Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[Smurf]

Why would this position be limited to conservatives?

Or anti-socialists.

Naw.
The U.S. is using homicide bombers.

Excellent come back, btw.

 

[Skyhunter]

You have a point, because if one is found to be against the government the patriot acts could kick in against a common citizen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional. A fundamental reason why we maintain the right to bear arms and overthrow an unconstitional government. This why I remain conservative and anti-socialist. (as apposed to anti-social )

But, it is the alleged conservatives, you know the Republicans, that are doing this.

We don't have access to the type of arms that the military can bring to bear against us. I have a military video from Iraq, showing what you would be up against. PM me if you would like me to email it to you.

 

[TRCSF]

Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk about?

You know, I really understand why he doesn't want to talk about that sort of thing.

I really don't like to talk about the tragic demise of my Great Aunt Fred. But everytime I bring here up unsolicited in completely off topic discussions, people always ask me real hard questions.

Like just what was she doing in Iceland in the first place? And what exactly was she ran over with? And how did Green-party fundamentalist gorillas get a license to operate a steam roller? And how legal is it to preserve a body by rolling it up in cellophane? And just how much cellophane is needed, given that my Great Aunt Fred was 600 lbs. and two millimeters thick when she expired two days later in hospital, God rest her soul? And how much does it cost for the storage unit we needed to rent to store her Great Aunt Fred roll-up?

Why oh why do they harass me so?

 

[deckart]

But, it is the alleged conservatives, you know the Republicans, that are doing this.
We don't have access to the type of arms that the military can bring to bear against us. I have a military video from Iraq, showing what you would be up against. PM me if you would like me to email it to you.

I do understand what would be faced. I live in the Northwest, I'm not a militia type but if that is what it came to, these boys up here are prepared for that kind of situation. At this point these guys are seen as paranoidal wierdos but they aren't stupid and many have military experience. If there was an obvious breach of fundamentals in this country, it wouldn't go without serious resistance from within. Those guys are scary serious. People are paying attention to what's going on.

Not all conservatives are "Republican" or "Democrat". There are liberal conservatives who aren't partisan. Who is that guy on talk radio, Randy Savage (I think), who calls himself a liberal conservative? And he has over a million listeners alone.

 

[Anttech]

Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk abou

Probably not, but it is also not necessary to spread lies, and nationalistic ideals of hatred. If he doesn't want to talk about it, then that's his choice and we should respected it.

TRCSF if you need a shoulder to cry on PM me, I feel your pain brother!

 

[deckart]

I do understand what would be faced. I live in the Northwest, I'm not a militia type but if that is what it came to, these boys up here are prepared for that kind of situation. At this point these guys are seen as paranoidal wierdos but they aren't stupid and many have military experience. If there was an obvious breach of fundamentals in this country, it wouldn't go without serious resistance from within. Those guys are scary serious. People are paying attention to what's going on.
Not all conservatives are "Republican" or "Democrat". There are liberal conservatives who aren't partisan. Who is that guy on talk radio, Randy Savage (I think), who calls himself a liberal conservative? And he has over a million listeners alone.

I apologize, the guy is Micheal Savage (I thing Randy Savage was a WWF guy lol). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html"

 

[loseyourname]

Probably not, but it is also not necessary to spread lies, and nationalistic ideals of hatred. If he doesn't want to talk about it, then that's his choice and we should respected it.

I don't agree with the guy's stance in this thread either (frankly, I did a double-take when I first saw it), but that doesn't mean we need to mock him. This isn't third grade.

 

[Anttech]

but that doesn't mean we need to mock him. This isn't third grade.

Point taken

 

[vanesch]

2) To examine what the alternative entails, would be that the US should have stayed focused on Bin Laden, rather than illegally invading Iraq thus adding fuel to the Middle East fire.
I suspect the support for Bush and the war are from those who believe in the "containment" of Islamic terrorism by spreading democracy (like the domino theory and view of communism during the cold war). Terrorism is a result of US policies, not governing systems, and consists of angry individuals around the world, not any particular nation state. The best way to address terrorism is for the US to stop the self interested and unbalanced interference in the region (what a novel idea).

