referred to the so called undemocratic methods of the EU.

Gwyllgi
24-03-10, 12:11
You might find those questions easy, and think that there is a gold standard for what is European and that one country can claim to be the most European one.

Maybe the Gold Standard is really a standard that results when the common factors of Germany, Austria, Northern France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and to a lesser degree Denmark are combined. In essence founded on the Western Renaissance nations that were the initial countries that formed the Common Market.


20 years ago, it was common that people in Sweden didn't consider themselves "European". In all practical aspects, the Scandinavian peninsula is an island. For us Europe was the mainland. Of course that was just an attitude and point of view that didn't correspond to reality, (snip) ……….

And it’s a thing that has no small amount of validity in it.

Norway and Sweden do have little in common with the original six member states, a group that do represent those things that are best about Europe and from which to build upon. The only possible exception would be Italy, no doubt included at the time to ensure that Fascism didn’t find common ground to build upon as a result of a lost war and resultant poverty.


(snip) ……….just as similar British sentiments don't. There are one or two Brits that considers that they are not European. Is Armenia European? I would say so. It isn't within the geographical Europe, but for whatever intents and purposes, the geographical border of Europe in the east is made up. Politically it is considered European and a member of the Council of Europe.

Does that make it right?


Do you have to be Christian?

Ideally.


White?

Formally, though the recent immigration of non ethnically Caucasian people into European countries but who do want to integrate fully into what they are immigrating into, and do NOT want instead to establish their own “cultures” has moved that on.


Do you have to have been influenced by the French revolution?

Your culture certainly should have been!


Can a country become more European or move away from being European?

A country, no. The whole is greater and different than the sum of its component parts. Individual people are different, they have the ability.


Are the personal feelings of people towards if a country is to be considered European or not relevant?

As regards we Europeans, absolutely.


If you feel that the Ukraine is not European, would that make it Asian?

Why bring the Ukraine into it? And why propose that the situation is binary? Why should a nation not remain an independent nation in its own right?


I read about a survey where people were asked about what European values were to them. Most people seem to have answered democracy, justice and human rights.

Because most people reply with what they understand such things to mean to them. Try asking a Muslim what “to tolerate” means.


Well. What part of Europe is this Union for?

What is the vision and the European idea? We can't build a Union because it is easy.

We can …… provided it doesn’t include being a free for all for any nation that wants to join can join, one that really doesn’t try to be multi-cultural, and one that puts true Europeans first in all things. We need to have and to keep strong borders to our Europe.


There will always be stronger and weaker regions. I am sure there are regions in the UK that is not a net provider to the British Union.

So what? That’s not the issue.


The sentiments of Flanders seem to be that they are paying for the Walloon. The rich south in Sweden subsidizes the north. The difference in why that is a problem sometimes and not others is if we identify with each other and feel solidarity or not.

This is not about economics alone, this is about common values, common ambitions, a desire to become an equal amongst equals.


Europe after the WWII was not a pretty sight, and were it not for american investment things would have looked quite different, though it came with the price of West Europe becoming a part of American security policy still present. That parts of Europe need more investment than others is not a static condition. Poland from the country it was 20 years ago and now is very different, and it will keep changing. Some of these countries will most likely become net providers themselves to the Union.

American “investment” should better be described as American exploitation of a depressed market for their own ends. Poland is an interesting case, especially as Poland is actually a creation of the Treaty of Versailles, a thing which proved to be at the root of WW2.



Yet you want to exclude Scandinavia from the EU for some reason. The Union would not have existed were it based on popular vote. It was created by the same countries that killed each other in droves just a couple of years earlier. No, it hasn't exceeded it's limits. But it has been rushed.

We need to continue building this Union. The world around us changes whether we want it or not, and we need to change with it. Dissolving the Union is not an option, we have to move forward to finalization, which is not here and now.

No, we need to cleanse the hives of those who for one reason or another do not fit into what the European Union should be, a union of naturally European nations, and we need to concentrate on raising the standards and capability of that and NOT continue to keep adding more anhd more less and less European nation sates into OUR Uniuon.

In any case Norway and Sweden are not naturally “European”, they are Nordic,

Their culture is very different from that of let us say the Europe that emerged from The Renaissance, and that by and large provides a damm good starting point for defining what constitutes the real Europe today.

This isn’t being “racist”. This is about being patriotic, about having supranational pride and ambitions involving being an equal amongst equals with the emphasis on equals.

That in a nutshell established why Turkey should NEVER be allowed to join OUR EU.

Gwyllgi
24-03-10, 13:16
There’s a side to the so far not rejected slimy courting of Europe by Turkey that I certainly had missed, but then as a mythical Welsh “Dog of Twilight” it’s sometimes hard to see all that much from down-town Llanfairpwllggwyngllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch

let alone from Gorsafawddachaidraigodanheddogleddollonpenrhynareu rdraethceredigion!

(In The Old Tongue, “gwyll” is twilight, and “ci” is dog. Roll it together with a bit of something stronger than “Dŵr” and you get “Gwyllgi”)

And that is the huge gains in popularity it is resulting in for the Islamic party in power, and so active in bringing in increasingly “conservative” legislation.

Far from providing an impetus for the Turkish people to adopt a less devout interpretation of Islam it is resulting in just the opposite. Recent legislation tightening up on the sales of alcohol are the tip of an iceberg that, in spite of Global Warming, is “Doing a Topsy” much as the girl of the same name did in the famous book by Harriet Beecher Stowe.

“Iesu Grist”, as we say, if they’re doing that now how much worse would it be once they were ever let in, and how many people already in our EU would be encouraged by their presence?

Cambrius (The Red)
24-03-10, 14:01
Islam is perhaps the most dangerous, anti-European, anti-Western force that exists today. It is a cultish religion of extremes, of NO tolerance, NO understanding for non believers. If you are anything but a Muslim you comprise part of the "Other"; the "heathens", the "enemy", the "devil". Those who are labeled as belonging to the Other may be subjected to the worst kinds of violence. Such violence is legitimized and sanctioned by the teachings - the maniacal interpretations - of the Koran...

We have enough serious issues with Islam in Europe, WITHOUT Turkish membership.

Starship
25-03-10, 13:57
I don't know what they say in Turkish news and if they really tell you the truth over there but, if Turkish government was actually working to fix relations with Greece, your military aircrafts wouldn't fly illegally every second day over Greece, provoking our air force.

a few minutes ago: http://www.enallaxnews.gr/index.php?mode=newsview&c=1&nid=3360 (translation: 14 turkish aircrafts above central Aegean, provoking the Greek air force)

21st of march http://www.zougla.gr/page.ashx?pid=2&aid=116478&cid=6
2 turkish F-16 aircrafts tried to take down a Greek helicopter working for the FRONTEX company, above Greek grounds

12 of march http://www.inews.gr/2/nees-tourkikes-prokliseis-sto-aigaio.htm
Turkish radars were causing problem to Greek helicopters. Also they were causing problems to Polish aircrafts telling them that they were above Turkish ground while in both cases the incidents were within the Greek borders

4 of march http://www.forums.gr/showthread.php?32239-%CD%DD%E5%F2-%F4%EF%F5%F1%EA%E9%EA%DD%F2-%F0%F1%EF%EA%EB%DE%F3%E5%E9%F2-%F3%F4%EF-%C1%E9%E3%E1%DF%EF
14 Turkish aircrafts, 6 of which were armed flew 5 times above Central Aegean and 2 times above North Aegean. They were pushed back by Greek air force

The list goes on and on. Probably you have no idea about such incidents but every 2nd day your "friendly" country does the same thing over and over.

Not just a Greek v Turkish problem.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/raf-jets-shadow-russian-bombers-over-uk-2110690.html

genetic code
25-03-10, 20:44
yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945
i was in southern france last year many muslems but i dont give a damm i prefer them over the french natives m9 -r1b they are much more warm there are 6 milion muslems in france hope in few decades they will change the genetic makeup of france
and more french will be j1e-p58 and my cousins e1b1b12 -m81 hope it will happen
france going in good direction at least in my prespective
genetic code

Wilhelm
25-03-10, 22:45
yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945
i was in southern france last year many muslems but i dont give a damm i prefer them over the french natives m9 -r1b they are much more warm there are 6 milion muslems in france hope in few decades they will change the genetic makeup of france
and more french will be j1e-p58 and my cousins e1b1b12 -m81 hope it will happen
france going in good direction at least in my prespective
genetic code
Very racist post , in my opinion.

Michael Folkesson
25-03-10, 23:18
A forum like this attracts two kinds of people. One who is interested in science, and those who look for racial purity or ascribe human traits to what they call race. Eugenics is a marvel.

genetic code
25-03-10, 23:29
explain please i already talled you that people who tallk about skull shape
cand call my post racist
genetic code

Wilhelm
26-03-10, 00:06
explain please i already talled you that people who tallk about skull shape
cand call my post racist
genetic code
Your post is racist against europeans, calling them gook all the time, and I i've never talked about skull shape in this forum, but it is Science, it has nothing to do with racism.

genetic code
26-03-10, 08:08
not all europeans haplogroup I are not related to eastern asians what so ever
they are my favourite understand many in haplogrop r {r1b,r1a}
doesnt always mean qulity
ps. skull shape is pure racism this was the time anthropologists classified humna races like {mongolid , caucasoide, australid , negroiod} acording to there skull shape
belive me i know history those things lead later to bad things later

Gwyllgi
26-03-10, 09:26
yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945
i was in southern france last year many muslems but i dont give a damm i prefer them over the french natives m9 -r1b they are much more warm there are 6 milion muslems in france hope in few decades they will change the genetic makeup of france
and more french will be j1e-p58 and my cousins e1b1b12 -m81 hope it will happen
france going in good direction at least in my prespective
genetic code

Racist in the extreme. Let's not even mention ignorant, there's no need. It's self evident.

In my opinion there’s nothing wrong in comparing and contrasting people of different race but when it goes pear shaped is when race is used to discriminate purely on the basis of racial prejudice, or where blatant insults are aimed at people because of their race.

You’re out of order, benffol bachgen.

Gwyllgi
26-03-10, 09:46
But just days before her departure, Turkish PM (Erdogan) has started to move towards the demand phase of the colonisation of European nations by Muslims but in this case he’s more than a little ill-advised because all he’s doing is proving once again why Turkey has no place in the EU.

An intent to become an integrated nation? When you come out with this sort of thing?

In an interview with Die Zeit, Erdogan all but demanded that Germany establish Turkish high schools using Turkish as the teaching language for Turkish German residents.
This follows on from a recent speech he made in Köln in which he proposed Turkish-language education for those in Germany of Turkish descent.
The writing is on the wall. Trouble is it’s writ so damm large many people simply can’t see it.
Little Angie Merkel has come up with the concept of the “Privilegierte Teilhaberschaft” with Turkey rather than full EU membership.

(“Privilegierte Teilhaberschaft” translates into “privileged partnership”, in other words a good neighbour with advantageous relationships.

Turkey doesn’t want it.

Since Privilegierte Teilhaberschaft provide all the benefits that Turkey would get from the EU (which is a damm site more than I would like to see them have) the question must be why is Turkey so insistent on full membership.

For those of us who can see the answer is obvious.

And we don’t like it one little bit.

genetic code
26-03-10, 10:01
gwyllgi the only thing that i am of order
is by exposing my emotions but you cant blame me
i came from e1b1b1 the mediterreanean race we much more emotional
and hot blood but we are not evil i will never forget what m9 descendents did
between 1939-1945

Wilhelm
26-03-10, 16:46
not all europeans haplogroup I are not related to eastern asians what so ever
they are my favourite understand many in haplogrop r {r1b,r1a}
doesnt always mean qulity
ps. skull shape is pure racism this was the time anthropologists classified humna races like {mongolid , caucasoide, australid , negroiod} acording to there skull shape
belive me i know history those things lead later to bad things later
Classifying races based on skull shape is Science, not racism. What do you think forensics and anthropologists do to determine someones' race ?? I don't see any racism in this. Are you afraid of science ?

genetic code
28-03-10, 19:01
by the way i vote yes for turkey in Eu
genetic code

Gwyllgi
28-03-10, 19:06
by the way i vote yes for turkey in Eu
genetic code


Would Australia vote "yes" to unrestricted immigration from Turkey into Australia?

genetic code
29-03-10, 10:06
i have nothing against turks i have many brothers who carry th em34 marker
mainly in southern and eastern turkey the turks descendents of antolians
and the romans consider them caucasoide i already talled you that 3 antolians were militarry tribune of the twentith roman legion and many other were out there
so i dont care were they migrate germany see them as threat

Gwyllgi
29-03-10, 11:22
i have nothing against turks i have many brothers who carry th em34 marker
mainly in southern and eastern turkey the turks descendents of antolians
and the romans consider them caucasoide i already talled you that 3 antolians were militarry tribune of the twentith roman legion and many other were out there
so i dont care were they migrate germany see them as threat

What an odd reply!

