Funny thing, i vote no. My decision is this because i do not think that we should fething BURY PEOPLE ALIVE.
What are your thoughts on the issue? I also took huge umbrage a while back at Obama giving a speech in which he gave his support for Turkey to be given full EU membership.
Here is a thought Barrack, how about you make them another State of the USA and keep your fething nose out?
I do not support the country because of 5 principal reasons.
Turkey's culture and values are different from those of the European Union as a whole. Turkey have a 99.8% Muslim population, they need to substantially improve respect for the rights of the non-Muslim religious communities to meet anywhere near European standards. They also are well known for Censorship, and i am pretty sure Richard Dawkins website is banned from being viewed in the whole country.
They do not recognise Cyprus as a real country, and they are a member of the union that they want to join!
The Turks have a massive population (75 million would make them second largest in the union iirc) and we could not absorb them with no negative effects.
Turkish people earn a relatively low per-capita income and this would negatively effect the EU wide economy.
Finally lets get down to brass tacks, Turkey is mostly not Geographically in Europe anyway!
What do you think?
As i am aware i am somewhat closed minded at times, i am most wanting to hear arguments against mine, so id expect to get some good ones from you left leaning types i argue with alot!
mattyrm wrote:
Here is a thought Barrack, how about you make them another State of the USA and keep your fething nose out?
Exactly. Make them another state and make their problems yours, not ours.
The turks tend to be overconfident and aren't well liked with their neighbours, also got massive problems to integrate in mid-european
culture.
Ketara wrote:I would agree on the geographical standpoint. At this rate, we'll end up with EVERYONE in the EU, including Russia.
But Russia is part of europe, geographical and cultural.
It's silly to condemn a whole nation for the crime of a couple of nutters. Nowhere would be in the EU if we did that.
Anyway, there are plenty of legal and human rights issues to be resolved before Turkey could be admitted. One such prerequisite is for Turkey to open its ports to Greek Cypriot sipping.
Russia has a very different tradition, politically, culturally and religiously to the rest of Europe.
The thing is KK, this isnt just a couple of nutters, the government admitted that it happens more than that, and said there were 15 cases, but NGOs said the figure is far higher than that. This is a cultural problem with Islam, not just two nutters who randomly murdered someone.
Kilkrazy wrote:Russia has a very different tradition, politically, culturally and religiously to the rest of Europe.
Although Russia doesn't need or want to become a member of the EU, you are forgeting about the whole of Eastern Europe, sharing a strong commonality with traditions, religion, culture and polatics with Russia.
I would agree that economically it would be bad to add Turkey to the EU
Indeed, but that operative word there is "in the past"
And im not one to stick up for Christianity either as your well aware, im an equal opportunities religious critic!
But the point it, do we really want to import these type of problems into our society? Ive read about these so called "honour" killings in the UK to a very small extent due to us importing some of the worst elements of Islamic society into our nation in the last ten years, do we really want to open up another can of worms and possibly exasperate the issue?
An excuse to post an Eddie Izzard clip, why don't mind if I do:
Turkey seemed like a relatively decent ally to us Westerners; aren't they already an associate member of the EU to boot? They've also got a relatively strong economy, military, political relations with Asia/Middle East/etc, and have become a point of great political interest for not only EU members but leaders of nations across the world. Sure, Turkey has work to do but initiating further membership talks and official EU process will motivate them further to reach those goals. Its not like EU membership is an overnight process.
And its not just Obama who wants the full-membership process to jump-start for the Turks, the UK's very own foreign minister thinks the same along with a perspective from experts in India:
The EU is inherently unsuited to wielding hard power "because it is not a state," says Francois Heisbourg, special adviser at the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris think tank.
EU members such as Germany, Britain and France retain their own foreign and security policies, which are often at cross purposes, analysts say. China and Russia have each exploited such divisions to play off EU members against each other on issues such as human rights and energy supplies.
Last fall, U.K. Foreign Minister David Miliband called on EU countries to drop their foreign-policy differences in a widely noted speech, saying that "the choice for Europe is simple: Get our act together and make the EU a leader on the world stage, or become spectators in a G-2 world shaped by the U.S. and China."
Greater unity would help the EU deal more effectively with China, Russia and others, but the EU's rapid expansion in recent years has made unity harder to achieve. That hasn't gone unnoticed in other regions.
When India's foreign ministry commissioned Mr. Kumar and other scholars to identify India's strategic interests for coming decades, the experts concluded India could ignore the EU's pretensions to be a world player.
The EU has one "silver bullet" that could boost its external influence, Mr. Kumar says: admitting Turkey. "That would change the EU's demography, make it seem like less of a Christian bloc, and raise its acceptance" in Asia and the Middle East, he says.
However, Turkey's EU membership talks have stalled amid growing mistrust on both sides.
The article mainly focuses on other interesting points such as the apparent inefficiencies, struggles, and relative hypocrisy already involved in the EU and how its "soft-power" only further marginalizes its potential and its likely future of taking a backseat to G-2/"new" world order.
I don't know why i first thought this would be a thread about Thanksgiving and eating turkey for Thanksgiving in Europe (*facepalm*).
However, i fully agree with you mattyrm, except for the religious part. I've been last summer for holidays in Turkey, and I couldn't see the expression of Islamic religion almost anywhere. I went even so far as to ask the guide about their religion, as I also knew Turkey as a heavily Islamic country. Know what he said? "My friend, in Turkey, Islam is dead."
And yes, Turkey (or most of it) is not even in Europe, why should it be in the EU? If we integrate Turkey we could also integrate Iceland and Belarus
mattyrm wrote:Indeed, but that operative word there is "in the past"
And im not one to stick up for Christianity either as your well aware, im an equal opportunities religious critic!
But the point it, do we really want to import these type of problems into our society? Ive read about these so called "honour" killings in the UK to a very small extent due to us importing some of the worst elements of Islamic society into our nation in the last ten years, do we really want to open up another can of worms and possibly exasperate the issue?
Why do you think EU membership for Turkey would "import these type of problems".
They are social, psychological problems that occur in various forms everywhere. The bloke in Austria who locked his daughter in the cellar for 40 years. The nuns in Irish foster homes, who abused the children of single mothers. The Mormons in Utah who insist on having dozens of wives. The witch-doctors in London killing the demon children.
Gwar! wrote:
Go back to just dealing with trade and leave bloody politics out of this.
Trade is implicitly political.
Anyway, Turkey would be a valuable military, and political addition to the EU. The concerns about cultural divergence are relevant from a standpoint of popular stability, but are otherwise of little concern.
Also, if Turkey does not join the EU its is very likely that they will become significantly more Islamic, and attempt to oppose Iranian influence in the Middle East. This is bad for the West, as the last thing we want is for those nations to begin taking sides which are not ours.
If Turkey joins the E.U. then we may aswell let Iraq join the E.U. as they share a border, then Iran, then Afghanistan etc. If Turkey joins then we open the flood gates to millions of poor immigrants who will cripple the European economy. And besides the fact that Tukey has a poor human rights record,what can they actually offer?
