|
| Thread: Why Turkey should become member of EU. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
alex224
Tavern Dweller
|
posted October 28, 2004 05:46 PM |
|
|
Just a small part of the turkish brutality over the years.
Lets not begin describing the things that happened in Cyprus because it will never end.
People will just have to see over the surface
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 28, 2004 05:54 PM |
|
|
I also have to disagree with the mentioned "relationship" between Turkey and the United States. We should stop sometimes to make the States guilty for everything bad that happens in the world. Sometimes, other countries do some faults as well..
About Turkey and the EU....
First of all, u should stop thinking the Turkey would join the EU the next years....first of all, it will be decided to start some kind of "accession negotiations".
This will last some years....
So if they decide to accept them, u can think about 10 years until the accession will happen. And during 10 years, many things can be changed in the current policy.
About the religion.....
The modern industrialized countries have at least ONE thing in common....the separation of state and religion.
So when we talk about a "United States of Europe", we shouldn´t let the religion being a part of the decision.
How many different religions u can find in the United States of America? Some more than in europe i guess..
About the relationship between US and Europe....
I don´t know why most of the europeans think, the EU has to be a strong poil to America. Shouldn´t it be more like "the EU has to be a strong partner for America? The current problems in the world (terrorism...)can´t be solved by 1 or 2 countries alone, that´s for sure. Even if some parts of these 2 "partners" aren´t on the same "wave" (not all europeans wanted the Iraq war, and so were some parts of America against it...), u will get ONE decison at the end....not like the last times....England, Spain, a.s.o. said YES, France, Germany a.s.o. said NO. That won´t help us in the future i think. So i like the idea of having 2 strong partners.
And for all the people who are afraid of the amount of turkish people who could overrun the european countries....here in germany, we have already 7 million turkish people...that is the biggest part of foreigners in here. (nearly 10% of the population)
But u know what?....for every "bad" turkish person i know at least 3 bad germans...
So, as far as they "celebrate" their religion for themselves or for them who want to be muslim, i don´t have any problems with the turkish...or any other people from foreign countries..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2004 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I strongly agree with alex224
And to those who say about the democracy in Greece.
Democracy was founded in Athens and when Greeks were building Parthenons you were still monkeys in the jungle.
Turks were one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty nations that ever lived.
unfortunately my friends noone can alter history. Everyone Knows what happened.
A small history lesson.
Turks conquered Greece from 1453 until 1829. During that time they used to kidnap some of the newborn greek infants and they raised them like turks and then forced them in a group whose sole mission was to kill Greeks. Anyway even then the greeks managed to defeat by themselves the great Othoman empire.
Later in the second world war Winston Churchill was forced to say that GREEKS DO NOT FIGHT LIKE HEROES BUT HEROES FIGHT LIKE GREEKS.
A Greek friend
P.S. The greek spirit is so strong that it will never die. This was recently seen in the football stadiums of Portugal. Tell me who believed that Any week country could something like that.
A small history lesson, my friend is for you to get your facts about modern state Greece and Ancient Greece right.
That there is a connection between the two things beyond a similarity in geographic connection is nationalistic propaganda propagated after modern day Greece`s independence.
A similarity which incidently gives Turkey as much right to the Ancient Greece legacy as Greece.
Considering Turkeys invasion of Cyprus. First of all you grant cyprus the status of a European country, according geography its not. Second of all, Turkey invaded because of extensive persecution of the Turkish minority.
This is not to make Turkey out to be a saint of nations. It is a wellknown that they have made alot of mistakes, and committed plenty of attrocities in their history. My point is simply this. Show me a nation that hasnt.
Greece official attitude to Turkey brings more harm than good, and looking at it from northern Europe, I find it very hard to have any symphathy what so ever with Greece`s continual obstruction of Turkey regarding EU. Regarding all international matters in fact.
That there is a major problem with the Kurdish minority in Turkey is obvious, and the reason I havent mentioned this in my earlier post is that I wanted people to come with inputs.
So Zonekill, this one is in regard to your post.
Turkish persecution of Kurds have gone on forever it seems, but I will only look at it in a small perspective that goes back to WW1.
When the Ottoman empire fought on the loosing side in WW1, and disolved because of this, the Kurds thought that they would finally get a state of their own. This was based on british and french promises made to them during WW1. But what happened was that the Russian revolution broke out in 1917, and at the same time Iraq became a British mandate.