There’s a very great deal to a nation than the genetic composition of even a majority of its population.

To reduce people to their genetic markers is horrifyingly racist in the worst possible way.

The question stands.

What would most Australians response be to a proposition to allow unfettered immigration from a nation with a low standard of living, a dreadful record on Human Rights, and a people who hold to an ideology that runs counter to its own in every way?

With a population of in the region of 80 million, 99% of whom are Mohammedans, around 15% unemployment, essentially a military force required to police the nation (rather than a police force implementing law and order) and a horrendous record of dealing with those populations the government don’t like.

Then the little matter of being a global center for the drugs trade .

Moreover a nation that many nations rightly see as a pariah state with an unhealthily close relationship to neighboring states that either support or foster terrorism.

As I ask, what do you think the Ozzies would have to say if there was pressure being applied to them to have THAT imposed on them to fully integrate as another state of Australia ?

So why should WE have to have the horrid proposition facing us?

genetic code
29-03-10, 12:07
i only said that i have genetic brothers there thats all you want me to hate them ?
they are my brothers in australia there are also many italians , cypriotes ,greeks
and many other so yes the british australians will oposed migration of turks to australia but thats only because the racist elment m9 male descendents r1b which are the majority of the populations the same {gookish elemnt} which follow other e1b1b1 leaders like mussolini , hittler and others .
the gooks m9 descendents are the most racist no doubt in my mind about it .
i have no symapthy thowards cf {p-143} but since they are the majority in the world i have no choice but to live with them that why haplogroup as realy center in specific spots africa mediterreanean levant and mediterreanean europe
same goes fore paleo-asianids the original asian haplogroup d which we both carry the yap element mainly tibeteans and my favourits japanese which the samurai and kamikaza element rose from this asian stock
genetic code

Gwyllgi
29-03-10, 12:25
No one is asking you to hate anyone, though your use of the highly offensive word “gook” would indicate that mindless hating is a lesson you have learned well.

What is at issue is your support for Turkey as a member of the EU given its singular inappropriate qualification and if, being allegedly based in Australia, you would comment on the Australian view of such a proposition if Australia was to be the target.

In fact I did note you commented on this and implied that it would only be Australians of British descent who would object and you imply that this would be because of racism on their part.

That is utter rubbish.

The objections would be from the vast majority of Australians irrespective of their ethnic origins who would rightly see an open door policy to Turkey as utterly indefensible, socially wrong, and absolutely not what a modern nation either wants or needs.

There’s a great deal more to a population than the genes in their Blue Jeans.

genetic code
29-03-10, 12:43
ok i talled you that i have no problem with turks thats all they want to come to australia let it be
i gusse you vote no for the join of turkey to the Eu
just remind everyone if i take lattiude line turkey ir should i say {antolia since only specific elite took the country and genetic reserach on antolia prove most of the people there are descendents from native antolians and not the elite who forced the language } antolia in the same latitude with southern greece southern italy and spain
we all know that antolia was conected to the balkan many thousands of years ago
same gose for tunisia which was conected to sicily so antolia is very close to europe
so why should they not join
genetic code

Gwyllgi
29-03-10, 13:02
I’ve written this before, but I’ll repeat it.

NATURE provides a raw material.

NURTURE, i.e. upbringing, society, social norms, custom and practice, that takes what nature has delivered.

MEMES, “Thought Viruses” taken to be true such as religion, then go on to finally form the character that includes beliefs, values, ideology and perception of the world, of themselves, and of others.

To attempt to determine what a person is going to be like, or to judge a nation simply on the genetic make up of the population is, to be candid, bloody silly.

It doesn’t matter a rats behind if a DNA analysis were to prove that every Greek was closely related to every Turk, HISTORY has created the schism.

It doesn’t matter a rats behind if a DNA analysis were to prove that every Turk was closely related to every Welshman, HISTORY has created the schism.

And those schisms that separate us will only close when that which created the Memes and the form of Nurture is abandoned. In the case of Turkey, as with ALL Islamic nations, until Islam is abandoned those memes will NEVER end.

THAT is why Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU. We are just too different to be members of the same family. Neighbours, even good and close neighbours, yes but adopted into our family …… No.

genetic code
29-03-10, 13:26
to diffrent to be in same family why yo u say that maybe they are diffrent from welsh not from balkan people for example albanian both of them muslim the only reason you except the albanians is because they are in europe in geographical terms .
i dont hoe the turks could harm europe if they will join Eu in germany there are 1.5 milion turks they are doing the the dirty work that the germans dont want to do
is that harm germany except from the masque all across the country ?
explain why islam is no reason to avoid them
genetic code

Gwyllgi
29-03-10, 13:52
to diffrent to be in same family why yo u say that maybe they are diffrent from welsh not from balkan people for example albanian both of them muslim the only reason you except the albanians is because they are in europe in geographical terms .

You make a very wrong assumption if you think that I, or the majority of EU people, accept Albania as being a good fit let alone welcome in the EU.



i dont hoe the turks could harm europe if they will join Eu in germany there are 1.5 milion turks they are doing the the dirty work that the germans dont want to do
is that harm germany except from the masque all across the country ?

There are 1,5 million people who happen to be Turks doing the crappy jobs in Germany. The fact that they are Turks is not the issue, their Turkish lifestyle and aspirations have thus far largely been kept under control.

Interestingly now that Erdoğan is gaining confidence as a result of seeing what he THINKS is a softening of objection of Turkish entry to the EU so his demands on Germany are stepping up.

His latest demand of us that in Germany we provide Turkish Language schools exemplifies this.

He’s also increasing his pro-Arab stance believing that he’s safe to do so because of his miscalculation about EU sentiment against Turkish membership reducing.

It’s actually a good thing. It shows that Turkey would not simply want to be a state within a federation, but a mover and a shaker but a mover and a shaker in a direction we Europeans don’t want to be moved or shaken towards.



explain why islam is no reason to avoid them
genetic code

Islam is an ideology that is genetic independent.

The deciding factor is not ethnic. Multi ethnicity is generally speaking good for a nation, but multi culture is not. Multi-ideological is an absolute recipe for disaster especially when, as in the case of Islam, that ideology is totally counter to the ideologies of the nations that it gets a foothold in.

Islamic immigration is actually the first step towards Islamic colonisation. It can by definition never be anything else. The presupposition that Islam is “the best” means that the votaries of Islam MUST push what they believe is “The Best” irrespective even of it being a Holy imperative to engage in Jihad to do so.

We can see this in several European countries where some parts of our big cities are now not just self sealing colonies but in parts to all intents actually Islamic Waafs, with all the future horrors that will bring.

Cambrius (The Red)
29-03-10, 13:59
i have nothing against turks i have many brothers who carry th em34 marker
mainly in southern and eastern turkey the turks descendents of antolians
and the romans consider them caucasoide i already talled you that 3 antolians were militarry tribune of the twentith roman legion and many other were out there
so i dont care were they migrate germany see them as threat

What does any of this have to do with the kind of country Turkey is today? The bottom line is that Turkey is a Muslim state that is trending less secular by the day and, in large measure, socially and culturally runs counter to European norms and traditions.

genetic code
29-03-10, 14:02
ok i understand your points each man and his opinions
dont you think europe wake up to late since many muslems are all across europe capital cities nowdays which steps europe do to prevent the islamic colonies inside her ?
genetic code

Gwyllgi
29-03-10, 16:25
Islam is still not at all well understood by the vast majority of people in The West.

Most, including our politicians and even Churchmen, see it as just another religion, one that is closely aligned with Judaism and Christianity, one that is benign, and one that will sit contentedly side by side and equal to existing religions.

They are utterly wrong. Wrong because of their own inability to believe that something so fell could get away with becoming the monster that it has, wrong because they believe the lies and propaganda that is put about regarding the tenets of Islam being in some way a wholesome thing appropriate to our evolved society. And also terribly wrong when, as politicians, they use Islam as a means of gaining power.

“Genetic Code” (an odd forum identitry) asks what could be done to address the growing Islamic communities inj Europe.

One answer is to stop treating Mohammedans as being somehow deserving of consideration because of their beliefs.

We should make it abundantly clear in every possible way that the acceptable position from here on in is for them to fit into OUR world with OUR values or clear out.

NO Minaret’s, NO burqas, NO Mosques that stand out as such and offend our European architecture, and those that do be demolished.

Instead Islam tolerated so long as Mohammedans abide by OUR laws, pay any additional taxes needed to provide better or increased security because of the proven association of terrorism with them because of their religion, and at all times be aware that they are totally subjugated under OUR societies.

Seems unfair? Seems racist in some way?

Why should it.

Let’s keep in mind that for a non-Muslim to be tolerated under Islam that non-Muslim must abide by Shar’ia, must pay additional tax, and must at all times feel subjugated under Islam.

Would it ever happen?

Probably not because ours is a much evolved society, one in which people can make decisions about all aspects of our lives and not live under the cruel and inhuman dictates of a regime invented by a man who today would be locked up and have the key thrown away because of his values and actions. Values and actions that even in his day many people utterly rejected …. until forced to accept them by the sword.

Let’s keep it real though. There are places in the world where Islam still is an appropriate ideology and “religion”.

But these places are where the same barbaric behaviour of people as was taking place where Mohammed invented Islam is endemic.

Places of tribal conflict, places where there is a need to utterly control those who without the control would be committing all sorts of savagery.

Where Christian love would be seen as weakness and Christian morality as a thing to be exploited. Where the rigidity of Judaism would be simply ignored in the absence of cruel and archaic punishment, a thing that Judaism left behind nearly two millennium ago.

Where Hinduism would be simply over run because of the pantheon of Hindu Gods creating a lack of focus, where Buddhism would be simply exploited and where probably the only real confrontation would be with Voodoo.

Such places do exist, such people who need Islam do exist, but not in Europe. If Mohammedans want to live in our world then as long as they live in our world that’s not a thing to fret over so long as they bring something that we want or need. We neither want or need Islam. This is not about freedom of religion, it is about a conflict of ideology and that is a very different thing indeed.

Gwyllgi
30-03-10, 11:13
In a recent interview with Erdogan, the Turkish PM, the matter of the continued denial of the undeniable was raised. With an interesting response.

SPIEGEL: Why doesn't modern Turkey acknowledge the Ottoman Empire's genocide against the Armenians? The Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives has approved an Armenian Genocide resolution ...

Erdogan: When a journalist uses the word genocide, he should take a careful look at the issue first.
There can be no talk of genocide against the Armenians. Genocide is a legal term.

(My observation) And a legal term defined by the UN and which applies to what the Turks got up to against the Armenians, the Greeks, and the Assyrians.

In 2005, I wrote a letter to then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian, in which I told him that this is not a matter for politicians like us, but one that needs to be studied by historians.

(My observation) And I do hope that Kocharian pointed out that historians provide the evidence and the politicians must take the appropriate actions. The historians have done their bit. The Turks have not and worse yet continue to deny that they should.

There are currently millions of documents on the subject in Turkish archives, of which more than 1 million have been examined since I wrote to Kocharian.

If there are archives in your country, I wrote to him, then make them accessible.

(My observation) They are.

And if historians cannot clarify the subject sufficiently, then let lawyers, political scientists and archaeologists take part in the effort.

(My observation) Historians HAVE clarified the subject. Independent historians, Sufficiently for everyone but the Turks it would seem.

From his response to the Turkish genocides it would seem that he has taken at least one leaf from the “how to run a country” handbook by the late and very unlamented Joseph Goebbels.

Reading the rest of the Spiegel interview :-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686131,00.html#ref=nlint (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686131,00.html#ref=nlint)

what comes over, at least to me, is a duplicitous individual up to his neck in taqiyya and kitman, and representing everything that we should be avoiding.

Yet someone who for some strange reason thinks he holds a winning hand and can now play the game to his own advantage.

WE should be aware that this is what he is like when he thinks he can call his own tune. It is indicative of how he would behave within Europe if he was able to, and so we should have nothing to do with him, or a country of which he is a far from untypical member of the population in terms of values, aims, ambitions, and morality.

Be a neighbour by all means but a family member? To paraphrase the old “Atomcraft” bumper sticker ……… Türkische Art? Kein Dank

Tautalos
01-04-10, 16:05
I think we have established that you have your own idea about what constitutes "European". It's mostly a racialist (you call it "ethnicist" although that is not a word in the English language)

No, it is not just racialist, it is also ethnicist, or, if you have a hard time trying to understand it, ETHNIC.



argument but with some nods towards some faulty geography

No, your's is the faulty geography. Asia Minor is not Europe. Period. It's not European, it's Asian.