The funny thing is that Bush is acting to promote the "domino effect", but not as he thought about it...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20051012%2F0915643868.htm&ewp=ewp_news_qaeda&floc=NW_1-T

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

 

[ron damon]

Believe me, I understand the threat. Also, as is China today, the Russians were more of a threat than Al Qaeda could ever be.

No. This is were all of you go wrong. You can deter Russia and China, since they are rational agents, and are interested in their own survival and well-being. You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence...
The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.
Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.
And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:
1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.
2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.
Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.

 

[arildno]

Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the witches again magicked the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Christian times.

 

[TRCSF]

No. This is were all of you go wrong. You can deter Russia and China, since they are rational agents, and are interested in their own survival and well-being. You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence...
The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.
Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.
And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:
1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.
2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.
Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.

1. Stop with the "me and other liberals" silliness. Nobody's buying it.

2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The only connection with Iraq and 9-11 is Islam. Don't talk about preventing another holocaust while being anti-semitic.

3. If you can admit it's all about stealing other people's oil, please stop with the nonsense about terrorism and democracy and liberating the Iraqis. It's unbecoming.

4. If you really want to take "responsibility" for the quagmire, but you don't want to pull out, then you're obliged to march down to your local recruitment office and sign up. They're accepting 57 year old women, I'm sure you'll qualify. Where was it you're from again?

 

[vanesch]

The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.

The error in that approach is of course that you think that you have the ABILITY to "transform the Muslim world", without any knowledge of it. It is like the apprentice sorcerer: you want to "clean up the house" and you achieved something quite different.

Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.

Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.

But that's the point: it WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS GOING TO FAIL. The plan was so damn naive that about everybody who knew just a little bit about Arab mentality saw that such a "strategy" was not going to work. THAT's the real reason a lot of people were against the invasion.

And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:

No, you should stay and bleed until you've fixed what you've broken. it will never happen, but nevertheless you should try.

1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.

It's their business, no ? This conflict was build in from the start.

2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.

Guess what ? 50 years from now, there won't be any left.

Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.

They never hit the world very hard. The biggest "hit" was only about 4000 death. Look at what a single tsunami did, or an earthquake, or a storm. It's all in the head.

 

[ron damon]

Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.

Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.

But that's the point: it WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS GOING TO FAIL.

But why? Are they beyond modernization? What fundamental reason prevents them from advancing? 100 years ago nobody saw in China, Japan (~150), Korea or India any potential, yet all of them flourished under (diverse) direct intervention by western powers...

Ahh the irony, does anyone here realize that were I one of the pile of angry Leftists that clutter this thread, I'd started this reply by calling vanesch a racist for his/her remarks on Turkey?

 

[Anttech]

You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence..

Racism, and decpetive

Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.

Fact, and from percepective.

 

[Smurf]

Ahh the irony, does anyone here realize that were I one of the pile of angry Leftists that clutter this thread, I'd started this reply by calling vanesch a racist for his/her remarks on Turkey?

Oh I get the irony... I just wonder if you do:

Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.

 

[ron damon]

Oh I get the irony... I just wonder if you do:

...if I were...

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize, the guy is Micheal Savage (I thing Randy Savage was a WWF guy lol). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html"

Macho Man Randy Savage and the lovely Elizabeth Oooohhh Yeeaahhh!

Michael Savage a liberal conservative?

I think he is the guy who actually coined the phrase Islamofascist, whatever that means. Fascism was called corporatism by Mussolini, and I don't know of any corporate ties to Al Qaeda.

This guy is to the right of Limbaugh. He calls liberalism a mental disorder.

 

[Rabid]

A few related Savage clips:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405130004
And then there's this

Savage called Arabs "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots"; asserted that Americans would like to "drop a nuclear weapon" on any Arab country; and that "these people" in the Middle East "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity" in order to "turn them into human beings."

Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405140003

 

[jimmie]

He calls liberalism a mental disorder

Any individual that places their faith in a particular name, and then believes that they are that name, has a mental disorder.

Place your faith in... you.

 

[vanesch]

Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.

I'm not absolutely against it. The problem is not Turkey, the problem is Europe, which is suffering a huge identity crisis. What's Europe to be ? I would think that Europe is what has been rooted in Greek-Latin civilisation. Why ? Not because it is "superior" or something like that, simply because it is the common ground of much of what European nations have made what they are. Of course the spread of Christianity did a lot to "preserve this unity" and that's why some think that Europe should be based upon Christianity, but the roots are to be found earlier.
Now, geographically, that puts of course the entire coastline of the Mediterranean in the basket, but let's face it, the islam civilisation erased since long the Greek-Latin tradition on the African and Asian part of it.
Now, I think that in the long run, Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more. I also think that Russia could join, and the Maghreb countries, and the Black Sea countries and... where does it stop ?
By adding more and more countries with DIFFERENT culture to the melting pot, you get such a diluted "union" that it just becomes a trade place and that nothing beyond that can be decided.
With that silly shooting down of the European constitution, ANY decision needs to be taken by unanimity. It has been shown already that with 25 very like-minded countries, that's impossible for most things. If you add totally different countries to the soup, Europe will simply stop existing. Oh, yes, we'll still have our silly parliament, flag, and stuff like that, but NOTHING will happen anymore, except a free market and easier travelling.
But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?
So we should stop now thinking of what would be good for a country when they join Europe, and think more what would be good for Europe.
I would have said that if the Constitution were adopted, and if there were a positive "European" spirit within the union, then there would be no problem with taking in Turkey. But it is not the case at all. Many people within Europe are getting back to their nationalistic reflexes. And Turkey will not improve on it, believe me. I think that we need to stop enlarging for at least a generation, and build up a stronger Europe with the existing members.

 

[Anttech]

Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more.

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

I aggree with your anaysis vanesch, Europe needs to stop expanding. But I think we should have some more trade aggreements with turkey. I also believe that Turkey needs to wash its-self clean of any wrong doings it has done in its recent history. If it wants to be seen in a better light within the EU.

 

[vanesch]

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

I agree with that, and I found it quite interesting to be labelled some kind of "racist" because I would be against Turkey joining the EU, which would somehow imply that the EU is "heaven" and the "untermensch" have to stay out of it. The EU has a certain vision on things, values, ways of thinking, etc... which have a common historical origin. The Turks have ANOTHER vision. Now, it is up to them to decide if they prefer to switch visions, put their own historic civilisation behind them and try to be "European", in which case they can join (much, much later than now, when the switch has been completed). Or they can stick with their own civilisation, in which case they don't really "fit" within the EU. Not because their view of things is *worse* but because it is *different*. If you like to play football, you join a football club. If you like to play tennis, you shouldn't join the football club! That doesn't mean that football is better than tennis.
Now, if the only thing they really want from the EU is the wealth and living standard, then this can be arranged with what is sometimes proposed as "preferential partner". They would participate in the EU market and free exchange, but they would not join the POLITICAL part of the EU.
I think everybody is making a big mistake by wanting to head directly for a membership of Turkey. It would be much easier to establish a partnership (which could eventually evolve into a membership, much much later). This partnership could then be extended, for instance, to the Maghreb countries too. I think that by wanting directly a membership, we're heading for a failure and bitterness. And I think we're screwing up an already fragile EU.

EDIT: hum, but we should get back on topic...

 

[vanesch]

But why? Are they beyond modernization? What fundamental reason prevents them from advancing? 100 years ago nobody saw in China, Japan (~150), Korea or India any potential, yet all of them flourished under (diverse) direct intervention by western powers...