Money? Jobs? Commerce?
I say we stop kissing Muslim ass and do what Mattyrm suggest. Butt out of foreign affairs.
Since Jan 20, 2009 we haven't fought a war on terror. We've been fighting a war on being Politically Incorrect.
After all we don't want to offend terrorists.
Honor killings are barbaric but let the Turkish government deal or NOT deal with it how they see fit. A lot of Europeans don't like how we in the US live our lives but I don't hear of the PM or the Queen making an effort to get involved in what we, within our own borders, do as a country.
Anyway, Turkey would be a valuable military, and political addition to the EU. The concerns about cultural divergence are relevant from a standpoint of popular stability, but are otherwise of little concern.
Also, if Turkey does not join the EU its is very likely that they will become significantly more Islamic, and attempt to oppose Iranian influence in the Middle East. This is bad for the West, as the last thing we want is for those nations to begin taking sides which are not ours.
What relevance does Turkeys military capability have to anything? The EU is a trade bloc, not NATO.
And as for Izzard, I love him, see him live, and I still think his political views are seriously skewed. To put it simply, Izzard thinks New Labour is great, and we should be the United States of Europe already.
Peace, prosperity and freedom for its 498 million citizens — in a fairer, safer world.
What results so far?
Frontier-free travel and trade, the euro (the single European currency), safer food and a greener environment, better living standards in poorer regions, joint action on crime and terror, cheaper phone calls, millions of opportunities to study abroad … and much more besides.
Also google: Common Security and Defence Policy and Common Foreign and Security Policy for more info on EU's military policy.
I'm with Obama and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on this one - as long as Turkey meets EU standards give 'em full membership but you have to at least initiate such a process if the EU really wants to reach those goals:
Miliband:
No one says Turkey is ready to join today; its own reforms and modernisation will take some time. But the reforms are more likely to happen with the galvanising prospect of EU entry that would benefit the EU as well a Turkey. Turkey has choices. Its pivotal geographical, ideological and political/theological location means that it can be an independent player or add value to the alliances it joins. When I visit Turkey in June, I will be remaking the case for Turkish entry from a British and European perspective.
Interesting to see other world perspectives like the Indian scholars in my first post above commenting on Turkey being the EU's "silver bullet" to extend its influence and how the status quo image of the EU looks like a "christian bloc".
Turkey's been a longstanding Western ally and been at least an associate member of the various predecessors to the EU. They're a country with problems but also a lot of potential and huge political interest.
Hang on a second. Economic ramifications? Yes. Political? By implication. But military? No. The EU is not a military alliance. We are under no military obligation through the EU, and neither is any other nation-state. They may choose to co-operate on certain fronts such as smuggling and terrorism, but there is no militaristic union.
NATO is a union of military convenience/necessity. The EU is not. The moment the EU takes on military ramifications, is the moment it develops into something altogether more sinister.(AKA, the United States of Europe).
The EU has influence as a trade bloc, and can apply pressure through the use of various economic sanctions. But they have no say or control over the armed forces of each member-state, and no military muscle of their own. Member-states are committed to a common defence policy, but all that actually consists of is a pledge to hold to concerted efforts such as combating smuggling and upholding economic sanctions.
Ketara wrote:Hang on a second. Economic ramifications? Yes. Political? By implication. But military? No. The EU is not a military alliance. We are under no military obligation through the EU, and neither is any other nation-state. They may choose to co-operate on certain fronts such as smuggling and terrorism, but there is no militaristic union.
NATO is a union of military convenience/necessity. The EU is not. The moment the EU takes on military ramifications, is the moment it develops into something altogether more sinister.(AKA, the United States of Europe).
The EU has influence as a trade bloc, and can apply pressure through the use of various economic sanctions. But they have no say or control over the armed forces of each member-state, and no military muscle of their own. Member-states are committed to a common defence policy, but all that actually consists of is a pledge to hold to concerted efforts such as combating smuggling and upholding economic sanctions.
EU military/defense contributions are voluntary but they have the history, policies, and goals like the Petersberg tasks that are upheld: humanitarian aid, crisis management, peacekeeping and peacemaking. The European Defence Agency and the Treaty of Lisbon further enhances these operations and adds the promotion and enhancement of European armaments cooperation.
Turkey has a sizeable military, the second largest standing force in NATO, which could help the in those EU tasks and many experts believe Turkey would significantly increase the EU's chances of being a legitimate world power player. In addition to their size, they are also a member of the European Union Battlegroups and have contributed forces to multinational/Western alliances for decades with high praise from their fellow allies to show for it. They've also had to deal with the PKK terrorist organization for decades which is also a topic of controversy regarding human rights violations. However it probably safe to say that Turkey has more than their fair share of bloodshed directly and indirectly related to Iraq and terrorism in genera.
Turkey does have work to do, but I'm still siding with the UK Foreign Minister, Obama, India, and likely most of the top world powers and experts: Give them the chance and timeline to prove they can be a full member. Across the globe, leaders and experts state that Turkey is a key prospect for the EU and could be a great addition politically, military, and economically. They've been a longstanding ally to Western nations and contributed in multinational efforts including EU tasks but they do have work to do.
Turkey best stay the feth out of the EU, it's not the European and Almost European Union. If Turkey is allowed in then soon everyone will be calling Turkey a country in Europe and then I will explode in rage as only people saying that countries are part of one continent when I think they're part of another continent can cause me to do.
It's almost as bad as the people who think something is more green than yellow when it's very clearly more yellow than green.
Ketara wrote:
What relevance does Turkeys military capability have to anything? The EU is a trade bloc, not NATO.
The EU is significantly more than a trade bloc. Trade blocs don't have single currencies, or judicial councils.
More to the point, even trade blocs have military interests; especially trade blocs that depend on the security of oil and natural gas pipelines that flow out of a soon to be antagonist (Russia), and a potential ally (Turkey). That doesn't even consider the fact that Turkey would become a fast ally by outcast to Russia, or the United States (not something the EU should want when thinking of its future). Military allegiance extends beyond the ability to fight wars.
Cane wrote:
Turkey has a sizeable military, the second largest standing force in NATO, which could help the in those EU tasks and many experts believe Turkey would significantly increase the EU's chances of being a legitimate world power player.
Military power? They need help with a lot of things and just having enough young men to throw into conflicts may seem a
important point of "power" but we have seen that numbers don't win actually.
Cane wrote:
Turkey does have work to do, but I'm still siding with the UK Foreign Minister, Obama, India, and likely most of the top world powers and experts: Give them the chance and timeline to prove they can be a full member. Across the globe, leaders and experts state that Turkey is a key prospect for the EU and could be a great addition politically, military, and economically. They've been a longstanding ally to Western nations and contributed in multinational efforts including EU tasks but they do have work to do.
Theyre only a stategical addition, but never a economical or political one.
I doubt the EU would survive the financial surge the membership of turkey will cause.