You are to be commended for your clarity if not your logic or tolerance.

Oh, thank's a lot.

Tautalos
01-04-10, 16:20
1) ok, so Greece isn't European either... To the eyes of a northern European,

This is not «the eyes» of anyone. It's objective data. Turkish is not an Indo-European language. Greek is. It's as simple as that.



the influences of Turkey are obvious in Greece

That's arguable. And of secondary importance.



Unless we are willing to dismiss most of our dishes, many of our words

But never the language - and never the historic memory.



And send back our grandparents from Asia minor, who, in Greece were treated like Turks anyway when they first came (I know it for sure, my grandparents came from Asia Miror), right???


If they were not Turks, that's a social matter, not an ethnic one. Thus, it's a non sequitur argument.



2) The Byzantine empire, was already falling apart because of the extreme corruption!

Oh, really, in that case let any country invade Europe and kill tons of Europeans, since Europe is «falling apart» according to many people...



If it wasn't the Ottoman, It would be someone else..

That's not an argument. The Ottomans had no business in Byzantium, no matter how decadent it was. Otherwise, any neighbour of yours might think that your lifestyle is decadent and you can't defend yourself, and then invade your house and enslave you, because «if it wasn't him, it would be someone else».


Many historians say many things. That the Muslims were always enemies of the West, is a given.


2) Bullshit! Each nation of the "West" was enemy with other nations

No, it is not bullshit. And the vast majority of the Western Nations were ALWAYS together against the COMMON Muslim foe, NO MATTER how hostile these nations were to each other.



And What the F**k is the "West" anyway???

The heir of the Classic (Greek-Roman) civilization and of the Indo-European blood.


That's racially. Not ethnically. Turkic language and roots are not European.


3) Shall I repeat what I said in no 1)?????


Repeat it how many times you want. A lie repeated one thousand times is always a lie.

Tautalos
01-04-10, 17:49
Believe what you want,

So do you... regardlessly of Geography and History, and Ethnicity.



Byzantine Empire would have collapsed anyway sooner or later,

Yes, good. Next time the Kurds kill a few Turks with a bomb, and if one of these days Greece attacks Western Turkey, Armenia the north and at East the Kurds rebel, remember that «Turkey would have collapsed anyway sooner or later».



Byzantines destroyed many civilizations when they made their conquests

Good reasoning. Remember that when/if Turkey falls apart, one of these days, because the Turks slaughtered thousands.



Actually modern Turkish not Turkic is based on the Latin alphabet

Ignorant, or stupidly dishonest, comment. This is about Language, not Alphabet. If you don't know the difference, I will not lose time explaining it to you.



Ataturk was a secular man yes, but both his parents were Muslims

But he was not. And he strongly repressed the Muslims. His parents' devotion is non sequitur.



Military rule is not democratic and they have falsified fears of re-emergence of Islamic government

It is not falsified - it is obvious, each day Turkey is showing more and more islamification.



Turkey did not commit these crimes, it was committed by a group of three pashas/rulers (Enver, Talat, Jamal) search

Oh really, and Germany did not committ the holocaust, it was Hitler and Himmler...



atrocities were committed on both sides, the attacks were not provoked and there were deportations as well, shows how unreliable and biased


More bullshit.
In that case, Germany can say that the world Jewery did declare war to Germany in 1933 and that's all, «atrocities were committed on both sides». The fact is that only Turkey slaughtered Armenians en mass. Armenians did not slaughter Turks massively.
Moreover, if that «argument» was an argument at all, in that case it would be the FIRST argument that you people would be using now, and not the last, desperate one. And now is too late to start again your «tu quoque» line of discussion.



Again you don't know anything,

Again, all your «arguments» were dismissed and your feeble attempts to deny reality were smashed - not that they were too solid from the start, anyway.



Nope about a few hundred thousands, exxaggerated and unreliable

Nope, the facts are known solidly enough so that now even the ally of Turkey U.S.A., as well as Sweden, admitted it as a genocide.
And, mind you, «a few hundred thousands» is still, well, how to say it:rolleyes2:, a lot of people...



Nope it is only the extremist Islam that you and other people look at,

Nope, it is not. It's the very leader of Turkey, Erdogan, that is giving more and more clear demonstrations of Islamic fanaticism. And the fact that you either deny it or simply don't see it, only shows that your opinion is seriously flawed on the subject.



really funny don't tell me what to do,

No, you don't tell me what to do. This is definitly not Turkey, this is Europe, and here we have free speech. Since you don't like, that's your problem. All I want is that you and your ilk keep away from Europe - and that should not be too bad for you, after all you are always complaining about the West, aren't you?



so mind your own business and watch you own language

No, you mind your own business and watch your own language. And know your right place.



and so called "freedom of speech".

Yes, one the cardinal values of true Europe, that you obviously do not respect.

Cambrius (The Red)
01-04-10, 18:18
I believe TurkYusuf1 has been banned for using abusive language.

Wilhelm
05-04-10, 23:34
i only said that i have genetic brothers there thats all you want me to hate them ?
they are my brothers in australia there are also many italians , cypriotes ,greeks
and many other so yes the british australians will oposed migration of turks to australia but thats only because the racist elment m9 male descendents r1b which are the majority of the populations the same {gookish elemnt} which follow other e1b1b1 leaders like mussolini , hittler and others .
the gooks m9 descendents are the most racist no doubt in my mind about it .
i have no symapthy thowards cf {p-143} but since they are the majority in the world i have no choice but to live with them that why haplogroup as realy center in specific spots africa mediterreanean levant and mediterreanean europe
same goes fore paleo-asianids the original asian haplogroup d which we both carry the yap element mainly tibeteans and my favourits japanese which the samurai and kamikaza element rose from this asian stock
genetic code
Being R1b doesn't mean you can't have ancestors with J2 or I or E3b, or any other haplogroup. The Y-DNA is just the paternal line.

^ lynx ^
05-04-10, 23:38
What an odd reply!

There’s a very great deal to a nation than the genetic composition of even a majority of its population.

To reduce people to their genetic markers is horrifyingly racist in the worst possible way.

The question stands.

What would most Australians response be to a proposition to allow unfettered immigration from a nation with a low standard of living, a dreadful record on Human Rights, and a people who hold to an ideology that runs counter to its own in every way?


Totally agreed.

^ lynx ^
05-04-10, 23:51
yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945

At least the "gooks" have recognized and apologized for those events between 1939-1945... unlike the so-called more democratic islamic country (Turkey) which not only haven't recognized/apologize for the armenian genocide but keep deniying it with pitiful propaganda...

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/ny_times_armenian_genocide1.jpg

http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/armenian_genocide.img_assist_custom.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/Ss8Zo0nLXBI/AAAAAAAAIy4/VMg9KpcI8qw/s1600/Armenian-genocide-skulls.gif



Yet one more different between the West world and the islamic world.

Cambrius (The Red)
06-04-10, 00:25
i only said that i have genetic brothers there thats all you want me to hate them ?
they are my brothers in australia there are also many italians , cypriotes ,greeks
and many other so yes the british australians will oposed migration of turks to australia but thats only because the racist elment m9 male descendents r1b which are the majority of the populations the same {gookish elemnt} which follow other e1b1b1 leaders like mussolini , hittler and others .
the gooks m9 descendents are the most racist no doubt in my mind about it .
i have no symapthy thowards cf {p-143} but since they are the majority in the world i have no choice but to live with them that why haplogroup as realy center in specific spots africa mediterreanean levant and mediterreanean europe
same goes fore paleo-asianids the original asian haplogroup d which we both carry the yap element mainly tibeteans and my favourits japanese which the samurai and kamikaza element rose from this asian stock
genetic code

Your writing is tinged with racism...

Chris
06-08-10, 08:53
If the accession of new states would be up to popular vote, no states would likely ever be able to enter no matter if it would be good for the EU. I can't imagine Britain ever voting for a new member, and that goes for many countries.

That's the bottom line, especially if it were up to the popular vote.

Cambrius (The Red)
06-08-10, 20:16
That's the bottom line, especially if it were up to the popular vote.


Too right...

chris eblana
18-10-10, 16:30
i am not sure....turkey is a european country so it does belong in europe, but if the americans and british want turkey in EU so badly it can't be good...i prefer the franco-german lead in EU, not the anglosaxon one, so if turkey's entry shifts of balance of power towards the anlosaxon version of EU (no political unification, no military unification,just a large market and free marketing) then i am not so sure....

chris eblana
18-10-10, 16:32
That's the bottom line, especially if it were up to the popular vote.


britain is actually FOR further EU expansion AND turkey's EU membership............check their agenda again.....

barbarian
18-10-10, 20:10
i am not sure....turkey is a european country so it does belong in europe, but if the americans and british want turkey in EU so badly it can't be good...i prefer the franco-german lead in EU, not the anglosaxon one, so if turkey's entry shifts of balance of power towards the anlosaxon version of EU (no political unification, no military unification,just a large market and free marketing) then i am not so sure....

very nice comment. in fact, i believe germany and france believe that if turkey is in EU, then there will be an additional vote benefit for US. these days turkey is under the full control of US and i hate it.

Elias2
18-10-10, 20:35
very nice comment. in fact, i believe germany and france believe that if turkey is in EU, then there will be an additional vote benefit for US. these days turkey is under the full control of US and i hate it.

I wouldn't mind Turkey in the EU if the passes all the chapters the other EU member did in order to get in. I'm just afraid that if turkey gets in that would mean the USA will have a say in EU politics because Britain and Turkey are "good" friends of america. I like the franco-german EU better.

I don't live in EU this is just my opinion.

UndercoverSwede
24-11-10, 18:15
I don't believe Turkey belongs in the EU. The European Union, although strengthened through its diversity, nevertheless has certain core principles that are vital to its survival. Turkey is not compatible with these common European principles (however vague they may be), and would only disrupt and destabilise the Union. Even if people disagree with this argument, there are still the geographic, economic and political arguments to take into consideration:

Geographic: The Union cannot expand infinitely, at a certain point we must decide that the borders are large enough, and instead look internally instead of externally.

Economic: Turkey has a large agricultural sector. The agricultural subsidies is something many wish to diminish, and slowly but surely we've been seeing a steady reduction of the CAP. Turkish accession would only revitalise the subsidy and increase the amount of supporters for this outdated policy.

Politically: Turkey would become the largest country in the EU. Seeing as there are numerous controversies surrounding the country, coupled with certain dubious practices some member states don't approve of, they would suddenly have far too much political power in Europe. Furthermore the EU must be strong and adamant in it's values and political identity, Turkish accession would only weaken it.

In short, Turkey does not belong in the EU

LeBrok
24-11-10, 19:50
very nice comment. in fact, i believe germany and france believe that if turkey is in EU, then there will be an additional vote benefit for US. these days turkey is under the full control of US and i hate it.

Can you give examples of US full control or any control over Turkey? I'm not familiar with this subject.

Marianne
25-11-10, 22:33
Can you give examples of US full control or any control over Turkey? I'm not familiar with this subject.

I've also heard that Turkey and USA have tight relationships, because USA wants to have a critical ally in the middle east, but I don't have any significant evidence to back this up. All I know is that Turkey is supported by USA and that could be a sign

Sirius2b
26-11-10, 17:16
Well, I see that the discussion about the entry (or not) of Turkey in the E.U. continues in this thread.

I recently read in an article of "Asia Times" that many Americans not very acquainted with what's going on in Europe, are surprised to find that islamophobia in Europe nowadays is not centered around Saudi Arabia, or even Iran but around... Turkey!!!

(One of the most westernized, modern and democratic countries of the Muslim World).

:thinking:

++++++++++++

The simple fact, is that as ugly as it sounds, Turkey have united most of Europe in a rejection for its entry. And discussions abut that, will continue to rage (as on the threds about Turkey in this forum), for a while, by part of the Europeans.

But now, I can say that many Europeans do not listen to what Turkey says. They believe that Turkey is continously begging to enter the E.U.. Certainly there is still many Turks that want it badly. But certainly not Erdogan, and certainly not what I consider the best part of Turkey.