The western powers needed a strong Turkey to contain USSR`s acces to the middle-east oil fields. At the same would a sovereign Kurdish state pose a problem for Iraq, who also contain a Kurdish minority, not to mention Persia (Later Iran) which was a western ally at the time.
So Kurdistan was not to be.
(Another twist from this is the fact that Greece invaded Turkey in 1920, thinking they would get help from Britain, a help that never came. The peace talks led to the transfer of people from Turkey to Greece and Bulgaria and vice versa.)
It was illegal in Turkey up to 5 years ago to teach the kurdish language, and to be member of a kurdish political party. But in Turkeys efforts to become a member of the EU, they have had to loosen their efforts to supress Kurds. Not that its perfect yet, but today their is actually hope, that there can be reached some sort of compromise in the region. This is greatly facilitated by Turkeys efforts to be a member in EU. Most Kurds I have talked to are hoping for precisely that. Today it is no longer illegal in Turkey to teach kurdish language and many imprisoned political active kurds have been set free.
A long way to go? Yes, indeed. But there is actually a comparison you can make in what has allready happened in EU. Namely Spain, and their minority the Basks.
Finally there is the problem with how the agricultural policy of the EU is working today.
Not surprisingly Im ardently opposed to the way it function. It is a huge distortion of competitive issues, especially regarding Africas food production, where studies show a direct link, between the selling of food produced in EU at major dumping prices in African countries, and the lack of their ability to feed themselves. (This is just the major downside of EUs agricultural support).
Another downside is the fact that over 350 billion Euroes are being spend by EU on agricultural support each year. This is more than half of EUs budget.
This leads to inefficiencies and corruption in precisely this sector of EU. This again leads to people questioning the good that comes out of EU.
A way to solve the huge cost to get Turkeys agricultural sector worked into EU, is to make a major reform in that sector in EU.
Unfortunately the different countries are not willing to take a serious discussion on this issue, due to the fact that the agricultural sector in Europe have a very strong lobby organisation. And lets face it, farmers are a very vocal minority.
Just think of the chaos french farmers regularly wreaks on the French highways as soon as its being mentioned in Brussel, that perhaps it would be more rationel, not to give farmers money just to let their fields stay idle.
This is offcourse a completely different topic, but as an argument against Turkish membership in EU, it just shows how little people are willing to face a problem as soon as it might cost votes.
By the way, the danish commisar Fischer-Boel is a member of second largest danish party, Venstre, who traditionally get their votes from farmers. Fischer-Boels husband owns a farm that got 100.000 $ in support from EU last year.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted October 29, 2004 02:01 PM |
|
|
Yeah, Fischer-Boel is hardly a good candidate in that respect.
But at least she's better than Buttiglione...
Anyway, the proposed new Commision has been withdrawn now, because of Buttiglione's rahter conservative views...
Quote:
I don´t know why most of the europeans think, the EU has to be a strong poil to America. Shouldn´t it be more like "the EU has to be a strong partner for America?
You have a very good point here, Angelito, but if this is supposed to be a partnership, the US should start treating Europe like an actual partner, not as an employee or something, and Europeans should stop looking down their noses at the US.
As for the agricultural policy of EU (CAP), it has been flaed ever since the overproduction back in the 70s started (buttermountains, anyone?).
They have started to mend this a little at least, but their subsidy arrangement with the peasants are still faulty. Instead of encouraging an outdated and ineffective industry to survive and prosper, they should use their money to try to make the farmers leave farming and string up other forms of businesses. The EU would have lost the self-support ability, but I think this would be a good measure anyway.
Btw, here's a good article about CAP and underdeveloped countries : http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art294
As for Turkey joining the EU, I'm all for it.
The more pluralistic a society is, the better it is, imo.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 01, 2004 01:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As a fact EU will be controlled by the USA and that would be disasterous for humanity. You saw what happened when USSR fell from its status.
I think the reason why Turkey is a close American ally is the fact that it’s rejected by EU. Both Bulgaria and Romania are close to US, as well as Albania and Macedonia, to some extent. In Macedonia a vast majority of common people prefer EU to US, and I think that’s the case in this Balkan group, excluding maybe Albania.
The reason why Balkan governments support USA is to use their relations as means of getting closer to NATO and EU, because the American diplomacy is more effective in responding to these countries’ national interests than the European one.