And none of those who are for it will pay,especially all your supporters of them becoming part of the EU will not.
I'd have to go with letting Turkey in on this one. It would certainly increase the EU's potential as a major player. Besides, I thought Cyprus was part of the EU, so why not Turkey?
1hadhq wrote:
Military power? They need help with a lot of things and just having enough young men to throw into conflicts may seem a
important point of "power" but we have seen that numbers don't win actually.
Numerical superiority will be critical in the future of level fields.
1hadhq wrote:
And none of those who are for it will pay,especially all your supporters of them becoming part of the EU will not.
It is somewhat telling that most of the people on here in favour of Turkey joining the EU, are not EU citizens themselves. I don't fancy a massive influx of Turks, like.
Gwar! wrote:The Real problem is that the EU has grown from a Free trade Bloc to a poor attempt at a Federal States of Europe.
Go back to just dealing with trade and leave bloody politics out of this.
I think Gwar has it right.
It all started out as a way to free up trade and somehow you tools have ended up with a president (not elected), a foreign affairs minister and a hugely bloated beuracracy serving elected representatives who have no power except to introduce legislation that needlessly and endlessly annoys the very people they represent.
Unfortunately it seems that a United States of Europe will be here in a couple of decades.... then comes the civil war.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'd have to go with letting Turkey in on this one. It would certainly increase the EU's potential as a major player. Besides, I thought Cyprus was part of the EU, so why not Turkey?
Cyprus is partial greek, and these greeks made it beiing a viable EU member.
dogma wrote:
1hadhq wrote:
Military power? They need help with a lot of things and just having enough young men to throw into conflicts may seem a
important point of "power" but we have seen that numbers don't win actually.
Numerical superiority will be critical in the future of level fields.
1hadhq wrote:
And none of those who are for it will pay,especially all your supporters of them becoming part of the EU will not.
No, they won't.
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?
The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.
Yeah mate Turkey do not recognise Cyrpus, which IS in the Union, this is one of the many stumbling blocks to them being admitted in the first place. Their human rights record is kinda sucky too...
I do have to say that one good argument (by Dogma) i can see for allowing them in is to make them more Westernized and as a result less isolated from the EU, which may make them feel cozier with the Iranians or some such.
Needless to say, its a difficult one, i can see the sense in us trying to drag them into the light and away from more radical Islam, but at the end of the day, i just dont want 75 million turks with freedom of abode in any nation in Europe, we have some issues with the Poles for example, especially in Ireland and the UK, and they integrate far better than the Muslim types, there are two at my work and they mix and chat with us, sometimes go for a drink and such. The Muslims dont seem interested in speaking to us at all.
When i was in Germany i would always see gangs of Turkish guys hollering lewd things at groups of girls, and i said to the young lass i was seeing at the time "What are they shouting at you for?" and she said "they always try to screw German girls but we never EVER talk to them!"
Is that what you call a "melting pot"? Never speaking or even attempting to mix with the natives?
Im going to claim ayslum in the USA if we get a few million Turks moving in!
The Germans do have a slight history of racism which you may be familiar with (they are not alone in that.) Their method of nationality is based on blood descent not cultural assimilation, meaning that Turkish guest workers in Germany were never allowed to settle properly and integrate. Why then would they?
Cultural behaviours are not genetically determined, which means they can be changed by exposure to different influences.
We already see that Turkey is one of the most secular of traditionally Islamic states. If Europe wants to defuse the timebomb of extremist Islam, a good way to do it is to integrate an Islamic nation into the largely secular western European tradition. Turkey is the obvious target, already being secular of government, joined physically to Europe and desiring to get in.
What stands in their way is a dodgy human rights record (but let's look at East Germany and the Balkan states too) and certain legal milestones such as opening their ports to Cypriot shipping.
The carrot is a better tool than the stick when trying to get people to behave the way we want them to.
I do have to say that one good argument (by Dogma) i can see for allowing them in is to make them more Westernized and as a result less isolated from the EU, which may make them feel cozier with the Iranians or some such.
Is that what you call a "melting pot"? Never speaking or even attempting to mix with the natives?
We do have about 2.000.000 turks here and they don't tend to be more westernized than those living in turkey. A few maybe, but still most of those who leave their country are the lower class of their community and end up as conservative and backwards oriented.Become overreligous and "traditions" ( not legal in turkey ) were followed that arent compatible with national or EU law. Combine the strong feeling of personal honor and tendacies to seperate themselves from anyone else with unemployment and lack of interest and all you get is a future conflict right inside EU territory grown with EU and national funds.
Could quote the MP of turkey in his speech in cologne. ( in general he called his fellow turks to stay turks and don't mix and adopt).
So until turkey had several centuries of evolution to a modern country and accepts its neighbours, there will be no way to have them joining EU without overstretching the abilities of the actual members to support. And turkey needs help. A sort of Help, the Iran cannot offer and will not, looking at the past of the turkey.
I do see an argument of turkey getting closer to russia or china, two powers with interest in that region, but the whole idea of an islamic bloc is pure nonsense. Still asking to get enlightened why continental europe should pay for the strategic interest of america ?
Killkrazy wrote:The Germans do have a slight history of racism which you may be familiar with (they are not alone in that.) Their method of nationality is based on blood descent not cultural assimilation, meaning that Turkish guest workers in Germany were never allowed to settle properly and integrate. Why then would they?
So why do those italians , spanish and yogoslavians not suffer this fate as you put it? Are they "better arians" and we evil germans integrated them because we like pasta and paella that much? Or do those muslims of ex-yugoslavia a better job at integration cause they already actively try to speak and live with the natives? There are craptons of chances to learn, and most of them for free. But that needs the will and less nationalistic view than turks have.
Aye and i was in Germany when they played Turkey in the football, and all of the Turks were driving around honking their horns and being super aggressive about it.
I just get the feeling that they dont want to integrate.
As i said before if you are a loose "muslim" ie, your mam and dad are but you went to school with me and my friends, then sure you will integrate, but we get these strict muslims, and they have no desire to integrate. The Koran demands that they spread their stone age views, not live in harmony with us In Europe.
Plus, Turkey shares borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Freedom of movement within the EU has caused enough problems with regard to terrorism, without adding to our list of security risks.
1hadhq wrote:
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.
I take it that you know nothing of Turkish political history vis a vis the military.
1hadhq wrote:
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?
The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.
More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.
Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.
I think Turkish integration into the EU has become a symbol East/West relations. I think it is a mistake to think on those terms.
Turkey is quite distinct from most of the Middle East, and it's numerous human rights issues are driven from factors quite different from most of the Middle East. Turkish membership should be considered in the same terms as Russian membership, as both are nations that aren't strictly part of Europe but have long histories of trade and interaction with Europe, both have issues with human rights, democracy and government corruption, and both have GDP/capita well below the EU average.
For the record, I think both Turkish and Russian membership is a bad idea.
mattyrm wrote:Aye and i was in Germany when they played Turkey in the football, and all of the Turks were driving around honking their horns and being super aggressive about it.