The fact is that Turkey have already moved on. Done a lot of deals with Russia, Iran and China... opened a free trade agreement with its immediate surroundings.... and it payed off. Currently Turkey is growing impresively fast, and it was practically not affected by the current European economic woes.

http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/ian-fraser/2010/08/23/turkey-remains-one-of-worlds-hottest-emerging-markets-despite-fiscal-slip-up (http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/ian-fraser/2010/08/23/turkey-remains-one-of-worlds-hottest-emerging-markets-despite-fiscal-slip-up)

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-224048-turkey-raises-growth-rate-target-to-68-pct-in-new-economic-program.html (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-224048-turkey-raises-growth-rate-target-to-68-pct-in-new-economic-program.html)

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-turkey-sign-free-trade-agreement-to-boost-ties-2010-11-25 (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-turkey-sign-free-trade-agreement-to-boost-ties-2010-11-25)

http://www.eurasiacritic.com/articles/towards-new-era-turkey-russia-relations (http://www.eurasiacritic.com/articles/towards-new-era-turkey-russia-relations)

(I don't know if Turkey will eventually enter the E.U. merely on a stroke of luck and sound legal arguments. So the discussion about it by the part of the Europeans and Turks, is maybe not so wasted time).

The Turks in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, are a different thing. Many have not "integrated" well in the societies in which they live... but then, "integration" here is a word with a very different content to what, for example, an American, Canadian, Australian or South America could understand. Many well educated Turks are migrating in flocks from Germany to Turkey. Unfortunately, leaving behind a minority of Turks every day more alianated by the society they live in. That has to be analized separately.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkeist%C3%A4mmige_in_Deutschland (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkeist%C3%A4mmige_in_Deutschland)

I for my part only want to express my admiration for Erdogan and the Turkish people, for doing what they are doing, and combine a good vision with honesty to themselves.

Regards.

Pro-Europe
28-11-10, 18:20
I don't believe Turkey belongs in the EU. The European Union, although strengthened through its diversity, nevertheless has certain core principles that are vital to its survival. Turkey is not compatible with these common European principles (however vague they may be), and would only disrupt and destabilise the Union. Even if people disagree with this argument, there are still the geographic, economic and political arguments to take into consideration:

Geographic: The Union cannot expand infinitely, at a certain point we must decide that the borders are large enough, and instead look internally instead of externally.

Economic: Turkey has a large agricultural sector. The agricultural subsidies is something many wish to diminish, and slowly but surely we've been seeing a steady reduction of the CAP. Turkish accession would only revitalise the subsidy and increase the amount of supporters for this outdated policy.

Politically: Turkey would become the largest country in the EU. Seeing as there are numerous controversies surrounding the country, coupled with certain dubious practices some member states don't approve of, they would suddenly have far too much political power in Europe. Furthermore the EU must be strong and adamant in it's values and political identity, Turkish accession would only weaken it.

In short, Turkey does not belong in the EU

First, just a short comment to this: your views seem quite interesting at some points, however they are open to just as many counterarguments:

Regarding the European principles, indeed as you say they are not easily defined, just as the Turkish are not. Therefore it is important here to look at the commonalities rather then the differences, to look at possibilities, not obstacles.

Geographically: borders are just socially constructed terms and therefore they are just an administrative problem which can be overcome.

economically: A remodeling of the Turkish agricultural sector will make it eventually functioning and therefore pay itself back. Also, as you might know, accessing countries first go trough a transitional period which already brings these changes to Turkey before it would even be possible to access.

politically: Here, I slightly agree with you, but if we want Turkey to join, it is possible to change the political structure. This debate however belongs in an overarching debate that Europe should be more democratic overall, and as such does not imply that we should lose certain values with the accession of Turkey.




The fact is that Turkey have already moved on. Done a lot of deals with Russia, Iran and China... opened a free trade agreement with its immediate surroundings.... and it payed off. Currently Turkey is growing impresively fast, and it was practically not affected by the current European economic woes.


If this is right, this would be a reason from the side of Europe to improve relations with Turkey as they then would economically gain from Turkisch accession in two ways: the widening of the market by consumers which become increasingly wealthy, and a growing produce. As for Turkey, it is not only an economic question, and they would gain from political stability and coherent frameworks offered by the EU.

what are your views on this?

Elias2
29-11-10, 05:07
It seems this European project has become more a project about imperialism than of the european people. Turkey is not european, the idea that it is is forced by politicians. Boarders are socially constructed ideas, but continents are geographically constructed. Asia and Europe meet at the bospherus, not any where east of that. When I hear stats about how turkey would benefit the EU it just goes to show that the EU has stoped being a european project and more a world union, which is scary. I know Europe wants to be a geopolitical player again, but never in my life have I thought that "europe" boardered persia (iran). This whole Union is becommig more about power than anythign else.

Sirius2b
29-11-10, 05:29
If this is right, this would be a reason from the side of Europe to improve relations with Turkey as they then would economically gain from Turkisch accession in two ways: the widening of the market by consumers which become increasingly wealthy, and a growing produce. As for Turkey, it is not only an economic question, and they would gain from political stability and coherent frameworks offered by the EU.

what are your views on this?

I wish the better for Turkey and Europe and I think that a close economical and political cooperation between them will be a great gain for both.

Now, I do not want that a re-approchment between them be conditionated to international intrigue, or visions of geopolitical domination.

What should be the kind of economical cooperation that suits both parties?.

Well, currently there is a discussion of what went wrong in Spain, Portugal and Greece... why they did not benefited so much in the long term with access to the EU?

Part of the problem seems to reside in the unflexibility of monetary policy, specially the unability to set a competitive exchange rate TAILORED TO THEIR ECONOMIES...

http://www.politik.de/forum/eu/227036-sollen.html (http://www.politik.de/forum/eu/227036-sollen.html)

So you see that sometimes, someone does wrong when intented to do good, and vice-versa.

For the moment, it is difficult to decide what will be the best for Turkey and Europe in the Economic sense.

In the political sense, it is more easy. Turkey should be given proof of good will by the part of the EU, even when this do not necessarily means to grant access to the EU. But I think it will a good moment by the part of Europe of some goodwill and friendship, for Turks have been psychologically very hard beatten by the current Islamophobia.

I agree that Turkey could be more stabilized in political sense by entering the EU, in the long term, and that will be of great benefit to this country.

Regards.

UndercoverSwede
04-12-10, 14:28
Pro-Europe,

while you certainly make excellent points, I am nevertheless inclined to disagree


Regarding the European principles, indeed as you say they are not easily defined, just as the Turkish are not. Therefore it is important here to look at the commonalities rather then the differences, to look at possibilities, not obstacles.

Admittedly there are commonalities, yet how many? If basic agreements were the sole criterion for accession, the EU would encompass half the world.

While borders may be historically and socially constructed, they serve a purpose. Their use may be limited, but they must be taken into consideration. Furthermore, to offer a more populist answer, geography does matter very much to much of the European populace.

A remodelling of the Turkish agricultural sector may very well be beneficial in the end, but then I would plead for Turkey to join after said remodelling, as this would not pose an unnecessary financial burden on the EU. If Turkey cannot manage this modernisation on it's own, I find that sufficient proof that it is not ready to join the EU. The EU is not a development fund, after all, it is a legal and economical co-operation for mutual benefit.

Politically there is much potential in Turkey, yet as with the economy this potential must be (at least partially) reached before accession.

I disagree with what Sirius said about Turkey moving on. I believe the momentum has decreased, but Turkish political and economic ties to other nation states do not discredit EU potential. Diplomacy and politics are multilateral, not bilateral. I do, however, find a situation where Turkey has positive ties with the EU and others, yet is not a member of the EU, to be the ideal solution for all parties. If this is the direction Turkey is going, then that bodes well.

Elias2
29-12-10, 21:32
My favorite intellectual, Christopher Hitchens does a 'talking Turkey' segment on Radio free europe/ Radio Liberty interview which was uploaded on youtube, its a good watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7p6LUHjkw&feature=channel

Erdogan quote; "democracy is like getting on a bus or a train, you ride it untill you get to where you want to go then get off"

LeBrok
30-12-10, 09:12
Good link Elias, I like Hitchens, almost like hearing my ideas and ideology from someone else's lips.

Barbarian please listen to few interviews of Hitchens. This is pretty much the Western thinking. West is not just about superpowers, armies, money and greed. West is also about liberty, humanitarian help, sharing, empathy, sympathy and democracy. It comes as a package wherever West comes with help, war or both, these days.
The consequences are often unpredictable and methods clumsy, or local culture too alien to Western ideas, but intentions are good....but that's a different story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcRPDeDQeCw&NR=1

Anton, Bear's den
23-01-11, 21:33
Comrades
What about Russia in EU to 2050 year? hahahahahahaha

Michael Folkesson
23-01-11, 23:06
Comrades
What about Russia in EU to 2050 year? hahahahahahaha

Why not post a thread asking that? This is about Turkey.

Anton, Bear's den
24-01-11, 13:07
Comrades
What about Russia in EU to 2050 year? hahahahahahaha


Why not post a thread asking that? This is about Turkey.

Well, I wanna see reactions :laughing::lmao:

As for Turkey, I am not sure that they see themselves as european
http:/www (dot) welt (dot) de/politik/ausland/article12109622/Erdogan-traeumt-von-arabisch-tuerkischer-Weltmacht.html
(I can't give direct link because did not write 10 messages)

Some text from this German article (2 weeks ago freshness):

Turkish prime-minister Erdogan said a speech in Kuwait about how he wanna create union with arabic countries. He called to remember the community of Arabs and Turks which connects them historically.

This community, according to Erdogan, is based primarily on Islam, as well as the joint struggle against the Christian invaders. "Together, the Turks and Arabs were able to protect these lands during the Crusades" - he said. And in the next eras "we fought together against the invaders", said Erdogan, also mentioning "the occupation of Erzurum.

According to Erdogan, today should awaken to new life "1000 years of brotherhood" and create "a political, economic and cultural union". "We belong to one civilization. We have a common history ", - stressed Erdogan.

"We take the pain the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as own pain" - said Erdogan. In each of these three countries American military strikes killed many Muslims. "If one of the organs of the body is in pain, then the whole body feels pain. And, if brutally victimized children of Gaza, we feel the same pain as if brutally victimized by our own children. The problem of Gaza - is our problem. The problem of Jerusalem - that is our problem".

In addition to the evaluation of a new and better world, built with the help of a new solidarity between Turks and Arabs, Mr. Erdogan referred to the European Union. "On the one hand, we will continue to pursue negotiations with the European Union on the other hand, we will not turn away from those regions with which we are bound by centuries of shared history." According to Erdogan, nobody abroad can not say that it has an impact on Turkey's foreign policy. "Some people criticize us when we talk about Baghdad, Kabul, Gaza, Jerusalem and Palestine ... We define our foreign policy. We will implement its own foreign policy program. Arabs - they are our brothers and sisters. "

Erdogan stressed that Islamic terror does not exist. Anyone who deals with terror, not a Muslim, because Islam means "peace", he said. This means that we should do away with non-Muslim terror, what can be done with the help of God, and with the help of a new solidarity of Turkish and Arab brotherly countries.

That's all from article, not my

Elias2
24-01-11, 16:55
This guy is a nutjob.

Elias2
07-02-11, 01:30
http://www.cyprusupdates.com/2011/02/erdogan-furious-over-tomorrows-rally-in-northern-cyprus/

"Turkish Cypriot Trade Unions announced that there will be a second major protest against the Prime Minister of Turkey tomorrow Monday 7th, in the wake of offensive statements about the January 28th rally in occupied Nicosia.
Furious about the protests Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, did not hesitate to reiterate that the Cypriot Government is behind them and urged the Turkish Cypriot leadership to deal with them. He added that Turkey will take measures against them since it cannot tolerate this attitude from Turkish Cypriots. Speaking on the phone with T/C leader Dervis Eroglu he expressed his anger about the situation, and using sharp words referred to the involved trade unions in the style of ‘who are they’ and said that they should be brought to court. Following their phone conversation Eroglu held a meeting this afternoon with the parliamentary party leaders to assess the situation."

I said it before I'll say it again, this guy is a nutjob.

julia90
03-03-11, 15:35
No, it's the ottoman empire. no, genocide. (also germany commited a genocide but germany recognized it). No, too many people 70,000,000 (it would be the second biggest eu nation)

in order to join turkey should admit the genocide and should convert in to bizantine empire, and abandon islam and become christian. (and be less proud to be muslim)

I would support more Israel as a Eu member.
Richer. business people.
Judaico-Christian unity.
Jews shaped europe.

althought it's in war (so it is dangerous for eu, because we would be attacked by more islamic kamikaze)
some people are religiuos integralistic (and in integralist family women have to be pregnant and to give birth to many children; althought i think this form of backwardness it's not as diffused), infact israel is socially and economically occidental (more than many europe occidental countries)

^ lynx ^
03-03-11, 17:04
You don't even have to bring out all those points, julia90.