First of all, "modernisation" and "advancing" in your mind means "adapting a Western style of living" and not all people over there are convinced that that is a positive evolution. The very fact of not being able to see that makes you blind to the big mistakes you are committing over there. Although SOME parts of western living style (cars, radios, cellular telephones...) are accepted and desired over there, the core values ARE NOT. "freedom of religion", "women's rights", "democracy" etc... are very discutable values in the Arab world.
Of course, we, in the West, see that as just "backwardish" and "barbaric" but it is not always perceived that way in these countries, and you cannot (especially using violence !) just come in with your dirty boots and think they will find it obvious that you bring them these values (shove it down their throats if you like), because it is in a strong collision with their core values, which are islamic religion, tribal traditions and an Arab nationalistic sentiment. Whether or not you and I like that, this is the way things are over there and if you do not take it into account when you do something over there, chances are you're going to screw up dearly.
If we hope for them to change, it is NOT, certainly NOT, going to work with bombs and guns, because you will strengthen their desire to protect their core values more than to make them change.
You cannot make someone love you by beating up, and a similar thing is at work in the ME.
For instance, as an analogy, do you think that you could convince your average American of the good of communism by bombing them until they become communist ? Or would that just enhance the hate for everything communist ?
The way to change things over there would be by showing some respect for their different value system and to hope that the change would come from within. We could help that a little bit by getting more secular governments over there. Not by IMPOSING them, but by manoeuvring in such a way that secular governments which adopt a separation between state and religion can provide a positive balance to their own population.
The example you give, China, is btw funny. You cannot say that China became prosperous under Western (English) domination, can you ? They are becoming prosperous thanks to a mixture of communist dictatorship eaten with a capitalist sauce, which was certainly NOT military imposed by western countries. I'm also not very sure that India got where it is today "thanks to military intervention of the west". They got more exploited than anything else under the English domination, and what they achieved on their own afterwards has nothing to do with that.
The example that is often cited is Japan, but Japan is different. First of all, there was not this fierce religious tradition as is the case in the Arab countries: never the conflict took on the face of a religious war as it seems to be the case in the ME. And second, with Japan, the West had the moral high ground: they were attacked, and what the Japanese got to suffer after that was the consequence of their own aggression. In Iraq, you're the aggressor, and, as is now clear for about 90% of the world, the original reasons given for the invasion were simply not true. You cannot get lower on the moral scale!
The only thing that the Iraq invasion achieved was to be a major propaganda campaign for OBL, and all those favoring a radical theocracy in the Arab world. You've made islamic terrorism seem acceptable by a big part of the Arab population who finds it finally a right response to the military muscle of the US they have to deal with, and you've made life miserable for all those favoring an evolution towards more western values within Arab societies.
AND ALL THAT WAS EASILY TO BE FORESEEN, in the same way that bombing Americans to make them adopt communism is easily seen to be counterproductive. It doesn't take a PhD in political science to see that.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

I think you miss the point. Turkey WANTS to join the EU. The 'E' in EU stands for European. There's two concepts of Europe: geographical, and political. The only one that has any real value is the latter, and that IS the EU. So you can't join the EU and NOT "europeanise". This doesn't mean Turkey has to suddenly embrace binge drinking and football hooliganism, or start eating escargot and making pretentious films with gratutious pornographic images. It just means they have to qualify for a club they wish to join.

European countries have to "europeanise" to join the EU. We've had market sellers in the UK arrested for selling in pounds and ounces. Why should Turkey be given special treatment?

EDIT: love the improved edit facility.

 

[Anttech]

Turkey WANTS to join the EU.

Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.

There's two concepts of Europe: geographical, and political.

Thats a bit simplistic, There is also a lot of economical benefits.

So you can't join the EU and NOT "europeanise".

I agree.. I didnt say they should join, but that doesn't rule out trade agreements. These trade agreements would boost the economy in the south east of Europe (and visa versa).

What point is it I missed?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.

For Turkey, read: democratically elected government of. You get the economical benefits of being in the EU by... joining the EU. You can't get breakdown recovery unless you subscribe to the club.