I just get the feeling that they dont want to integrate.
Nobody wants to integrate, nobody decides that they and their children will slowly take on the attitudes and beliefs of their adoptive country, but it still happens. It happens because people are a product of their surroundings, so when you move to another country it is inevitable your children will to a large extent assume the values of your adoptive state. Their children will take on even more, until suddenly the Italian migrants that moved to Australia in the 50s are complaining about how these immigrants from Indonesia aren't taking on Australian values.
The Koran demands that they spread their stone age views, not live in harmony with us In Europe.
Christianity requires adherents to spread the word, and yet...
I think you have this issue dead on Sebster. Turkish membership in the EU is not a good thing, nor does it really make sense. The Turks are a rather unique cultural group and are just not European culturally, politically, religiously and most certainly not economically. That isn't a bad thing, it is just reality. Turkey is not ready to join the EU, and frankly it shouldn't. The European Union is just that: European. Not to mention the Greeks and Turks are still on a very unstable level in terms of relations. Those two going to war over any issue while both being members of the EU would break up the union and force an international crisis. It may not be completely likely, but it is a definite possibility, and I see it as being just one of the many problems that lie in the way of Turkish membership in the EU.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I think you have this issue dead on Sebster. Turkish membership in the EU is not a good thing, nor does it really make sense. The Turks are a rather unique cultural group and are just not European culturally, politically, religiously and most certainly not economically. That isn't a bad thing, it is just reality. Turkey is not ready to join the EU, and frankly it shouldn't. The European Union is just that: European. Not to mention the Greeks and Turks are still on a very unstable level in terms of relations. Those two going to war over any issue while both being members of the EU would break up the union and force an international crisis. It may not be completely likely, but it is a definite possibility, and I see it as being just one of the many problems that lie in the way of Turkish membership in the EU.
The thing to me is that I don't really know what being culturally European means. I know its used to mean 'white' by a lot of white power groups, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they use it. I think people are referring genuinely to some kind of European set of values or something, but I think there isn't all that much consensus on exactly what it is within the EU. Do Poland, Bulgaria, Spain and the UK have the same idea of what being European means? And if their human rights record is alright and the EU stands to gain from their inclusion, should it even matter if they're sufficiently 'European'.
I don't see how the EU can decide who should and who shouldn't be members until those kinds of issues are settled.
Albatross wrote:It is somewhat telling that most of the people on here in favour of Turkey joining the EU, are not EU citizens themselves. I don't fancy a massive influx of Turks, like.
I've been to Stoke Newington.
Feels funny when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it.
All I have to say is, Turkey is only decent if its smoked properly, although I have heard turkey fried in peanut oil is quite succulent.
Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number
You're quite possibly right there. America will also quite possibly be a second tier power then. There's no certainty in the future. In the space of fifty years, we we went from Pax Britannica to WW1. In the next fifty years, we went from WW1 to The Cold War. As things stand, we're in the American era, but that too will quite possibly cease to be the case in fifty years time(if not probably?).
And I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey. They're hardly major players on the International Field and probably won't be for a very long time, even if the country manages to survive.
I think we should probably stop absorbing nations and actually work on getting the system in order and actually working (rather than being a black hole of back room dealing and lost billions with seemingly no accountability).
Directly elect politicians and presidents etc, get them actually working towards a goal rather than passing horrible, useless laws, and work towards a proper united effort.
Either that, or go back to being just a trading block. At the moment they are mired somewhere in the middle and don't look like they will ever come out of it. I think Europe will be strong either just as a trading unit, or as a "United States of Europe", but not something ripping itself apart in the middle, admitting states without any clear system in place, and no real idea of what exactly it is they are trying to actually do.
Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number
America will also quite possibly be a second tier power then.
Quite possibly a third tier power, considering its current lowly status in the power tier league championship.
Kilkrazy wrote:The Germans do have a slight history of racism which you may be familiar with (they are not alone in that.) Their method of nationality is based on blood descent not cultural assimilation, meaning that Turkish guest workers in Germany were never allowed to settle properly and integrate. Why then would they?
That. Seems to me other EU members have gotten over a number of little things in Germany's history.
The carrot is a better tool than the stick when trying to get people to behave the way we want them to.
And that. Without the possibility of EU membership, why would Turkey look west for its role models? The time might not be right NOW, but things change. Why close that door?
dogma wrote:More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.
Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.
Yup. Turkey may not look exactly like western Europe, but it's not Iraq, Iran or Syria either. The fact that people in this thread have equated Turkey with some of those other Middle Eastern nations shows a certain blanket thinking regarding Muslims that's awfully shortsighted IMO.
I dont think the Turkish govt is anything like as bad as the Iranians mate, lots of Europeans go there on holiday for example, and i never heard of anyone going camping in Tehran! Well... unless they got dragged off a boat and forced to stay for a while.
1hadhq wrote:
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.
I take it that you know nothing of Turkish political history vis a vis the military.
Feel free to imagine whatever you please.
dogma wrote:
1hadhq wrote:
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?
The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.
More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.
Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.
So prejudice and lack of foresight of the europeans ?
Provide us with examples of your own foresight and prove youre free of prejudice and I may believe that.
Until then, youre just ignored the question.
Could be a hint on your view of EU as willing vassal that has to pay for the ideas of his "liege".
So if EU is a tier 2 power in dogma's future of power, why do you think there is any interest in tier 1 ?
We should not leave the US alone on the lower tiers, shouldn't we?
And were surprisingly happy with our future for the next 38k years....
gorgon wrote: Without the possibility of EU membership, why would Turkey look west for its role models? The time might not be right NOW, but things change. Why close that door?
The door isn't meant to be closed, but any type of partial membership with included time to evolve for turkey seems to be
not welcome to some who beat the drums for "full membership soon".
Actually the EU got enough to chew. Add turkey to soon and the ship will sink.
1hadhq wrote:
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.
I take it that you know nothing of Turkish political history vis a vis the military.
Feel free to imagine whatever you please.
dogma wrote:
1hadhq wrote:
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?
The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.
More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.
Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.
So prejudice and lack of foresight of the europeans ?
Provide us with examples of your own foresight and prove youre free of prejudice and I may believe that.
Until then, youre just ignored the question.
Could be a hint on your view of EU as willing vassal that has to pay for the ideas of his "liege".
So if EU is a tier 2 power in dogma's future of power, why do you think there is any interest in tier 1 ?
We should not leave the US alone on the lower tiers, shouldn't we?
And were surprisingly happy with our future for the next 38k years....
gorgon wrote: Without the possibility of EU membership, why would Turkey look west for its role models? The time might not be right NOW, but things change. Why close that door?
The door isn't meant to be closed, but any type of partial membership with included time to evolve for turkey seems to be
not welcome to some who beat the drums for "full membership soon".
Actually the EU got enough to chew. Add turkey to soon and the ship will sink.
hey hey don't bring the US into this. Dogma's words are Dogma's alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.