EU stand for "European Union" which implies an organization formed by european countries. Turkey is not an european country. I don't get why some people/politicians have a hard time understanding such a simple concept. We should not even be debating about this.

The thing is Germany needs new markets to expand into.

Regards.

edao
03-03-11, 20:19
One set back to possible expansion to Turkey would be the sheer potential risk of power shift in Europe. My point being Germany is a country of 81 million people and is about 4th on nominal GDP, Turkey is a country of 77 million people and is only 17th in nominal GDP. If Turkey joined the EU and prospered economically it could potential become more economically powerful that GB France Spain and Italy. Would european nations be prepared to dance to a Turkish tune?

julia90
03-03-11, 20:33
The thing is Germany needs new markets to expand into.

I don't think Germany would be pleased. Germany would be unpliesed, don't they have turks in germany? (Germans don't want immigrants, like they didn't want italians who firstly arrived in germany), so i will be more easy to turkish living there easily.

I'm not racist, but i'm against islam (i don't belive islam could ever become a pacific religion).

Albania is islamic, but it's very small, it only has 7,000,000 vs 70,000,000 and anyway turkey is more religious. Islanm souldn't become the second religions per hinabitants in europe.

I'm not racist, i repeat, infact i consider turkish people with similar looks to italians, but it's the religions that i don't want to be in europe.

Mzungu mchagga
03-03-11, 21:15
You don't even have to bring out all those points, julia90.

EU stand for "European Union" which implies an organization formed by european countries. Turkey is not an european country. I don't get why some people/politicians have a hard time understanding such a simple concept. We should not even be debating about this.

The thing is Germany needs new markets to expand into.

Regards.

Do you have any profound information on the fact that Germany supports Turkey's membership more than any other EU country? Here is some description on that issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_%E2%80%93_Turkey_relations

Mzungu mchagga
03-03-11, 21:46
Last sunday Erdogan hold a speech again in Germany infront of thousands of Turks, in which he argued kids with Turkish background should learn Turkish first before they learn German. With every effort we try to take to integrate Turks into German society the Turkish press and politicians try to humiliate us as Nazis with the aim of depriving other people of their culture, stopping every further argument. With this mentality I can't imagine Turkey would react any differently on large scale politics, like if they were in the EU, would give a damn to what other EU-members say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 01:18
:thinking:

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 01:33
Last sunday Erdogan hold a speech again in Germany infront of thousands of Turks, in which he argued kids with Turkish background should learn Turkish first before they learn German. With every effort we try to take to integrate Turks into German society the Turkish press and politicians try to humiliate us as Nazis with the aim of depriving other people of their culture, stopping every further argument. With this mentality I can't imagine Turkey would react any differently on large scale politics, like if they were in the EU, would give a damn to what other EU-members say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany

What kind of integration do the Germans want for the Turks living there?

What will be your ideal of integration?.

Could the Turks even become German, in all the sense of the word, like for example, a second generation Irish or German could become an "American", "Canadian" or "Brazilian"?

++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, combine the attitude of Julia90, saying that the Turk have to renounce they religion to be "accepted", with that claim of nazism, put a bit of salt of the worst kind of hypocrecy (ever seen in the history of Mankind)... an tell me if the result could be different to this...

http://www.israeli-art.com/satire/img/muslim1.jpg

http://www.israeli-art.com/satire/img/muslim2.jpg

http://www.israeli-art.com/satire/img/muslim3.jpg


What is more... if you just take it IN A STRICT LITERAL WAY... one should applaud the worst hypocrecy (that it is) as the FINAL TRUTH about Turks in Germany.

So, the claim that Erdogan think that young Turks should learn Turkish first, could be interpeted not as to an undully "intromission", or "serch for turkish supremacism" in German society... but as the possibility of a massive return of Turks (and many Turks ARE returning to Turkey), given the need...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3WDK1PPkyk

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 01:41
in order to join turkey should admit the genocide and should convert in to bizantine empire, and abandon islam and become christian. (and be less proud to be muslim)

I guess the Turks will never be European, then.


I would support more Israel as a Eu member.
Richer. business people.
Judaico-Christian unity.
Jews shaped europe.

althought it's in war (so it is dangerous for eu, because we would be attacked by more islamic kamikaze)

some people are religiuos integralistic (and in integralist family women have to be pregnant and to give birth to many children; althought i think this form of backwardness it's not as diffused), infact israel is socially and economically occidental (more than many europe occidental countries)

You Eurpeans could like Israel all that you like...

That doen't I give it the right to attack neighbouring countries or peoples, like it did with Lebanon in 2006 or more recently in Ghaza.

For me it will be interesting to know your opinion about the civilians killed in those aggressions...

And don't worry, Julia90, I PERSONALLY ASSURE YOU that Erdogan is not "begging" the entrance in the E.U.

Please, tell me what you think about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY83lsO5VrM

Regards.

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 02:14
Lynx


The thing is Germany needs new markets to expand into.


It already has Spain. Do you think is working?

Do you like the amazing socio-economic progress you are experiencing as of today?

Don't forget to say "thanks".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, I sense that in this threat there are some people that not to have here Erdogan himself, or so many Turks to insult and difame... to that people, I say friendly: Don't worry, I am here... hopefully you will like the surrogate.

This is definitely a topic that I like...

Regards.

Elias2
04-03-11, 03:13
I guess the Turks will never be European, then.



You Eurpeans could like Israel all that you like...

That doen't I give it the right to attack neighbouring countries or peoples, like it did with Lebanon in 2006 or more recently in Ghaza.

For me it will be interesting to know your opinion about the civilians killed in those aggressions...

And don't worry, Julia90, I PERSONALLY ASSURE YOU that Erdogan is not "begging" the entrance in the E.U.

Please, tell me what you think about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY83lsO5VrM

Regards.

I think he and whoever supports that position in the video is a big hypocrite. He tells the isreali presedent he should be ashamed for killings of arabs when he can't admit about two genocides that happened 100 years ago. His position on isreal is occupying arab land when northern cyprus still exists. He goes to germany and tells them its a crime to intergrate germans when thats what turks have forcefully been doing to the kurds for 100 years now.

He is not a very smart person, and probably one of the reasons Turkey's EU accension is going so badly.

Mzungu mchagga
04-03-11, 03:18
What kind of integration do the Germans want for the Turks living there?

What will be your ideal of integration?.

Could the Turks even become German, in all the sense of the word, like for example, a second generation Irish or German could become an "American", "Canadian" or "Brazilian"?


To answer your last question first:
No, I don't think so! It is a cliché I have to bring up, but I think there is some truth in it: The nations USA, Canada and Brazil are partly based on immigration, built up by people who migrated there and therefore also smooth the way for immigrants to come. It is in the mentality of the citizens. Of course those countries, due to some economic or social reasons, have their prejudices, too, and try to limit or widen immigration on certain targets of people who want to enter the country. But in Germany it is something different:
It is a sad thing to say, and when I mention it infront of other Germans they usually agree ashamed to it, but still after over 60 years the nation is mostly based on "Blut und Boden", means, this country is for German blood line only. It happens subconsciously and without intended awareness. If it comes to Turks, if you speak fluently German, were born here, even your grandparents were born here, have German citizenship, studied at a German university, you will remain the Turk! Doesn't mean they are not tolerated to live here as long as the Germans don't feel disturbed.
Other way round, immigrants who come to a country like Germany come for different reasons than for example to USA. If someone migrates to the USA, he wants to become American. If someone migrates to Canada, he wants to become Canadian. If someone migrates to Brazil, he wants to become Brazilian. But hardly someone wants to become German when migrating to Germany, the main reason is economics!
Things are slowly changing, and both the views of Germans as well as immigrants are becoming somewhat different. But there is still a long way to go.

Strangely, Germans and non-Turkish immigrants never really had a problem in the last decades with this attitude, simply because there was no reason to argue about. Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavians and other South and Eastern Europeans (ay, there is it again, thought I never wanted to use the terms South and East again :embarassed:) lived peacefully apart together. These immigrants spoke their homeland languages at home, cooked their homeland meals, held their homeland parties, but, they did their work very well, paid taxes, simply did no trouble... And after some while intermarriages became more and more common and today you can't tell the difference anymore between a German and third-generation Italian in Germany.
Things changed when the Turks arrived. I don't think so much that it was mainly Islam which played the major role, but see, those people didn't come from Istanbul or Ankara. They came from remote places of East-Anatolia, bringing customs and social structures very different from all previous immigrants. These families were heavily based on patriarchal structures, customs differed widely from other Europeans, with different values, and much less education than other Europeans brought. Even here, as long as the "guest-workers" (means they were supposed to leave soon again) did the dirty work Germans didn't want to do, this was no problem. But as more and more family members moved to Germany, social problems became more obvious: families were huge and only a few did feed the family through jobs (job means here for Germans: work that provides taxes!), although through living here social services could be entitled. And I can tell you from my experience, even besides that, working motivation is a little different from other Europeans... Of course not all East Anatolians are like that, it might also be the minority, but there is a fair number, or what I can call a huge minority of them! Moreover, of course from wellfare alone you can't make a living on the long run either, which is a problem for the kids who want to wear cool clothes of brand names and the latest technology. Which subsequently leads to the "criminal foreigner"...

Funny thing is that I can't even blame those Turkish immigrants. They are just living in the way they always lived, acting in the range of the basic conditions of law and society, confronted with their own problems within these conditions, too. Germans and also our politicians never really made any effort to understand their culture, make a comparison between theirs and ours, and see how to find an agreement and thus motivational input for integration. As I already mentioned at the beginning, things are very slowly changing by the usage of Turkish methods, incentives and restrictions, to practically push Turks into education and jobs that support our social system and not just making use of it (my most realistic ideal of integration btw). Some very small successes could already been observed.

And now comes the part that upsets me. Each time such a small success could be made, we have a group of Turks who argue they have violently deprived of their culture and been forced to live a life they didn't want to. These are small trouble makers, but I hate it, and it happens often enough, that some Turkish media supports their aims, and especially it upsets me when some Mr. Erdogan, who actually knows about this problem very well, is only interested in the votes and feelings of the people of his country (and the people of Turkish nationality here can vote for him in elections!), ignoring the trouble abroad, only interested in his very own benefit. And it is the same he does when he deals with EU or Arab policy. Yes, he is a very good strategist...

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 04:05
It is good that I could clarify things with people...


I think he and whoever supports that position in the video is a big hypocrite. He tells the isreali presedent he should be ashamed for killings of arabs when he can't admit about two genocides that happened 100 years ago. His position on isreal is occupying arab land when northern cyprus still exists. He goes to germany and tells them its a crime to intergrate germans when thats what turks have forcefully been doing to the kurds for 100 years now.

OK, Elias2... you live in Canada... and how do I know that, besides that, you are not, say, Greek or Armenian?

In which case you could say whatever you need to say (out of, at least explainable, anger), and I will not respond.

I will defend Erdogan and Turkey for other reasons, with other people.


He is not a very smart person, and probably one of the reasons Turkey's EU accension is going so badly.

Again, he is not really interested in that. He has more important and productive things to think about.

Regards.

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 04:19
@Mzungu Mchagga...

I have read what you wrote... and I have to think about it.

My first assessement of what you say, I will qualify it as very honest.

(I don't know if it is a compliment or insult... but I think you are the most honest German I have talked in Internet in more than 5 years).

So, I have to think my answer.

Regards.

(Good night).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S.

Why you use an African(?) nickname? It's cool... besides of being Nurse you were interested also in African Cultures or Anthropology?

+

Elias2
04-03-11, 04:48
It is good that I could clarify things with people...



OK, Elias2... you live in Canada... and how do I know that, besides that, you are not, say, Greek or Armenian?

In which case you could say whatever you need to say (out of, at least explainable, anger), and I will not respond.

I will defend Erdogan and Turkey for other reasons, with other people.



Again, he is not really interested in that. He has more important and productive things to think about.

Regards.

You can attack me personaly all you want but you can't attack my argument. If you want me to make personal comments about you and mexicans, I will, but I don't want to. He is very interested in EU membership, but in order for that to happen turkey needs to clean the skeletons out of its closet, which means the things I listed in my previous post. If Turkey suddenly decides not to persue membership, these issues will still not go away, and will have very big consequences on Turkey.

Antigone
04-03-11, 08:01
I find the opinion that everyone in the EU should all be christian and look the same rather odd, isn't it part of the EU's tennants that everyone has the right to religious, political and ethnical self expression? It can't be any other way, or we return to the bad old days of racial and religious discrimination or Nazism.