Thats a bit simplistic, There is also a lot of economical benefits.

I'm not sure that actually follows from what I said, but yes, it was simplistic. Not oversimplistic in context, though.

I agree.. I didnt say they should join, but that doesn't rule out trade agreements. These trade agreements would boost the economy in the south east of Europe (and visa versa).

Same problems apply, hence Turkey could not join the EC.

What point is it I missed?

The first one - that Turkey (see above) has the most interest in joining the UE, so it is not a question of the EU imposing "europeanisation". In fact, some member states would rather they didn't "europeanise" just for the sake of getting into the EU.

 

[vanesch]

Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.

I also think that a large part of the motivation of several countries to join the EU is the economic benefit they think it will bring them. But this can only be true up to a certain level: if the economic differences are TOO big, it will create problems. Nevertheless, I think close economic cooperation is in everybody's interest, but that's exactly what a partnership would establish.
I think there IS a political reason why Turkey (or at least part of some politicians there) wants to join the EU, and I can understand the reason, and I'm all in favor of it. I think that some wise politicians over there realize that once they will be part of the EU, it will be much more difficult for radical Islamic forces to go to a more theocratic regime, so their membership of the EU would be some kind of insurance against radicalism. It is the main reason that convinces me that I should not be against the joining of Turkey to the EU. But my opinion is that Turkey is too big a country, and the EU to weak a union, to be able to carry the burden. We still have to swallow Eastern Europe.

 

[Anttech]

For Turkey, read: democratically elected government of.

El Hom.. I am sure that you understand that a representative Democratically elected government does not represent the views of everyone in the Country that it governs!
I didnt miss any point, I believe that the PEOPLE of turkey don't particulay want to join the EU.. they just want the economical beniefts. the GOVERMENT may want to, but i wasnt referring to that.

The first one - that Turkey (see above) has the most interest in joining the UE, so it is not a question of the EU imposing "europeanisation". In fact, some member states would rather they didn't "europeanise" just for the sake of getting into the EU.

Thats your point of view. I don't think the PEOPLE of turkey want to join, and they (the people) don't want to "Europeanise". The Goverment as you are referring to may want to join the EU. I fail to see how you came to this from my post: EU imposing "europeanisation"

Maybe you missunderstand: If you think I want Turkey in the EU like they are you are very wrong. If they Europeanise then yes I don't have as much of a problem. (as long as they wash clean the wrong doings it has also committed) But I don't think they will, and I don't think they want too. My other point of Trade aggrements is just that, create a New Trade agrement with them, so the south east of europe and Turkey can trade better together and boost both economies.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

While I get the impression you're deliberately misinterpreting me, I'll take the bait one more time.

El Hom.. I am sure that you understand that a representative Democratically elected government does not represent the views of everyone in the Country that it governs!

And I'm sure you understand how democracy works, whereby the people elect a party (one of about 50 in Turkey) to represent them, govern them and make political decisions. No, not everyone, maybe not anything close to a majority, will have their view on joining the EU represented. That's democracy for you, the idealogy we seem to like imposing on other countries.

I didnt miss any point, I believe that the PEOPLE of turkey don't particulay want to join the EU.. they just want the economical beniefts. the GOVERMENT may want to, but i wasnt referring to that.

I think you did. No-one expects Turkey to suddenly go all continental. No-one even demands that Turkey meet the criteria to satisfy the EU that they may become a member state. You make it sound unreasonable that Turkey become more European to the extent that they may join the EU, but: no-one's forcing them to join; if you want to join the scouts you have to wear the uniform. It's as simple as that.