Concerning the relationship between USA and Europe, I support the notion that they should be rivals, not partners, at least until a more favorable time comes with functioning international institutions (distant future most probably).
For this discussion you can use this thread:The Euro-American War
Quote:
FInally imagin 70 million turks who bearly know how to read go to each one of your European countries.
There is compulsory primary education. Educational system is modern and based on European models and standards. Truth is, there’s hardly a difference between Turkey and other EU candidates concerning the advances in education. Maybe this very sentence reveals the hidden xenophobic motivation behind your post.
Quote:
That there is a connection between the two things beyond a similarity in geographic connection is nationalistic propaganda propagated after modern day Greece`s independence.
I wouldn’t go that far, but there’s a lot of truth in this claim. Understandably (or not), many Greeks happen to think there’s a direct lineage going back to maybe even Chronos and Rhea. 
I’ve had a discussion with a Greek on another forum for this same issue ( What Happened to the Christians in Turkey;me is Companiero). He seemed to be reasonable and moderate (could be cos he was raised in USA) although the nationalistic interpretation of what he’d been taught (by Greek Orthodox Church; u get the picture) was present to the point of demanding Turkish territory being given to Greece.
Quote:
Not surprisingly Im ardently opposed to the way it function.
I absolutely agree. The cost of implementing this corrupted socialist practice (which was an important reason for socialism’s collapse) in a world with an anti-socialist imperialist order, is undermining the EU system, corrupting member states’ budget, as well as exploiting and restricting the African economical development.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 10:25 AM |
|
|
AS Ive stated in other threads Im conducting my own research into especially the topic Turkey-Greece relations and the Armenian genocide.
So far I have come up with a few good points I didnt know before I started.
Concerning the Armenian genocide, it was not just conducted in 1920, as I have previously written, but between 1915 and 1923.
Its main reason was not plain hatred and bigotry among the ordinary Turk, but a governmental fear of radical Armenian nationalist who supported Russia. Remember this was during WW1 where the Ottoman empire was chipping in with the Continental powers, and as such they where at war with Russia.
This lead to a badly planned and executed plan to move the Armenian minority in Anatolia to Syria.
A plan that lead to extreme suffering among the relocated Armenians. I have read numbers ranging from 80.000 deaths to 2.5-3 mill. deaths (The last number would mean that every Armenian living in Anatolia in 1915 would have been killed). But the most likely figure I could read out of the sources, where a number in between, That means around 1.2 mill deads.
Most of the casualties where due to illness and starvation. But offcourse alot where also plainly murdered. The biggest perpetrators of these murders where actually Kurds, who harried the long lines of refugees, killing all men and carrying all the young women off on horsebacks.
The main reason why Turkey today will not give an official apology, is the fear that Armenians living abroad will demand property back.
The argument from the Turkish side is that the Armenians where siding with Russia in WW1 thereby being traitors to the country they where living in.
This is by all means a very weak argument when you look at it through todays optics, but if you take into consideration the fact that The Ottoman Empire where fighting for its survival at the time, it becomes more understandable.
As an appendage to this part of history, I can add that it was primarily Armenians and Greeks who where the city-dwellers and traders in Anatolia up till Turkish independence in the Lausanne treaty of 1923.
Incidently the Brittish made a a treaty in 1920 (The Serve treaty) That called for the complete partition of modern day Turkey into 3 parts. A Greek part, a Kurdish part and an Armenian part. It was this treaty that spurred Ataturk to rebellion against the Sultan sitting in Istanbul, under british occupation. And set up modern day Turkish capital in Ankara.
Ataturk defeated the Greek invasion during the Greek-Turkish war from 1919-1922, which where concluded when Ataturks army occupied Smyrna at the Aegean coast in 1922.
Smyrna was burned to the ground, and has since been used by the Greeks as an example of Turkish attrocities.
Only problem with this, is, that it was clearly not in Turkish interest to burn the largest trading port in the now independent country, as a french reporter wrote from the spot. So Turkey is insisting that it was the fleeing Greeks that lit up the town.
Most likely it was a Turkish general who original came from Macedonia who lighted the match on his own authority, as retribution for what had went on to the Turkish minority in Balkan.
All this lead to the transfer of the greek minority from Anatolia to Greece, and the Turkish minority from Greece to Turkey. A transfer that severly crippled the economic ambitions of the new Turkish republic, because as I have allready stated it was primarily the greek and armenian minority who controlled the trade in Anatolia.