Be all that as it may, I don't think Turkey should join the EU simply because Turkey is geographically not in Europe. Except for that little bit around Constantinople/Istanbul which is neither here nor there, Turkey is a part of the Asian land mass.

Sirius2b
04-03-11, 09:34
You can attack me personaly all you want....

And where, supposedly, I placed my "attacks"... :D :D :D


... but you can't attack my argument.

I didn't intended to do so.


If you want me to make personal comments about you and mexicans, I will, but I don't want to.

Do what you want... then.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, to leave things clear... I do not want to enter in an argument about...

a. If Turkey should enter the E.U. (it will not).
b. If Turkey commited genocide against Armenians.
c. If Turkey is being unfair or started the things in Cyprus...
d. If Turkey opress or not the Kurds...
f. Etcetera...

(I hold to myself completedly my opinions about those things).

The reason that I see the government of Erdogan so good, is that Turkey, as a nation State, simply maneouvered in the last years to give himself a patriotic goverment, that follows the best interest of its people, and that reflects the most positive face of said people. That thwarted plots intended to doblegate Turkey into a role of mere tool to imperialist designs, in the face of the most shameless blackmails, threats, and international intrigue, that I remember, and that now follows an internal and external policy popular among the best of its people.

Very summarized, is as simple as that.

Why, if not, is then so much hate and character assassination in the "West", against a man such as Erdogan, and the people of Turkey?

Stories like this, regretably, we don't see to often.

Regards.

^ lynx ^
04-03-11, 12:15
Lynx


It already has Spain. Do you think is working?

Do you like the amazing socio-economic progress you are experiencing as of today?

Don't forget to say "thanks".

Spain's population: 45 milliions.
Turkeys' population: 78 millions.

Anyways, your reply is moronic and trollesque, as usual.

Regards.

Elias2
04-03-11, 15:20
And where, supposedly, I placed my "attacks"... :D :D :D



I didn't intended to do so.



Do what you want... then.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, to leave things clear... I do not want to enter in an argument about...

a. If Turkey should enter the E.U. (it will not).
b. If Turkey commited genocide against Armenians.
c. If Turkey is being unfair or started the things in Cyprus...
d. If Turkey opress or not the Kurds...
f. Etcetera...

(I hold to myself completedly my opinions about those things).

The reason that I see the government of Erdogan so good, is that Turkey, as a nation State, simply maneouvered in the last years to give himself a patriotic goverment, that follows the best interest of its people, and that reflects the most positive face of said people. That thwarted plots intended to doblegate Turkey into a role of mere tool to imperialist designs, in the face of the most shameless blackmails, threats, and international intrigue, that I remember, and that now follows an internal and external policy popular among the best of its people.

Very summarized, is as simple as that.

Why, if not, is then so much hate and character assassination in the "West", against a man such as Erdogan, and the people of Turkey?

Stories like this, regretably, we don't see to often.

Regards.

For the reasons I listed, also I also don't think turkey will join either. Turkey is still a tool of america and if it tries to difference itself by making growing ties with Iran and syria, which is has been doing, it will only end up in trouble. Beleive it or not Turkey needs the EU more than it needs it, dispite the political rhetoric comming from ankara.

barbarian
04-03-11, 17:29
.... Even here, as long as the "guest-workers" (means they were supposed to leave soon again) did the dirty work Germans didn't want to do, this was no problem.

But as more and more family members moved to Germany, social problems became more obvious: families were huge and only a few did feed the family through jobs .........

Which subsequently leads to the "criminal foreigner"...


Mzungu mchagga,

germany didnt say or made any contract with them saying "you must go back home after 20 years after finishing the dirty work in the country". (by the way do the germans want to do dirty works by themselves now?)

germany didnt put any qualification criteria or care about the education level in the selection of the workers.

germany didnt put any quota to prevent the social problems, and let them create their own neighborhoods which would let them live like in their homeland.

i believe most of the mistakes have done by the germany. and now, they must find a way to solve the problem.

finally, i dont believe germany wants turks (kurds) integrate to germany. i believe they want them go back home. (it is just a hipothesis).

LeBrok
04-03-11, 18:26
@Elias and Barbarian, I'm still waiting for an explanation how US is controlling Turkey.

I'm starting to believe that it was the same way it controls Egypt and Libya.
Many countries take US dollars, even Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. People think, US is paying them, and money means power and control, so obviously US is controlling them. It's an illusion, even the BBC, NBC and US citizens, not mentioning many members on this board, fall pray to it. Even with 100 thousand Marines on the ground the control of Iraq and Afghanistan is difficult and wont last without constant presence of military forces.
When US wants to exercise this implied control over other countries, what do we hear? The total "Screw you", echoing through Middle East and North Africa these days. US will be better off saving their billions for their debt repayment, and stop being a biggest socker in history of the world.
The biggest demand and control Obama can exert on Turkey is what side of a table he will sit during joined meeting. All the billions can buy. :)

Mzungu mchagga
04-03-11, 19:27
Mzungu mchagga,

germany didnt say or made any contract with them saying "you must go back home after 20 years after finishing the dirty work in the country". (by the way do the germans want to do dirty works by themselves now?)

germany didnt put any qualification criteria or care about the education level in the selection of the workers.

germany didnt put any quota to prevent the social problems, and let them create their own neighborhoods which would let them live like in their homeland.

i believe most of the mistakes have done by the germany. and now, they must find a way to solve the problem.

finally, i dont believe germany wants turks (kurds) integrate to germany. i believe they want them go back home. (it is just a hipothesis).

Yes, I've already said that I can't blame the Turks for coming to Germany. They were offered the jobs, and the government of that time - well actually still today, and not only in that aspect - was really short-sighted and didn't think about anything! They didn't think about the option that people wouldn't want to leave, they didn't think about the option that unemployment in Germany would become a topic one day, they didn't think about the over-aging of society, they didn't think about integrating people into a society that, as already mentioned, was subconsciously for German blood only!

And yes, now it is our (Germany's) task to think about a solution! In contrast to what the media says and people think, a vast number of Turks are integrated into German society!!! They speak German well, go to work, pay taxes, are unpolitical/quiet and thus don't contradict to what the government says (the ideal subject so to say)*. Thanks to the efforts of the majority of Turkish immigants, not the politicians, they have found their place in German society that doesn't disturb anyone, so I don't see why improved work from German side shouldn't be continued with the huge minority of Turks who are unwilling to fit into the social system.

Sadly, it is Erdogan who encourages these people not give up their life style. It is hypocricy as I don't think he would have any interest in people in his own country who are not willing to pay their duties and avoid education. But these people are not living in his country, so it's not his problem, plus he needs their votes as they are his support in the upcoming elections. So what better thing to do than telling those people "Relax, do what you want, I'll care for you!"

Erdogan had to send his daughters to the US because they wouldn't have been allowed to study at university in Turkey wearing a headscarf. I think that says it all! Oh yes, Erdogan is such a cool rebel...



*Actually we have very good politicians of Turkish descend, Cem Özdemir is one of them!

Mzungu mchagga
04-03-11, 19:40
Why you use an African(?) nickname? It's cool... besides of being Nurse you were interested also in African Cultures or Anthropology?

+

*lol*
My ex-girlfriend is a Chagga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagga I've also spend one and a half years in Tanzania (Zanzibar plus mainland) living partly at a Chagga family. Mzungu means "Whitey" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzungu but can actually been refered to anyone of European or Western descent, who is not African, Asian or Arab. Even black US tourists or our Cuban social worker were all "Mzungu".

julia90
04-03-11, 20:22
I guess the Turks will never be European, then.



You Eurpeans could like Israel all that you like...

That doen't I give it the right to attack neighbouring countries or peoples, like it did with Lebanon in 2006 or more recently in Ghaza.

For me it will be interesting to know your opinion about the civilians killed in those aggressions...

And don't worry, Julia90, I PERSONALLY ASSURE YOU that Erdogan is not "begging" the entrance in the E.U.

Please, tell me what you think about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY83lsO5VrM

Regards.

Well let's put it in this way, i think turkey is not yet full a laic country, and if we have to take religious countries i prefer those chatolic, ebraic, even buddist.

Elias2
04-03-11, 21:00
@ Leborke

America is using turkey to control the middle east. They're not really interested in the people of the middle east but want control over the supply and demand of its oil. The same goes with central asia in the turkic countries like uzbekistan etc. That's why there is also tension between USA and Russia even though USSR fell 20 years ago, they both want control over central asia's oil. (former USSR territories)

There are reasons why america went in to Iraq and not other countries ruled by a dictator, and now recently USA is pondering using troops in Lybia because the price of oil went up due to the civil war going on.

Because the american dollar is the universal petrol dollar, any sudden rises causes major economic problems in america which is trying to get out of a recession.

Now recently Turkey's forign policy is floating back eastward, making economic and social ties with contries that are "enemies" to america; Iran, Syria. The Turkish/Isreali flotilla incident made permanent division between relations of those two said countries and has become a more vocal supporter of the palestinian cause.

Also if you've noticed, the two biggest supporters of Turkey's EU accension are Britain and America, because they want turkey securely lock in the "west", in other words to continue to ask what they want of it, and for it to follow. This anglo-english duo trying to make the EU a geopolitical "hard" power. Also with Turkey in the EU, Britain can have a partner in EU politics against the current franco-german alliance, which also means USA will have a say in EU politics because it controls both Britain and Turkey.

What will be more interesting is what turkey's politics will do once NATO starts using more forceful actions to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Theocratic dictatorships should not get the bomb, especially ones that threatend other countries existance. Will Turkey invade Iran? will it side with Iran? if the latter is true there could be a fairly significant war looming on the horizon.

There is a larger game being played here then simply Turkey getting into the EU, like Romania or Bulgaria did, it has alot to do with money, oil, imperialism, and power. And turkey knows this as well and uses the threat of "stopping EU accension" to get what it wants. Why hasn't the EU imposed more sanctions on turkey over northern Cyprus? it threatened to end negotiations. Why hasn't america ackowledged the armenian genocide? beacuse they don't want to hurt theirs ties with turkey, or force it into a friendlier position with Iran. Why is the PKK considered a terriorist organization, or condemed turkey over its treatment of monorities? beacuse america turns a blind eye to it.

Then there is Isreal, but I don't want to start talking about that.

Mzungu mchagga
04-03-11, 21:23
It is exagerated to say that the US controls Turkey, of course it doesn't. It is natural that the US wants an ally on it's side in the Middle East, just like Elias2 explained.

The other thing is that Britain and the US know that Turkey's membership in the EU would weaken the EU due to hardly overcoming political positions, which would just be their aim. Of course USA and Britain want stabile nations in Europe with strong economies and an open market, no question!!! But not to the prize to loose their own authority in politics and economy! So the aim is to keep the power of the European nations balanced to the degree that peace is preserved and their economies strong, but politically disunited on the international stage.

Runic
04-03-11, 21:37
No, Turkey shouldn't join at all. First off, the Turkish immigrants you get in places like Germany aren't the best assimilated types overall. The racist image of them in Germany is referred to them as "Kanaken", you'd be guaranteed to get more of these types if Turkey joined the EU.

Secondly, they have had a long history of the Ottoman Empire that was foreign to Europe for a long time. They may be the most secular Muslim country, but some of their natives are radical in terms of religious and political ideology.

Neolithic descended Europeans may have ancient ancestry from Anatolia but that was long ago, autosomally they are different today, regardless of SE Europeans.

Although, some Greeks, Bulgarians and other Southeastern European folk may cluster with them, this doesn't make them being European as a whole. Also, modern day Western Turks have lots of Balkanic ancestry another reason why they cluster with some Southeastern Europeans.

In ancient times, Galatia was European, overall Turkey doesn't seem like a good idea to join the EU nowadays. Just my two cents.

Elias2
04-03-11, 21:42
@ mzungu

When I say America controls Turkey I mean it gives it incentives to follows a similar foriegn policy path that it want to persue aswell, not that it has actual physical control. If the EU wants real control over its domestic and foreign policy, it needs to say goodby to US troops stationed on the continent. Secondly, it needs to withdraw itself from NATO and form a new EURO military alliance. NATO is to much abused by the US for its own needs.