1hadhq wrote:
Feel free to imagine whatever you please.
Its not a matter of imagination so much as an observation of demonstrated ignorance.
1hadhq wrote:
So prejudice and lack of foresight of the europeans ?
Provide us with examples of your own foresight and prove youre free of prejudice and I may believe that.
I don't have the prove that I'm free from criticism in order to criticize.
1hadhq wrote:
Until then, youre just ignored the question.
I assumed it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious. People pay the price for each others ideas every day. Its a fundamental component of the human experience. After all, you certainly didn't invent Germany. In fact, it can be inverted and used to attack your position:
Why do you feel that others should be forced to pay the price of failing to admit Turkey to the EU?
1hadhq wrote:
Could be a hint on your view of EU as willing vassal that has to pay for the ideas of his "liege".
What are you on about? I'm explaining what I think that the EU should do in order to secure a prosperous future for itself. Its the end result of policy analysis, and the foundation of discussion. There is no implicit notion of power.
You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concepts of analysis and identification. I suggest you brush up on those ideas.
1hadhq wrote:
So if EU is a tier 2 power in dogma's future of power, why do you think there is any interest in tier 1 ?
We should not leave the US alone on the lower tiers, shouldn't we?
And were surprisingly happy with our future for the next 38k years....
So you're assuming that I'm approaching this from a nationalist perspective? That's a mistake.
dogma wrote:
What are you on about? I'm explaining what I think that the EU should do in order to secure a prosperous future for itself.
If only...we'd...welcomed the Turks...we'd have...avoided...this...nightmare
Bam! headshot
fades to black
In my imagination the first line is spoken by some dying old man in a post-apocalyptic MadMax(imilian) style film set in Germany 2080. Hopefully technology will provide a way of keeping Rutger Hauer alive for the role.
I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey.
Oh I don't know...consider the inclusion of turkey...consider, over a period of 50 years, the established EU member states harvesting hundreds of thousands of unwanted Turkish foetuses for their stem cells...consider a European Union riding high on the wave of a genetic revolution, where every citizen (and Subject) has his own mandog butler and a starfish wife, whilst the Tier 1 countries (not China, I believe they're secular) squander their resources building giant Godmaphones in a doomed attempt to converse with the Divine, eventually resulting in the drawdown of the Border Legions (lack of funds) and the sacking of Camp David by hordes of roaming Mexican/Canadian hybrid creatures, lips a foaming, intent on plunder.
Over the course of writing this post I've come to believe that the salvation of the EU very much depends upon our willingness to assimilate Turkey.
dogma wrote:
Its not a matter of imagination so much as an observation of demonstrated ignorance.
You don't need to demonstrate your ignorance.
dogma wrote:
I don't have the prove that I'm free from criticism in order to criticize.
You know the old saying with the first stone to be thrown...
dogma wrote:
I assumed it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious. People pay the price for each others ideas every day. Its a fundamental component of the human experience. After all, you certainly didn't invent Germany. In fact, it can be inverted and used to attack your position:
Why do you feel that others should be forced to pay the price of failing to admit Turkey to the EU?
I did not invent Germany? Wrong. I did. Obviously. And certainly. Why should i not do so?
Back to your inverted question, since you seem unwilling to answer it as is.
Others should be forced to pay for whatever they order. Simple, you want it , YOU pay for it. Not someone else.
The price of failing to admit turkey to EU is 0.
Because Turkey isn't left outside. They are just not yet ready to join and if you read carefully I didn't say they should never be
a part of the EU ( as a trade bloc ). Still, some outsiders want the EU to adopt turkey for their own benefits, and this soon.
So why should those few already financing the EU also carry the burden of Turkey?
Just to have the same deep red finances like a well known nation has?
I don't see there any benefits in the next 100 years to come for the actual members of the EU if Turkey joins.
Instead, more aid is needed and the unsolved issues of Turkey with minorities and the neverending story of conflicts
in the middle east ( turkish borders, right there. ) would lead to one foreseeable outcome:
the EU had to play moderator ( which didn't work in ex-yugoslavia ) on several spots and I think the "unity" of the europeans
in any foreign or military policy is not a secret...
And the benefits?
Nobody is interested in enlarging the EU just to have longer borders to control or in the conflicts you get into when a countrys
law is influenced by different tradition and religion. Don't forget the long arm of the eurocrats. Youre nowhere safe.
Maybe the skilled turks are the big bonus if they join.. or we do keep this realistic and do not overestimate the abilities of them.
Their economics will help us....not. And they are already associated to the EU.
The military? Had a lot of support with extra cheap wargear....from us europeans.
They are great inventors and researchers....when did anyone notice something new there...seem they do not stand out.
So, the price of adding them to EU isn't lowered at all. The EU would need to invest in a size the EU funds doesn't contain.
But the price of not adding turkey to the EU?
Its really cheap.
No additional costs. Did Turkey ever tip the scales in europes favor in any field? IMO not, so its still a heavy price tag on
a EU membership vs a low price tag with a different type of association.
In both cases, the europeans would pay, but the step by step method does work whilst the hope for later changes does not.
dogma wrote:
What are you on about? I'm explaining what I think that the EU should do in order to secure a prosperous future for itself. Its the end result of policy analysis, and the foundation of discussion. There is no implicit notion of power.
You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concepts of analysis and identification. I suggest you brush up on those ideas.
Funny how you throw in your unfounded analysis and your nonexistant identification.
I must have missed your post where you explained your reasoning and your sources.
Its to be found on page ? of this thread if you please point me to?
dogma wrote:
So you're assuming that I'm approaching this from a nationalist perspective? That's a mistake.
No I am assuming your approaching this from a "we iz da best and you funny little people from the old continent should listen to us
or else... but we don't care anyway so maybe not" position which I find wierd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.
nice fail
Since when were slavic people
And spaniards
Not white?
Or did europe somehow crash into South America when I wasn't looking?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Turkey best stay the feth out of the EU, it's not the European and Almost European Union. If Turkey is allowed in then soon everyone will be calling Turkey a country in Europe and then I will explode in rage as only people saying that countries are part of one continent when I think they're part of another continent can cause me to do.
It's almost as bad as the people who think something is more green than yellow when it's very clearly more yellow than green.
Technically Turkey is often considered to lie both in Europe and the Middle East, since a little bit of the country is on the other side of the Bosphorus. So you're kinda saying that Turkey is all yellow when there's clearly some green in the mix.
Sorry if that triggers your "Turkey rage". Weirdo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.
nice fail
Since when were slavic people
And spaniards
Not white?
Or did europe somehow crash into South America when I wasn't looking?
That's right because the latin race onlyu existed once they left europe for south america, again nice fail. Also nice selective choice of white looking latin and slavic people, let me counteract that bs with some of my own.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.
nice fail
Since when were slavic people
And spaniards
Not white?
Or did europe somehow crash into South America when I wasn't looking?