Regarding the Cyprus disaster, its very hard to point to just one culprit in that mess.
As far as I can tell, the greek majority and the turkish minority where equally good at stirring things up.
The depressing part of this picture is, that it was not the ordinary greek and turk who are the guilty ones, but rather a few rabid nationalist on both sides, who managed to stir things up, and put pressure on their respective mainland government.
This has definetly been most devastating to the Turkish minority on Cyprus, who have been isolated ever since mainland Turkeys invasion in 1974.
Greece has used Cyprus as a leverage against Turkey ever since, and especially since Greece became a member in EU Turkey has taken a beating financially by Greece.
The reason this has been possible, is the Veto system in EU, where one country can Veto a decision.
Greece has vetoed every financial aid package from EU to Turkey since they became members. Much to the distress of Brussel.
The same thing has happened in the US, where Greek lobbyist succesfully managed to pass a law saying that every time Turkey receives 3 US $ in military aid, Greece would receive 7. This despite the fact that Turkey guarded the whole southern border of Nato during the cold war, and this was during the cold war.
There is no doubt that it was a catastrophic mistake from Turkey when they invaded Cyprus, mainly due to the fact that it gave Greece the upper hand in international relations.
But with this in mind, I think its about time we in Northern Europe seriously begin to question Greeces motives in Cyprus. And let Turkey back in.
Hope this clarified a few points.
If people wants to know more, Im in the process of reading an excellent book written by Nicole (Journalist from Le Monde) and Hugh (Journalist from Wall Street Journal) Pope which is called "Turkey Unveiled".
Regarding my claim that Turkey is as much part of Europe as Greece, I can recommend Norman Davies "Europe: A History" aswell as a few danish books, which would probably only be helpfull to a small number on these boards
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
ratmonky
Famous Hero
Abu Hur Ibn Rashka
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 12:08 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the post Defreni, here are a few things I have to say about it.
Quote:
Concerning the Armenian genocide, it was not just conducted in 1920, as I have previously written, but between 1915 and 1923.
Actually the genocide of 1915 was not the only example of atrocities against Armenians. From 1894-96 Turkish government massacred about 300,000 Armenians in Western Armenia. The Armenian populations of Sasun and Zeytun were literally wiped off. In 1909 the Young Turkish government of Turkey massacred 9000 Armenians in Cilicia and Zeytun. However the most horrible massacres were that of 1915 and the years that followed it. The date of Armenian genocide is considered April 24, 1915 because on this day the Turkish government moved the Armenian intellectuals, politicians and other important people from Istanbul and murdered them in most brutal ways. Famous Armenian composer Komitas was the only one who survived but seeing all these brutalities he went insane and spent the rest of his life in a psychiatrical hospital in Paris.
Quote:
Its main reason was not plain hatred and bigotry among the ordinary Turk, but a governmental fear of radical Armenian nationalist who supported Russia. Remember this was during WW1 where the Ottoman empire was chipping in with the Continental powers, and as such they where at war with Russia.
Yes, there were and still are many nationalist Armenian parties, but do not forget that Armenians had not been independent for nine centuries, and like all Balkan nations, Armenians longed for independence.
Quote:
This lead to a badly planned and executed plan to move the Armenian minority in Anatolia to Syria.
A plan that lead to extreme suffering among the relocated Armenians. I have read numbers ranging from 80.000 deaths to 2.5-3 mill. deaths (The last number would mean that every Armenian living in Anatolia in 1915 would have been killed). But the most likely figure I could read out of the sources, where a number in between, That means around 1.2 mill deads.
Most of them died before they reached the desert Der Zoyr in Syria because of hunger and illnesses. Those who reached Der Zoyr were killed by Turkish army.
Quote:
Most of the casualties where due to illness and starvation. But offcourse alot where also plainly murdered. The biggest perpetrators of these murders where actually Kurds, who harried the long lines of refugees, killing all men and carrying all the young women off on horsebacks.
If you watch the movies “Mayrig” by French director of Armenian origin Henry Vernueille and “Ararat” by Canadian director of Armenian origin Atom Egoyan (btw both of these movies are prohibited in Turkey) and read the book “40 days of Musa Dagh” by Austrian writer Franz Verfel (also prohibited in Turkey, another fact that there is no freedom of speech in Turkey) you will get the approximate idea of how horrible methods were used to kill the people.