Thirdly, there needs to be a more common economic policy to strengthen to eurozone.

barbarian
04-03-11, 23:31
I'm starting to believe that it was the same way it controls Egypt and Libya.
Even with 100 thousand Marines on the ground the control of Iraq and Afghanistan is difficult and wont last without constant presence of military forces.

lebrok,
these arabian countries borders were designed mostly by GB. and in that time west was aware of how oil would be important in the future. oil was both gift and curse for arabians. it was curse because oil was too valuable to leave just to arabians. the dictators (they prefer dictators because it is much easier to negotiate with one man) should have shared the profit otherwise they must have gone and new one would come (see iran, iraq, egypt, soon syria,algeria, lybia, iran 2). if you share it there is no problem (see kuwait, saudi arabia, UAE, qatar)-by the way there is no UAE, qatar, kuwait countries in history. they were just designed in small parts to control easier after ww1. what kaddafi said 2 days ago was interesting "i will replace US and western banks and companies with the brasilian and russian ones"

controlling and occupying are two different words. who needs to occupy such a hot and dirty countries? when you can just control them?

barbarian
04-03-11, 23:43
@Mzungu mchagga

.......... Erdogan..........

you are lucky to see him once in a year. we have to face him everyday.


*Actually we have very good politicians of Turkish descend, Cem Özdemir is one of them!

we dont have it.:disappointed:

barbarian
05-03-11, 00:31
@Elias and Barbarian, I'm still waiting for an explanation how US is controlling Turkey.


elias wrote an answer which was close but not same with my thoughts. and i believe some of them comes from my previous replies.

i also believe that US wants to use turkey to control (in some ways) arabian countries. erdogan is already a hero for arabian countries at the moment. especially after his "serious" arguments with israel president, which was a populist theater game also since the economical relations between the countries are even getting better now.

i dont believe US go to lybia to stabilize the oil prices, i believe they go there to take the advantage of designing the new lybia. i believe the next target will be algeria. so the new "neighbour" of EU will be US.

the new alliances of turkey cannot be iran and syria. western countries invested too much in turkey, and there is almost no national company in the country anymore. so they will not allow turkey to be that much radical. but, if erdogan insists on such an idea, it is very easy to replace him with the reserve politicians with the help of very shallow democracy in turkey, just like they did in 2001 where they destroy the biggest 3 political parties in 1 election by creating a economic crisis. and replaced an islamic party (AKP) in 1 year having %33 of the total votes. the votes rised to %42 in the next selection. despite the 2008 crises, these days their vote is estimated around %50. thanks to continious positive economical comments and "hot money" coming from US. 20 years ago there was one islamic party having around %8 of the votes. the other islamic party, where erdogan was their young student before having his own party, accuse them for serving for the benefits of US.

at the moment %92 of the 30 biggest companies in turkey owned by western companies, export/import ratio is 0.57 (which means turkey needs hot money). after this year, the foreign companies will have the right to have the majority of the media companies (US companies already have some of them but not majority of the shares)

you can hear everyday from the goverment supporter radios and tvs that how turkish army is corrupted. same radios show sympathy to US and especially obama.

US supported turkey joins EU to have an extra vote and additional ally in EU. but, they did it so apparently that in fact they complicated the membership issue. because EU started to think that "are we discussing with turkey or with US? why do they want turkey in EU that much?" i believe these days EU membership is impossible because turkish goverment assigned to a new role which is not in EU, but in the east.

in terms of populatin:even the better educated europeans do not want turkey to join the club (e.g. the monastry school student julia90) because they are muslim. do you think less educated muslim majority in turkey wants to join a christian union? turkish people wanted to join EU, because they saw spain and port. turn into rich countries from poor countries. these days are different, turkey is growing fast (!-illusion) and getting richer while EU has problems, especially spain and port. and most of the people in turkey started to think no need to this christian club, especially, if they dont help each other in crisis times.

barbarian
05-03-11, 01:07
when i firstly joined eupedia, i tried to start a treat named "is EU a superpower?". in that topic i wanted to argue how the superpowers fight for the world, the world markets, and the sources in the different parts of the world. but i failed. may be, we can do it now?

i believe the main powers of the world are EU, Russia (potentially), china. and there is one superpower in the name of US. and this SP wants to control all the world. for this purpose they must limit his competitors sources and markets. soon the arabian/african oil and market will be fully under the control of US.

i am sure the new targets will be ex-USSR countries like kazakhistan, turkmenistan etc (see the help of turkey). and finally if you control mongolia and provide freedom for tibet you can isolate russia from china and europe from energy sources. there will be only one choice for EU: to ally with russia.

i believe EU sees this scenario and trying to have stronger market and stronger army. who will fight for EU? who will be the new market? where will you find young workers?

turkey?

EU (may) need turkey. and i need EU personally, since i like european values. but, turkish population want EU less and less each day.

julia90
05-03-11, 01:49
even the better educated europeans do not want turkey to join the club (e.g. the monastry school student julia90) because they are muslim. do you think less educated muslim majority in turkey wants to join a christian union? turkish people wanted to join EU, because they saw spain and port. turn into rich countries from poor countries.

I appreciate what turkey was in the past, christian and bizantine empire.
The fact is that muslims hate the occidental word (Usa, but also europe, see recent bombing in London and Madrid), so why a muslim country want to join the devil=europe?, the occidental world were women have the same right as the men, muslim refuse our model of society, i think it's too early even for turkey that is the most laic of the muslim countries, because turkey being muslim has ties with other muslim country?

So i think that europeans and turkish people both have to pose to themselves questions. What do they mean by european union? By being european, what does it mean?, what do they want it to be?, What turkidh feel closer to, european (occidental) or the muslim world?, do turkish people feel their culture more near to our culture?

If the answer is that you feel closer to us, i think you are european, i think being european you hav to embrace christian values (not being christian), but to be like the christians are in europe, and not muslim (that is still like medieval christianism, cruciades etc..).
and if you feel european you have to break all your ties to the muslim world because europe doesn't need muslim values. and obviously by breaking ties with the muslmi you don't have to feel proud of being muslim.
muslim world and europe are the opposite, you see it nowdays and in the past when for ex. in spain, southern italy, greece and the balkans muslim were considered the evil, and the in most cases foght them back, opposing to their values. europe exist as today what it is because the countries of europe bordering the mediterranean didn't want muslim values.

barbarian
05-03-11, 02:09
I appreciate what turkey was in the past, christian and bizantine empire.
The fact is that muslims hate the occidental word (Usa, but also europe, see recent bombing in London and Madrid), so why a muslim country want to join the devil=europe?, the occidental world were women have the same right as the men, muslim refuse our model of society, i think it's too early even for turkey that is the most laic of the muslim countries, because turkey being muslim has ties with other muslim country?

So i think that europeans and turkish people both have to pose to themselves questions. What do they mean by european union? By being european, what does it mean?, what do they want it to be?, What turkidh feel closer to, european (occidental) or the muslim world?, do turkish people feel their culture more near to our culture?

those bombers were terrorist. they bombed in istanbul also. dont think that every muslim are terrorist (i am not muslim, but atheist, i have a baphtised daughter).

you have some neo nazis. does it make italy nazi?

you speak about laicism, but saying the prequest for EU is being non-islam.:embarassed:

suprisingly, your last pharagraph is logical. EU must decide:

will they create a introverted, culturally stronger bonded, humble, safe, union or bigger, more dynamic, expanding, more powerfull (with the extra additions like russia, ukraine) alliance with the less common values.

julia90
05-03-11, 02:17
those bombers were terrorist. they bombed in istanbul also. dont think that every muslim are terrorist (i am not muslim, but atheist, i have a baphtised daughter).

you have some neo nazis. does it make italy nazi?

you speak about laicism, but saying the prequest for EU being non-islam.:embarassed:

suprisingly, your last pharagraph is logic. EU must decide:

will they create a cultural, introverted culturally stronger bonded, humble, safe, union or bigger, more dynamic, expanding, more powerfull (with the extra additions like russia, ukraine) alliance with the less common values.

I understand that they were terrorist, and obviously turkey is the most laic of muslim world. but turkey being muslim has ties with the muslim world i presume. we have to see better what kind of ties it has because in some muslim country (the most integralistic, i saw flags of usa, that is multicultural, but it has "occidental values" being burned, also it's not the people but the class of wich a country is ruled that count. does you ruling class have ties with the most integralistic muslim countries, do your rule class and common people feeel "brotherhood" with the muslim world?

I want your answer (not of your pesonal belives, you are an atheist and you don't care about muslim values), but i want your ansver of what thecommon feeling of "brotherhood" are among people in turkey

barbarian
05-03-11, 02:20
If the answer is that you feel closer to us, i think you are european, i think being european you hav to embrace christian values (not being christian), but to be like the christians are in europe, and not muslim (that is still like medieval christianism, cruciades etc..).
and if you feel european you have to break all your ties to the muslim world because europe doesn't need muslim values. and obviously by breaking ties with the muslmi you don't have to feel proud of being muslim.
muslim world and europe are the opposite, you see it nowdays and in the past when for ex. in spain, southern italy, greece and the balkans muslim were considered the evil, and the in most cases foght them back, opposing to their values. europe exist as today what it is because the countries of europe bordering the mediterranean didn't want muslim values.
the funnier part came after my reply by edit.
the europen values do not come from christianity. they mostly comes from ancient greece. christianity, itself, comes from mesapotomia/anatolia. there is no native european religion at the moment.

rest of your pharagraph is so absurd and affrontly, even for a atheist, that i will not even response.

barbarian
05-03-11, 02:26
I want your answer (not of your pesonal belives, you are an atheist and you don't care about muslim values), but i want your ansver of what thecommon feeling of "brotherhood" are among people in turkey
of course turkish people feel closer to other islamic countries than christian countries. but believe me, most of them less radical then you.

see you tomorrow.
peace

julia90
05-03-11, 02:43
the funnier part came after my reply by edit.
the europen values do not come from christianity. they mostly comes from ancient greece. christianity, itself, comes from mesopotomia. there is no native european religion at the moment.

rest of your pharagraph is so absurd and affrontly, even for a atheist, that i will not even response.

:disappointed:
then instead the comes from muslim value, christianity has shaped europe for 2.000 years, it has had an influence. of course christianity was not the only value that shaped europe.
you are right we are laic, but there are indirect influence of christianity in europe.

listen to, me i want your sincere opinions, i search a confront, not because i want to starts arguments, or increase intollerance etc.
is turky enough distanciated from traditional muslim values?do you not care to be annexed to christian (indirect influenced) europe? do you like europeans monuments (of wich churches compose a majour architecture) how do you feel about european ancient history (of which the church played a major role)?

julia90
05-03-11, 02:54
of course turkish people feel closer to other islamic countries than christian countries. but believe me, most of them less radical then you.

see you tomorrow.
peace

that is the point, most of eu country are laic with christian indirect influenced.
my opinion is that turkey to enter in eu, should feel closer to eu countries than the other muslim countries, otherwise it's not part of europe, it's part of something else.

I appreciate turkey, because it's mostly laic, and it's growing fast economically, and this are the point that makes it closer to europe, another point of closer to europe it's part of turkish history, the bizantine empire (who ad an influence in italy and in the balkans).

But muslim "brotherhood" it's what distanciate turky from europe.

Elias2
05-03-11, 04:05
@ Julia

Christianity is not what modern europe is based on, it is based on Greco-roman values and thought. It was called the Renaissance because europe went away from christian ways to more classic way of thinking, and it worked. Of course religion will always be around, it's the opium for the masses, but it should never again have the power it held during the middle ages.

The problem for muslims countries, and uneducated muslims, is they never had a renaissance. The Ottoman empire never went through what europe did from the 15th-19th century (barbarian I'm not trying to take a shot at you), it was basically a medieval empire from start to end. They never had a separate institution for church (mosque) and state either, which is why the two never really grew apart and only now are they are trying to modernise and are facing problems with secularism and radical groups trying to bend politic to their like.

"Christian" countries in europe arn't really christian anymore, it's more of a cultural inheratance. Some people might take christianity seriously but I would say most don't, which is why when they look at muslims countries where they do infact take it serious, europeans feel alienated to them and to muslims. There are still some very religious christian countries in europe like Poland, Romania and Greece, western europe not so much.

I think turkey might actually be going away from secularism to a more conservative, non-attaturk way of governance thanks to AKP, which is a slippery slope. Even though the Roman Empire was in North Africa and the levent, people there just don't want to look at it as an example.

Antigone
05-03-11, 07:12
I want your answer (not of your pesonal belives, you are an atheist and you don't care about muslim values), but i want your ansver of what thecommon feeling of "brotherhood" are among people in turkey

Common sense would tell anyone that the feeling of "brotherhood" amongst the people of Turkey is as fractured and complicated as it is in any country of the world.

Even so it is hardly a fair demand Julia, how can Barbarian give anything but his personal opinion when you yourself have given us nothing but your personal opinion, certainly not the opinion of Italy or the EU as a whole.

Antigone
05-03-11, 07:32
There are still some very religious christian countries in europe like Poland, Romania and Greece, western europe not so much.