That's right because the latin race onlyu existed once they left europe for south america, again nice fail. Also nice selective choice of white looking latin and slavic people, let me counteract that bs with some of my own.
Thats like saying europe is asian because of the British colonies. You don't get to steal ethnicities just because you had a cultural interaction with them a century ago. That doesn't stop europe and all it's member states from being disproportionately white.
Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.
whatwhat wrote:Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.
And are now white, same with the slavic race. The only remaining non white "latino" ethnicity is in south america and several island nations. A skin color isn't a heritage, it's a color.
mattyrm wrote:Settle down lads, i want people to get back to talking about how much Turkey sucks!
We're still on topic. Shuma here is trying to claim the issue is a white vs non-white when and apears to believe crossing turkeys geographic broders into the Eu is like teleporting from ethiopia into 1943 berlin.
Whats more he also seems to think the hispanic populations of South America were already present when Europe discovered them 500 or so years ago. And all spanish/portugese/greek/italian people have stark white skin. I suppose that is a bit off topic.
We're still on topic. Shuma here is trying to claim the issue is a white vs non-white when and apears to believe crossing turkeys geographic broders into the Eu is like teleporting from ethiopia into 1943 berlin.
I made a snide whites only comment, I never even mentioned Turkeys ethnicity.
Whats more he also seems to think the hispanic populations of South America were already present when Europe discovered them 500 or so years ago.
No, but what is commonly referred to as hispanic and latino is the eventual culmination of those civilizations, and not the minor genetic impact the spanish left in south america.
And all spanish/portugese/greek/italian people have stark white skin. I suppose that is a bit off topic.
Well, racial profiles boil down pretty quickly. Caucasian white, Latino, Asian, Black, mid eastern and then regional specifics (such as native american or north chinese). Given the intention of the original comment, yes, they are effectively all white. It's what checkbox they would hit on the college application.
Ketara wrote: I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey
The very fact that you consider Turkey to be backwards is indicative of your strategic failings. Never let feelings get in the way of sense. Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia, and the US; ensuring that EU has access to oil and natural gas. Integrating Russia is the other option, but it isn't one the Russian like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.
Latino is a new world term. It has no relevance in Europe. Spaniards are not Latino.
ShumaGorath wrote:the minor genetic impact the spanish left in south america
If anything was ever worthy of me posting one of those many internet pics with the words "epic fail" in capitals captioned underneath, that was it. Chance missed I guess.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.
Latino is a new world term. It has no relevance in Europe. Spaniards are not Latino.
No they just emigrated then bacame an entirely new race with a different skin colour according to Shuma. The terminoligy is not the issue.
ShumaGorath wrote:the minor genetic impact the spanish left in south america
If anything was ever worthy of me posting one of those many internet pics with the words "epic fail" in capitals captioned underneath, that was it. Chance missed I guess.
Comparative populations, the spanish influence on the genetic legacy of most of south america is quite small. Or is africa white because of the same colonialism?
whatwhat wrote:No, white colonialism in africa is not a fair comparison. White colonialsim in north america, that's a fair comparison.
Not particularly. North American colonialism continued to modern times, was vastly more intense, and involved both the intentional spreading of fatal diseases and outright massacre of the native populations. By contrast south american colonials was a resource gathering affair that fractiously ended far sooner, and involved significantly less native culling by percentage of total population.
The very fact that you consider Turkey to be backwards is indicative of your strategic failings. Never let feelings get in the way of sense. Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia, and the US; ensuring that EU has access to oil and natural gas. Integrating Russia is the other option, but it isn't one the Russian like.
You may call them 'strategic failings', but I personally think this is down to some kind of Cold War complex you have. In current society, keeping people out of the arms of 'the great Russian Bear', isn't so much a priority any more. The Soviet Union went bankrupt and disbanded, remember? That's far from saying they're not a threat any more, but the world does not have to be drawn in such black white viewpoints(.e.g., them or us).
Turkey would be an economic strain on the EU. Period. They have several diplomatic problems, several human rights problems, are barely even qualified to count as being geographically located in Europe, and are not a military power. In other words, the cons far outweigh the pros. What you may call 'strategic failings', I call 'common sense'.
whatwhat wrote:No, white colonialism in africa is not a fair comparison. White colonialsim in north america, that's a fair comparison.
Not particularly. North American colonialism continued to modern times, was vastly more intense, and involved both the intentional spreading of fatal diseases and outright massacre of the native populations. By contrast south american colonials was a resource gathering affair that fractiously ended far sooner, and involved significantly less native culling by percentage of total population.
You seriously believe that the native populations of south america are the major gentic ancestry of south america? You just keep digging that hole further don't you.
1hadhq wrote:
You don't need to demonstrate your ignorance.
Then how would you know that I happened to be ignorant? That's not a very good insult.
1hadhq wrote:
You know the old saying with the first stone to be thrown...
Yes, and its a nice little heuristic, but it doesn't really speak to anything with certainty. There is no necessary reference to the superiority of the speaker in any insult. The fact that most people believe that is one of the greatest crimes against logic in the entire world.
1hadhq wrote:
I did not invent Germany? Wrong. I did. Obviously. And certainly. Why should i not do so?
The people who 'invented' Germany had an idea that you are now paying for by simply being German.
1hadhq wrote:
Back to your inverted question, since you seem unwilling to answer it as is.
I did answer it, whether or not you accept the answer is your issue. Really, I don't even know why you're asking me that particular question, as I am not arguing that the presence of Turkey in EU is beneficial to the US. In fact, I'm arguing that it isn't beneficial to the US. You don't seem to be reading my posts.
1hadhq wrote:
The price of failing to admit turkey to EU is 0.
Disputed when considering opportunity cost. If you're just going to argue by analogy I really have no interest in continuing this, as it is entirely fruitless.
1hadhq wrote:
They are just not yet ready to join and if you read carefully I didn't say they should never be
a part of the EU ( as a trade bloc ).
The EU isn't a trade bloc. Trade bloc don't have a universal currency.
1hadhq wrote:
So why should those few already financing the EU also carry the burden of Turkey?
Turkey is a burden? Again, that is a deficiency of analytical skill.
1hadhq wrote:
I don't see there any benefits in the next 100 years to come for the actual members of the EU if Turkey joins.
Natural gas pipelines, and influence denial. Those are immediate benefits.
1hadhq wrote:
the EU had to play moderator ( which didn't work in ex-yugoslavia ) on several spots and I think the "unity" of the europeans
in any foreign or military policy is not a secret...
It worked very well in Yugoslavia, actually. The EU will have to play moderator no matter what, as the Middle East is critical to your future; being as you happen to be connected to it by land and economics.
1hadhq wrote:
Nobody is interested in enlarging the EU just to have longer borders to control or in the conflicts you get into when a countrys
law is influenced by different tradition and religion. Don't forget the long arm of the eurocrats. Youre nowhere safe.
Clearly some people are interested in it, as there are people who support Turkish membership.