There were also people who picked up Armenian orphans, taught them Turkish language and Islam and brought them up as Turks.
Quote:
The main reason why Turkey today will not give an official apology, is the fear that Armenians living abroad will demand property back.
Yes, we do have such demands and we do possess the right to have such demands.
Quote:
The argument from the Turkish side is that the Armenians where siding with Russia in WW1 thereby being traitors to the country they where living in.
This is by all means a very weak argument when you look at it through todays optics, but if you take into consideration the fact that The Ottoman Empire where fighting for its survival at the time, it becomes more understandable.
Yes, the Armenians living in Ottoman Empire really sympathized Russia, but this is not an excuse to kill a whole nation.
Quote:
As an appendage to this part of history, I can add that it was primarily Armenians and Greeks who where the city-dwellers and traders in Anatolia up till Turkish independence in the Lausanne treaty of 1923.
Yes this is true, by the way since 15th century Armenians and Greeks were the ones that “ruled” the Turkish Empire in both literal and figurative meanings.
Quote:
Incidently the Brittish made a a treaty in 1920 (The Serve treaty) That called for the complete partition of modern day Turkey into 3 parts. A Greek part, a Kurdish part and an Armenian part. It was this treaty that spurred Ataturk to rebellion against the Sultan sitting in Istanbul, under british occupation. And set up modern day Turkish capital in Ankara.
This treaty was the only hope of Armenians in the beginning of 20th century, too bad the treaty was killed by Turkish government in 1923.
However, the most tragic part of Armenian genocide is the fact that neither Turkey nor the U.S. have recognized it, although 34 U.S. states have already done so (the first one was South Carolina). In 2005 it will be the 90th anniversary of Armenian Genocide but I doubt if the U.S. will recognize it at last. The hope of Armenian community living in the States was John Kerry who had promised to do it, but he didn’t get elected and George W. Bush considers Turkey and Azerbaijan one of his closest allies, so he won’t do that next year too. Another tragic fact is that Turkey is propagating a “Turkish Genocide by Armenians” which is pure nonsense and insulting to us.
We demand justice and the blood of innocent victims cry for revenge.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 12:40 PM |
|
|
Good post Ratmonkey.
Interestingly enough you talk about an Armenian nation in 1915. I hope we can agree on the fact that such a nation did not exist in 1915.
(Hope its clear that Im not in any way condoning the turkish genocide, im just trying to show that there are 2 sides of this issue).
The treaty of Serve in 1920 called for an Armenian nation comprising of all of eastern Anatolia, even before 1915 the majority of the Anatolian population where Turkish, meaning that Armenians would be a minority in their own country. Can you understand why the Turks rose up against this primarily British plan?
Btw the main reason for the Brits to try and ratify the Serve treaty was to get their hands on the Kirkuk oil-fields, so much for that.
One more thing. Armenia is not a Balkan nation, but a nation in Kaukasus. Incidently they are also one of the first Christian kingdoms, aswell as well respected integral part of the Ottoman empire from 1300-1850. It was first after Russias ambitions to get a warm water port, stirred up Armenians against turks that you have todays mess.
There is absolutely no historical evidence to show that the Armenian-Turkish feud have been going on for more than the past 150 years, thereby making it a completely different scenario than what we see in the Balkans.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
ratmonky
Famous Hero
Abu Hur Ibn Rashka
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 04:14 PM |
|
|
I would like to make some clarifications
Quote:
Good post Ratmonkey.
Interestingly enough you talk about an Armenian nation in 1915. I hope we can agree on the fact that such a nation did not exist in 1915.
(Hope its clear that Im not in any way condoning the turkish genocide, im just trying to show that there are 2 sides of this issue).
actually saying the word “nation” I was referring to another meaning of the word, that is to say a group of people sharing the same origin, language, religion and living in a certain territory. Armenian nation (in the meaning of people and not government) developed in the long period from 6th century BC to 4th century AD.
Quote:
The treaty of Serve in 1920 called for an Armenian nation comprising of all of eastern Anatolia, even before 1915 the majority of the Anatolian population where Turkish, meaning that Armenians would be a minority in their own country. Can you understand why the Turks rose up against this primarily British plan?
as far as I know the Sevre treaty was rather an Antante (sp) treaty than a British one. For example the U.S. president Woodrow Wilson was the one who drew the borders of Armenian state (and probably the borders of Greek and Kurdish states too). As for the population, in Western Armenia the majority of population was Armenian and Kurdish and in Cilicia Armenian and Greek. Turks lived and still live in Central and Western Anatolia while Western Armenia now has a predominate Kurdish population.