Not even Greece anymore, the older generation still cling to the church but the younger generations are as disillusioned with organised religion as the rest of Europe. Churches are empty except for a handfull of the elderly and if asked, the majority of younger people would describe themselves as athiest.

julia90
07-03-11, 00:47
@ Julia

Christianity is not what modern europe is based on, it is based on Greco-roman values and thought. It was called the Renaissance because europe went away from christian ways to more classic way of thinking, and it worked. Of course religion will always be around, it's the opium for the masses, but it should never again have the power it held during the middle ages.

The problem for muslims countries, and uneducated muslims, is they never had a renaissance. The Ottoman empire never went through what europe did from the 15th-19th century (barbarian I'm not trying to take a shot at you), it was basically a medieval empire from start to end. They never had a separate institution for church (mosque) and state either, which is why the two never really grew apart and only now are they are trying to modernise and are facing problems with secularism and radical groups trying to bend politic to their like.

"Christian" countries in europe arn't really christian anymore, it's more of a cultural inheratance. Some people might take christianity seriously but I would say most don't, which is why when they look at muslims countries where they do infact take it serious, europeans feel alienated to them and to muslims. There are still some very religious christian countries in europe like Poland, Romania and Greece, western europe not so much.

I think turkey might actually be going away from secularism to a more conservative, non-attaturk way of governance thanks to AKP, which is a slippery slope. Even though the Roman Empire was in North Africa and the levent, people there just don't want to look at it as an example.

You are wrong christianity shaped europe.
But as you said i'm afrad turkey might not be enough secularised; muslim values don't fit in europe

julia90
07-03-11, 00:49
Common sense would tell anyone that the feeling of "brotherhood" amongst the people of Turkey is as fractured and complicated as it is in any country of the world.

Even so it is hardly a fair demand Julia, how can Barbarian give anything but his personal opinion when you yourself have given us nothing but your personal opinion, certainly not the opinion of Italy or the EU as a whole.

The opinion on italy, is that we feel brotherhood to europe, not to the muslim world, as we have never been muslim.

Antigone
07-03-11, 07:37
You are wrong christianity shaped europe.
But as you said i'm afrad turkey might not be enough secularised; muslim values don't fit in europe

Don't you see the contradiction in what you have written?

Antigone
07-03-11, 07:50
The opinion on italy, is that we feel brotherhood to europe, not to the muslim world, as we have never been muslim.

You are allowing your own religious bias to interfere in what should be a political consideration. As far as I am aware it is immaterial what religious beliefs a person holds within the EU, isn't that why a person's religious affiliation is no longer printed on ID cards?

Elias2
10-03-11, 01:07
EU Parliament approved the annual progress report for Turkey’s accession

http://www.cyprusupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/turkey-eu.jpg (http://www.cyprusupdates.com/2011/03/eu-parliament-approved-the-annual-progress-report-for-turkeys-accession/)

As it was scheduled today the European Parliament held a vote on the progress report for Turkey’s accession process. The results of the vote approved the original report without amendments that would make Turkey’s path easier.
The report characterizes the progress of Turkey as still being at the starting point of a long-lasting process. Critical to the vote were the recent arrests of journalists in Turkey with the EU MP’s being concerned about the deterioration of freedom, and censorship of press. It was also noted that Turkey has made no progress in the last 8 months which is the longest period of inactivity since the process begun in 2005. For fifth consecutive year Turkey has failed to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria meaning that the conditions of the Turkish judiciary, have not yet improved sufficiently to ensure the right to a fair and timely trials. The EU Parliament has also requested that Turkey stops the flow of immigrants from Turkey to Northern Cyprus immediately to avoid changing the demographic character of the territory at a time when reunification talks are being made. The report also mentions the fact that Turkey has not stopped the acts of aggression towards Greece, and stresses that the Greek air space violations should stop. Furthermore, reference is made to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, which is signed by the 27 EU members plus all other candidate states except Turkey, and is invited to do so immediately.


http://www.cyprusupdates.com/2011/03/eu-parliament-approved-the-annual-progress-report-for-turkeys-accession/

GP850mAh
07-04-11, 20:04
In my opinion it shouldn't. In fact I think it should give up some of its European, such as Istanbul and the lands West of it. Most of its land is in the Middle East and it would be better if they were to join the Middle Eastern or West Asian Union if such a union takes place. I don't even think it should be a candidate.
What do you think?
No, I don't think they should join for geographical reasons. Only 3% of Turkey is in Europe, the rest is in the middle east. It would be much harder to controll EU's external borders with Turkey as a member since the EU would then have to controll 3-4 different borders against middle eastern countries rather than just against Turkey. We should instead form a partnership and cooperate with them like we do with Russia, but they should not become a member state.

Rastko Pocesta
28-04-11, 15:56
No way! Turkey is an undemocratic dictatorship. If it reforms, it may join, but today's Turkey is far from the European principles of free, open societies and pluralist democracies.

Elias2
06-05-11, 15:00
Turkey to enforce compulsory Internet filtering in August

On 22nd August in a move that many now call ‘The End of Internet’ Turkey will implement a country-wide Internet filter which will classify connections into 4 categories: child, family, domestic and standard. Users will be called to choose one of the four options but according to Internet advocates, even the least restricting option ‘Standard’ is still government mandated and government controlled.Turkey already has a track record of banning access to websites; it is believed that at least 12,000 sites are not accessible from Turkey, the list at times including some high profile sites such as YouTube. The list of blocked sites is kept secret. Recently the Turkish Telecommunications Directorate has also banned 138 words from being part of Turkish domain names (this includes words such as ”gay,” “beat,” “escort,” “homemade,” “hot,” “nubile,” “free”, “teen” and the number 31 which apparently in Turkey is slang for male masturbation (for example ‘hotmail.com.tr’ is not be accessible since it contains the word ‘hot’. Currently many internet users browse the web through proxies abroad to gain access to these banned websites but this is only a temporary solution since under the new regulations, attempts to circumvent the filters will be considered a criminal act and face heavy fines.


http://www.cyprusupdates.com/2011/05/turkey-to-enforce-compulsory-internet-filtering-in-august/

Ankara government controls the media and now the internet in turkey. It looks like they're taking tips from their new friend Iran.

Elias2
20-05-11, 22:37
The "modern" and "free" contemporary Turkey, where freedom of speach is of upmost value.

Netherlands grants asylum to ex-judge charged in Turkey


"A former Turkish judge who says he was prosecuted for his views on the fate of Armenians and Kurds has been granted asylum in the Netherlands.
Cagatay Cetin, who is of Armenian-Kurdish descent, claimed asylum after arriving in the country in January last year.
Charges against him in Turkey include forging documents and false accusation.
The Dutch government refused to say why Cetin had been granted asylum, adding it did not comment on individual cases.
Turkey has prosecuted individuals who describe the mass killing of Armenians in the early 20th Century as genocide.
Mr Cetin says he did "insult Turkish identity" - a criminal offence according to Article 301 of the country's penal code - by saying a genocide of Armenians had happened, his lawyer in the Netherlands, Marq Wijngaarden, told BBC News Online.
Mr Wijngaarden said his client had been accused under Article 301.
"He was interrogated on this accusation by a Dutch court, at the request of the Turkish prosecutor," he added.
Mr Cetin admits he left Turkey under a false passport, his lawyer said, but insists he did not forge documents or make false accusations."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13467865

But in the mind of Turkey they won't get in EU because they are a muslim country and EU is a "christian" club.

DVDK
28-08-11, 22:28
I don't think Turkey will ever join the European Union, just way to many important European countries are against.
The most populair excuse would be that it isn't even inside Europe at all, but rather Asia.
Another excuse would be that they're afraid that a lot of Turkies will move to West-Europe for work, getting flooded by non-native language speakers, who wouldn't accept the countries cultural values.
A problem which a lot of politicians discuss every day in especially West-Europe.

Antigone
29-08-11, 09:55
Well that may be the excuses or justifications given but it is not really about a lot of Turks moving into Europe for work, there are already a lot of Turkish immigrants inside Europe and with very little problems, culturally, linguistically or otherwise. Plus there are labour shortages in Europe which Turkish membership in the EU would help to fill.

The real reason that larger EU countries like France and Germany block Turkish membership is because France and Germany are the biggest manufacturers of weapons in the EU and whilst Turkey and Greece are at each others throats there is much money to be made in the sale of submarines, ships, planes, helicopters and arms etc. Greece, for example, is in favour of Turkey joining because it will put and end to the endless squabbling and territorial incursions into Greek air and sea space but the larger countries continually block the move.

Mzungu mchagga
30-08-11, 23:35
Well that may be the excuses or justifications given but it is not really about a lot of Turks moving into Europe for work, there are already a lot of Turkish immigrants inside Europe and with very little problems, culturally, linguistically or otherwise. Plus there are labour shortages in Europe which Turkish membership in the EU would help to fill.

The real reason that larger EU countries like France and Germany block Turkish membership is because France and Germany are the biggest manufacturers of weapons in the EU and whilst Turkey and Greece are at each others throats there is much money to be made in the sale of submarines, ships, planes, helicopters and arms etc. Greece, for example, is in favour of Turkey joining because it will put and end to the endless squabbling and territorial incursions into Greek air and sea space but the larger countries continually block the move.

Nah, I don't think so!
First of all, and please be honest, do you really think that Greeks want Turkey in the EU because it stops their military aggression? What does it change for Turkey if Aegean territory is in the EU or not?
And secondly, even though the German arms industry will of course get hurt if the exports drop -like actually any army if there's peace- it's influence on the German government is not that high as it might seem. The arms export contributes about 1% of the German GDP (with about again 1/4 of it to Turkey and Greece). Basically the goal of any government is to create economic stability in all regions, which can only be preserved by reduction of any conflicts. So peace in the Aegean would create a higher benefit than the export of arms, especially as it's a region within the EU.
Also I have never heard about a serious debate of keeping Turkey outside of the EU for THIS reason.

LeBrok
31-08-11, 06:17
Exactly Mzungu, not sure why people still believe that weapon industry have such big influence over governments and dictate polices.
It's been proved again and again in last century, that peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation between nations does more good for citizens than benefiting from arm sales and making wars. In majority of countries arm industries are 1% or less GDP. They don't have much of a voice in general politics.

Marianne
25-09-11, 22:45
Not even Greece anymore, the older generation still cling to the church but the younger generations are as disillusioned with organised religion as the rest of Europe. Churches are empty except for a handfull of the elderly and if asked, the majority of younger people would describe themselves as athiest.

I don't agree 100%. Churches are empty of young people, but only a few describe themselves as atheist. They do when they are at their teen years, but after the age of 20 I have met very few people who don't believe in God. I think that the majority of teenagers just call themselves atheist just because during teen years they want to feel special and rebel against their parents. When their hormones balance out they believe again!

Antigone
26-09-11, 07:22
It wasn't teenagers I was thinking of actually as they are too young to know their own mind fully. It was my children and their sphere of friends and aquaintances, both where we live and away at their universities and the age range is from 24 and over. Very few would admit to believing in God. That, as you say, may still change later (for some) when marriage and children come along but even so, the church will never again see the devotion to which it became accustomed and which the older generations display.

The younger generations are well educated, articulate and are able to think for themselves, thus the control and power of the church over the population of Greece has been broken, finally.

Benkimim
26-09-11, 17:52
As a Turk, I'm against. We don't need the E.U., we grow up very fast and need no union or alliance. Turkey is a secular republic but I think that the government must work more on this and be more laic. When Erdogan is gonna leave the position of prime minister, I think & hope that Turkey will be a better country... I think that Turkey should stop those "muslim" relations with so called "muslim BROTHER countries" It makes me sick... I'm against, Turkey should return to former values of Atatürk. Peace!

Selim
06-10-11, 23:01
I definetely don't want Turkey to join E.U,it's completely nonsense and baseless.Neither Europans nor Turks want this.

Cimmerianbloke
24-10-11, 20:03
The EU should suspend all current membership applications until 2015 or at least before the current crisis is sorted. The founding fathers technique to allow peace to prosper was to intertwine the members destinies so closely war would not be possible anymore. We see the damage that naive thinking has done. The EU is a monster with many heads and no brains, and no nervous system to coordinate her. She is a Frankenstein creature on the loose. EU, Eurozone, NATO, ECB, absolutely nothing makes sense. Allowing Turkey to join would be risking a major upheaval from an economic, political and cultural point of view. We're still struggling to come to terms with the previous enlargement, and it might take a generation to realize if it was successful or not. To add my 2 cents to the previous posts of this link, I think modern Europe has herself inspired from Christian values, and from Renaissance and the French revolution to develop into her current form.