1hadhq wrote:
Their economics will help us....not. And they are already associated to the EU.
If the EU is just a trade bloc, then how is it that an economically associated Turkey is not a member?
In any case, never underestimate the value of cheap labor.
1hadhq wrote:
The military? Had a lot of support with extra cheap wargear....from us europeans.
Turkey has the largest standing army of any possible European nation. Quantity isn't everything, but it is still an important thing.
1hadhq wrote:
Funny how you throw in your unfounded analysis and your nonexistant identification.
I must have missed your post where you explained your reasoning and your sources.
Its to be found on page ? of this thread if you please point me to?
The reasoning is implicit in my words; having meanings as they do. I have no sources, nor do I need them, as I any incision on my part has been the result of logic. I could start formalizing that process if you want, but most people don't understand formal logic.
1hadhq wrote:
No I am assuming your approaching this from a "we iz da best and you funny little people from the old continent should listen to us
or else... but we don't care anyway so maybe not" position which I find wierd.
So you're assuming I'm approaching this from a nationalist perspective. That is a mistake. Assumptions are always mistakes in argument.
mattyrm wrote:
Here is a thought Barrack, how about you make them another State of the USA and keep your fething nose out?
Exactly. Make them another state and make their problems yours, not ours.
The turks tend to be overconfident and aren't well liked with their neighbours, also got massive problems to integrate in mid-european
culture.
But Russia is part of europe, geographical and cultural.
ok as this is my first post on here i will involve all my political and geographical ideas!
Britian is not part of europeit is an independant island state yet it is still part of the EU (or new united states of europe) so why cant another non-european country be involved also how long do you think they will be in the eu when they realise brussels will be making their laws im sure the turkish people dont want straight bannaneas either
whatwhat wrote:
No they just emigrated then bacame an entirely new race with a different skin colour according to Shuma. The terminoligy is not the issue.
That's what happened. Latino and Chicano people are new world phenomena that resulted from the interbreeding of Europeans and native peoples.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
You seriously believe that the native populations of south america are the major gentic ancestry of south america? You just keep digging that hole further don't you.
You're the one digging the hole. The conquistadors et al were in the vast minority when they came to the South America, and they didn't simply kill everyone.
No, just chicano I'm afraid. Latino people are of primarily European descent. In fact one of the primary reasons people define themselves as chicano is to diferentiate themseleves as ethnicly different from european descended latinos.
whatwhat wrote:No, just chicano I'm afraid. Latino people are of primarily European descent. In fact one of the primary reasons people define themselves as chicano is to diferentiate themseleves as ethnicly different from european descended latinos.
Chicano people are defined as such because they're half European, or were raised in the United States. Latino people are not European at all. This is stuff you learn in high school Spanish class. Seriously.
Figures are similar for most south american countries.
Having European ancestors does not make a group of people European, it simply means they have European ancestors; indicating that some of their progenitors were European. Some, not all.
dogma wrote:Having European ancestors does make a group of people European, it simply means they have European ancestors; indicating that some of their progenitors were European. Some, not all.
what are you talking about. 94.5% european ancestry means 94.5% of them have european ancestors, i.e. not natives.
whatwhat wrote:
what are you talking about. 94.5% european ancestry means 94.5% of there ancestors were european, i.e. not natives.
No, it means 94.5% of the people surveyed had European ancestors. It does not comment on the shear volume of European ancestors, or where those ancestors were located in the family tree.
If you can't properly read a survey, then there is no reason to continue this.
Dogma do you even know what the argument is here or have you just chimed in to have a go at me once again.
It's like this. Shuma thinks all europeans are white. I pointed out latin europe to him. He then refused to believe and claimed I was making out half of europe to be like south america. I then told him a majority of south americans do descend from latin europe. He claims it's a minority. By your last post you seem to be arguing something completely different., which as usual is the just the opposite to everything I say.
Anyway, as soon as one European is introduced to the bloodline any succeeding members of that line will have European ancestors. The high percentage is likely the result of mass death for those who wouldn't integrate with arriving Europeans, but it doesn't indicate that the majority of the genetic history is of European origin. You could inquire as to those people who possess native ancestors, and probably come up with a similar number.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
Dogma do you even know what the argument is here or have you just chimed in to have a go at me once again.
You're arguing about the 'whiteness' of Europe, and that has turned into a debate over the 'whiteness' of the people living in South America. Which is itself the result of a dispute over whether or not Spaniards can be considered 'white'.
dogma wrote:Anyway, as soon as one European is introduced to the bloodline any succeeding members of that line will have European ancestors. The high percentage is likely the result of mass death for those who wouldn't integrate with arriving Europeans, but it doesn't indicate that the majority of the genetic history is of European origin. You could inquire as to those people who possess native ancestors, and probably come up with a similar number.
perhaps it would be more clear what that statistic means when you include the rest of it's paragraph then...
"The Chelonian population is rather homogeneous with 95.4 % of its population having European ancestors. 4.6 % belong to indigenous groups"
Kind of clear to me that the line is saying that 94.5% are descended from european colonialists and the rest are indegenous.
Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.
It's like this. Shuma thinks all europeans are white. I pointed out latin europe to him. He then refused to believe and claimed I was making out half of europe to be like south america.
Latin people are white. Latino people are of heavy south american genetic influence. It's really not that hard, the terms are entirely different.
Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.
Except shared ancestry and the genetic impact of that ancestry are not intertwined concepts. My family has african blood in it. I am pretty damn white.
Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.
Except shared ancestry and the genetic impact of that ancestry are not intertwined concepts. My family has african blood in it. I am pretty damn white.
What does that have to do with what you just quoted.
Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.
Except shared ancestry and the genetic impact of that ancestry are not intertwined concepts. My family has african blood in it. I am pretty damn white.
What does that have to do with what you just quoted.
whatwhat wrote:
perhaps it would be more clear what that statistic means when you include the rest of it's paragraph then...
"The Chelonian population is rather homogeneous with 95.4 % of its population having European ancestors. 4.6 % belong to indigenous groups"
Kind of clear to me that the line is saying that 94.5% are descended from european colonialists and the rest are indegenous.
That's not clear at all. It could relate to self-identification, which means that the percentages relate to culture, rather than genetics. It could also indicate that there are very few people who have a purely indigenous heritage, which does not indicate that those with a European heritage are purely European.
whatwhat wrote:
Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.
Ketara wrote:
You may call them 'strategic failings', but I personally think this is down to some kind of Cold War complex you have. In current society, keeping people out of the arms of 'the great Russian Bear', isn't so much a priority any more. The Soviet Union went bankrupt and disbanded, remember? That's far from saying they're not a threat any more, but the world does not have to be drawn in such black white viewpoints(.e.g., them or us).
Who said anything about us or them? I said something about Russia, which is what the nation is called, and the EU, which is what that federated territory is called. The very fact that there are such labels implies the existence of distinct cultural groups. If you don't believe that, then you also believe that international politics are identical to domestic politics.