Quote:
Btw the main reason for the Brits to try and ratify the Serve treaty was to get their hands on the Kirkuk oil-fields, so much for that.
I agree with you, no one really cared about Armenian Question. It was only being used and is still used to whip Turkey. None of Western European countries or the United States have wanted to see a strong and large Armenia, all they wanted to see was poor and weak Turkey. However, as Turkey is an important NATO member, the U.S. tends to ignore Armenian question and Armenian Genocide in the sake of its relations with Turkey.
Quote:
One more thing. Armenia is not a Balkan nation, but a nation in Kaukasus.
Sorry, I put my idea in a very badly constructed English sentence. Of course Armenia is not and cannot be a Balkan nation, but what I meant was that Armenians and Balkan nations have all been under Turkish rule and as the Balkan nations gained independence in the second half of the 19th century, Armenians also had the right to become independent. Caucasian is not the correct word either, because it is usually used for such nations as Georgians, Abkhazians, Ajarians, Osetians, Chechens, Ingushetians, Dagestanis and the rest. It is better to say that Armenians are a Middle Eastern nation.
Quote:
Incidently they are also one of the first Christian kingdoms, aswell as well respected integral part of the Ottoman empire from 1300-1850. It was first after Russias ambitions to get a warm water port, stirred up Armenians against turks that you have todays mess.
There is absolutely no historical evidence to show that the Armenian-Turkish feud have been going on for more than the past 150 years, thereby making it a completely different scenario than what we see in the Balkans.
Regards
Defreni
I’m sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean. If you mean that Armenians and Turks have lived like brothers for centuries and one day Russian Empire decided to declare war to the Ottoman Empire and suddenly Armenians understood that after all Turks are bad and Russians are good and they took Russia’s side, you are terribly wrong.
Ever since 11th century when Seljuk Turks invaded Greater Armenia and destroyed the Bagratunid kingdom, Armenians have always despised the Turkish rule. However, Armenians lacked leadership and could not organize a decent resistance to the Turkish government. For many centuries Armenian church was negotiating with Roman Popes and the latter kept promising to organize a Crusade against Turkey if Armenians converted to Catholicism. However, Armenians understood that these were empty promises and could not be realized. It was only in the late 17th century that Armenian communities living in Persia and Ottoman Empire understood that only Russia could aid them to become independent. Those who lived in Eastern Armenia somehow succeeded, the Western Armenians didn’t.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 06, 2004 05:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes this is true, by the way since 15th century Armenians and Greeks were the ones that “ruled” the Turkish Empire in both literal and figurative meanings.
I don’t know if this is what they teach in schools, but has very little truth in it. Its neither figurative and much less literal, the supposed Greek/Armenian control of Turkey. During the entire Ottoman era all the military and political power was concentrated in the hands of the Sultan and his feudal subjects (the spahi). Economical power was a bit differently distributed. Agriculture was mainly controlled by the feudal rulers (Turks). However, the merchantship and craftsmanship were jobs open for anybody, and there were many Greeks and possibly Armenians (i don’t know about them) that were involved. Also the small bourgeoisie was often from non-Turkish origin, but they didn’t have much political power, naturally.
Quote:
There is absolutely no historical evidence to show that the Armenian-Turkish feud have been going on for more than the past 150 years, thereby making it a completely different scenario than what we see in the Balkans.
…thereby, making it a completely identical scenario with what we see in the Balkans. There were also hardly any conflict between Turks and the local Balkan population. Animosity, could be, but nothing even strong enough for even a major uprising or formation of a state.
Quote:
I’m sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean. If you mean that Armenians and Turks have lived like brothers for centuries and one day Russian Empire decided to declare war to the Ottoman Empire and suddenly Armenians understood that after all Turks are bad and Russians are good and they took Russia’s side, you are terribly wrong.
I think he’s correct actually. It’s nationalistic propaganda what we’re taught at school of the long and brave struggle of our people for independence (name me one solid proof of it [limited to the Balkans and Armenia], prior to the XIII, and I resign my case). One, and most important factor, being the absence of nationalism, before the XVIII. When it entered the big picture, it was because the big powers allowed it, and shaped and manipulated it as they saw it would best suit their national interests.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 12:34 PM |
|
|
As I have allready posted, the Ottoman Empire where without a doubt the most tolerant society from the 13. to the 17. century.