Thats your point of view. I don't think the PEOPLE of turkey want to join, and they (the people) don't want to "Europeanise". The Goverment as you are referring to may want to join the EU. I fail to see how you came to this from my post: EU imposing "europeanisation"

As a people, I don't see how much unwanted change is necessary beyond adhering to new regulation. Like I said, no-one's demanding they suddenly become like Europeans as people. The EU requirements largely pertain to the government. No-one is asking the Turkish equilent of Joe Bloggs to recognise Cyprus - but the government must do. And I'm sure people who have been tortured by Turkish authorities aren't going to see the zero-tolerance on torture as giving into "Europeanisation". And I'm sure Turkish women aren't going to think that being granted equal rights is a comprimise too many either. Or does 'Turkish people' just mean men to you? Perhaps your statistics railing against the unrepresentative views of the government are unrepresentative of ALL of the Turkish people, of all religions and both genders.

My other point of Trade aggrements is just that, create a New Trade agrement with them, so the south east of europe and Turkey can trade better together and boost both economies.

So rather than comprimise and negotiation, you suggest Turkey do as they please and everyone else bend over backwards to boost their economy, an economy of a country with sexual inequality, religious segregation, and institutional corruption? Forgive me, but I'm with the EU if they don't quite see it your way.

 

[Skyhunter]

But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?

I am not against Mexico becoming the 51st state. I think most people in Louisiana would agree with me. Then they wouldn't be perceived as the poorest state in the Union

I do agree with your argument about European identity. I also agree that the
European union, as demonstrated by the failure to ratify a constitution, needs more work on the unity of the current members, before adding more and diverse nations to the mix.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I also agree that the
European union, as demonstrated by the failure to ratify a constitution, needs more work on the unity of the current members, before adding more and diverse nations to the mix.

People read too much into the failed constitution. The constitution was ultimately rejected by referenda, not by inter-state politics. It was the public who nayed it. The failure on the EU member states' part was putting any form of a constitution to public vote at a time when the EU was changing and, in terms of the member states' international politics, fragmenting. You don't honestly think a reasonable proportional of the people who voted actually read the damn thing do you? It was protest. It was not politics.

Of course, a pointless and comprimised constitution rushed through is no use to anyone anyway. But that's not why it was rejected.

 

[Anttech]

While I get the impression you're deliberately misinterpreting me,

I feel the exact same about you!

So rather than comprimise and negotiation, you suggest Turkey do as they please and everyone else bend over backwards to boost their economy, an economy of a country with sexual inequality, religious segregation, and institutional corruption? Forgive me, but I'm with the EU if they don't quite see it your way.

Explain to me where I say we bend over backwards?.. Where did I say they should do as they please? Then let them into the EU, You are sensationalising a point, that I never made!

Mate I am greek, born in the UK. I KNOW about Turkeys shortfalls. I am not condoing they be let in unconditionally..

I think you did. No-one expects Turkey to suddenly go all continental. No-one even demands that Turkey meet the criteria to satisfy the EU that they may become a member state. You make it sound unreasonable that Turkey become more European to the extent that they may join the EU, but: no-one's forcing them to join; if you want to join the scouts you have to wear the uniform. It's as simple as that.

Sorry you obviously can't read, or asymilate what i wrote.

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

Asymilate what you want, but what I was saying here is that Turkey won't "Europeanise", and I don't believe they need to. If they don't "Europeainse" then I believe there is no place for them in the EU.

I also believe from talking to MANY Turks they are not bothered.. They don't want to be in EU. But they do want fast cars more money etc etc... Thats there dilema

I think you miss the point. Turkey WANTS to join the EU.

I am not disputing there government wants too.. But I never referred to there goverment.I won't bother arguing with you, becuase we have no arguement... I aggree with most of what you were saying, yet you seem to think I dont...

whatever... Moral ---- just like E-mail a lot can get lost on a forum board!

 

[Skyhunter]

Of course, a pointless and comprimised constitution rushed through is no use to anyone anyway. But that's not why it was rejected.

Hmmm...sounds familiar...Oh yea they are going to vote on another one Saturday.

 

[vanesch]

Hmmm...sounds familiar...Oh yea they are going to vote on another one Saturday.

Well, at least the European one had 5 years of preparation and negociation behind it before ending up in the dustbin...