Only other country who didnt regularly use progroms against the jewish people where Poland-Lithuania, which incidently had Catholic rulers while the majority in rural areas where Orthodox.
In Ottoman times there where things that where only possible to do if you where a Muslim, such as become a part of the state. A funny sidenote should be mentioned. The best warriors in the Ottoman empire where the Jannisaries, who where made up of primarily Christians. In 1756 the muslim population pushed for an opening so muslims also could become part of the Jannisaries.
This is what happened to the christian kids who sometimes forcefully where taken from the Balkans. But in most cases it where actually seen as a positive thing, a possibility to climb the rigid social ladder.
As to the Armenian genocide. Yes it was horrible, and no there is absolutely no excuse. But to use it as an argument that Turkey shouldnt become a member in EU today, is plain riddiculous.
It is analogue to saying Spain shouldnt have become a member due to their severe repression of Jews in 1493, or the bask minority during Franco.
Or for that matter the severe repression by Bulgaria in the last days of communism on their turkish minority.
Seeing as the excuse for all these repressions is that it happened during a different regime in the countries, should also absolve the Turkish republic, seeing as the genocide took place during Ottoman times.
The kurdish repression is a far more serious candidate for keeping Turkey out of EU. But again I just cant see how Turkey can solve that problem if they are kept outside EU. Especially considering that all the progress made in the last few years on this problem, is directly tied to Turkish commitment to becoming a member in EU.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 08, 2004 12:35 AM |
|
|
U.S. Involvment
The E.U. needs Turkey but Turkey does not need the E.U. when it has american economic support and financial aid. Don't discount our invovlment in this issue. Turkey is and always has been the key to all politics bridging the middle east, Russia, eastern europe, and north africa.
We would be fools to let Turkey become a member of the E.U. Turkey is probably one of the strongest countries in the entire region, behind Russia. They also have interests in fighting terrorism. And on top of that, Turkey gave us our closest launch site against the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. We have a good relationship with this country because it is the key to all interests for the region it is located in. To not realize this would be foolish of us. If they became a member of the E.U. then the u.s. would lose much of its influence with this country through the appealing aspects the E.U. has to offer.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 07:14 AM |
|
|
Sorry Consis.
But Turkey isnt as closely connected to the US as you seem to think.
I have allready given the example with military aid, where greek lobbyist in the US managed to pass a law that said Greece should receive 7 $ each time Turkey received 3.
At the same time Turkey actually reneged on a promise to invade Iraq from the north during Gulf War 2.
This was probably a blessing in disguise, but US cut promised aid from 8 billion $ to 1 billion as a warning.
And finally theres the point about what the turkish public feel. 97 % of the population where opposed to turkish involvement in Gulf War 2, whereas even the sitting government in Turkey today, which comprise of the Islamic Welfare Party, works for Turkish membership in EU.
To muddy the picture even more.
The US has actually been the biggest supporter of a Turkish membership, to the point that EU would only talk with Turkey (Primarily due to Greek lobbyism in Brussel) when US put pressure on them. This was during the 1990ies. As to Bushs administration outlook on Turkish membership, I can honestly tell, because I dont know.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
phoenix72
Hired Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2006 09:33 AM |
|
|
Hello all.
First I must say I am a Turk and happy to see friendly persons from other countries
1. Ýs Turkey democratic. ? I can reply this sometimes no. But sametimes being democratic can create great problems. Our country has a big problem about PKK (Ýs a terrorist group killed about 35000 people ) And some kurds dreaming to become a country over our regions (even including our capital ANKARA !!!). Unfortunelty some western countries giving them important supports. Demöcracy is good but till where ?. For example US says we are democratic but after 11 september disasters they begun to attack Ýraq occupied them and unfortunelty thinking to attack Ýran . So the reason is funny : Ýran is riching uranium !!! . But US has thousands of nuclear missles. What do you think is US democratic ???
2. Yes Turkey has an Ýslamic people. But ratio is not % 99. Because there are hundred kinds of muslims. I believe there are also hundred kinds of christians. Which of them doing the right things ? Which of them being loved by God ? . I think only God knows the answer.
Only one thing must be true : Killing , torturing other people because of another religion is bad thing. Ýt was never God's will. And never will be. Good thing is friendship and peace.
|
| |
|
|