Ketara wrote:
Turkey would be an economic strain on the EU. Period.
Not period, disputed prediction. Whether or not you want to confuse fact with prediction is your own business, but don't try to pass one off as the other.
Ketara wrote:
They have several diplomatic problems, several human rights problems, are barely even qualified to count as being geographically located in Europe, and are not a military power. In other words, the cons far outweigh the pros. What you may call 'strategic failings', I call 'common sense'.
Common sense? Not a real thing. All you're doing is referencing your own predilections. Strategic failure.
Diplomatic problems? Human rights issues? Yes, those are both problems, but they can both be rectified. Do you think I'm calling for immediate membership? I never referenced any sort of time table. More strategic failings. Never assume in an argument.
They are a military power. Their military is larger than any of those currently in the EU. They also have extensive experience fighting insurgencies, and instituting regime change. That doesn't even enter into military issues of geography.
This whole argument on the ancestry of Latin America is pointless, mostly because both sides are making blanket statements about the region as a whole. Some nations, especially Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay are most definitively white/European in their ancestry. Argentina for example kicked out or killed almost all non-Euros in the 19th Cent and basically imported a completely European middle and lower class from Europe. Other countries have a much more varied mix, but it is inarguable that the vast majority of Latinos are very European. Of course some are more then others, but the fact remains. Most of the nations in northern South America and Central America had a very, very high population of Criollos (those of pure European descent), and a very low population of Peninsulares (Spaniards/Europeans) and Mestizos (Mixed/Indigenous). Its just the way it was, and still is. Things are harder to identify now because of the various revolutions, wars, and political crises of the past century, not to mention the tanning of skin becoming fashionable.
The EU is culturally white, which makes it averse to integrating non-white people. It does happen, but it causes strain in those instances.
Europeans had a significant genetic impact on South America, but the Latino people that resulted are not Spanish, or white.
You are incorrect along the lines of purpose that you drew, but tangentially correct in questioning Shuma's overstatements; which he conventionally makes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.
Again, descent does not mean the same.
Remember, the purpose of this tangent was to prove that Spanish people are not white by association to the non-white people of South America.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Mestizos
Damn it! That's the word I was looking for when I used the word Chicano. Replace all my usages of Chicano with Mestizo.
dogma wrote:You are incorrect along the lines of purpose that you drew, but tangentially correct in questioning Shuma's overstatements; which he conventionally makes.
Claiming that europeans had a minor impact on south american genetics and comparing it's impact to that of the european impact on african genetics is quite a shot more than an overstatement.
whatwhat wrote:No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.
Both the firetruck and the apple are red. These are facts. The case is solved.
35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.
Every single person on the planet is descended from Rameses the third. Genetic heritage has no indication of race. Spanish people are white, latino people are non european denizens of south and north america. Having spanish people in europe has no influence on the south american genetic history inside of europe. Ergo the european latin population (something significantly different from the latino populations of the americas) is white.
Case solved. You're wrong on almost every point you made. You are factually correct on the supporting evidence for much of your posting, but when you say that the moon has an air atmosphere because americans traveled to the moon with an air atmosphere it doesn't mean that THE MOON HAS AN AIR ATMOSPHERE. You can be factually correct with your evidence while being incorrect in your points.
Europeans had a significant genetic impact on South America,
What do you classify as a significant genetic impact?
whatwhat wrote:No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.
Both the firetruck and the apple are red. These are facts. The case is solved.
35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.
Every single person on the planet is descended from Rameses the third. Genetic heritage has no indication of race. Spanish people are white, latino people are non european denizens of south and north america. Having spanish people in europe has no influence on the south american genetic history inside of europe. Ergo the european latin population (something significantly different from the latino populations of the americas) is white.
Case solved. You're wrong on almost every point you made. You are factually correct on the supporting evidence for much of your posting, but when you say that the moon has an air atmosphere because americans traveled to the moon with an air atmosphere it doesn't mean that THE MOON HAS AN AIR ATMOSPHERE. You can be factually correct with your evidence while being incorrect in your points.
Europeans had a significant genetic impact on South America,
What do you classify as a significant genetic impact?
How about 35.63% of the entire population of a continent. Yes that's the point I was posting that figure in response to. You just twisted it to look like It was on the point of whites in eurpoe then rambled on about much less than nothing.
How about 35.63% of the entire population of a continent. Yes that's the point I was posting that figure in response to. You just twisted it to look like It was on the point of whites in eurpoe then rambled on about much less than nothing.
Actually I was saying your facts are utterly irrelevant to the discussion you had started after I made the whites club comment. Which it is. How exactly is it relevant? It doesn't have a significant impact on their genetically imbued racial types, and if we're going over heritages every single person on the planet is descended from The Prophet Muhammad, Gilgamesh, and Ghengis Kahn. Is Europe now full of Asians and Middle Easterners?
whatwhat wrote:
Claiming that europeans had a minor impact on south american genetics and comparing it's impact to that of the european impact on african genetics is quite a shot more than an overstatement.
No it isn't, not to my mind. But that's a matter of opinion. Though I agree that the comparison to Africa was not well founded.
The wat I see it is that currently Turkey are not fit to enter the EU. Regardless of the geographical situation. To enter the EU Turkey would have to meet a number of criteria set by the current member states, the most obvious stumbling block will be the recognition of Cyprus. Just as the Argentinians see the Falklands/Malvinas as theirs the Turkish see Cyprus as theirs, so rather than the European states not wanting Turkey it may be that the Turkish people decide against it.
As things stand there are a number of positives and negatives to Turkish inclusion. The negatives are huge cultural differences, a large proportion of poor citizens and poor relations with neighbouring countries.
The positives are the inclusion of a moderate Muslim state, greater political influence in the area and the bolstering of the EU's military power.
Personaly I would rather they did not join at the present time. There are already member states who really should not have been admited and are little more than a drain on the collective resources of the larger more affluent states. If the EU is to have a sold and beneficial future for all members then it needs to sort out what it has already without looking to expend in the name of promoting cultural diversity.
Given the current economic turmoil in Greece, Spain and Portugal, not to mention the problems of East Germany, the EU may at the moment have bitten off more than it can chew in terms of economic integration.
Heh. Dogma, I have to say, you give the old noggin a workout I don't usually have. Most people don't usually use the whole misdirection, change the issue, put the other guy on the defensive style of debating. I haven't run across it really since I took philosophy at college. That's a compliment by the way.
However! Having had experience with this style, I know how to respond likewise!. So my friend, let us proceed....
dogma wrote:
Ketara wrote:
You may call them 'strategic failings', but I personally think this is down to some kind of Cold War complex you have. In current society, keeping people out of the arms of 'the great Russian Bear', isn't so much a priority any more. The Soviet Union went bankrupt and disbanded, remember? That's far from saying they're not a threat any more, but the world does not have to be drawn in such black white viewpoints(.e.g., them or us).
Who said anything about us or them? I said something about Russia, which is what the nation is called, and the EU, which is what that federated territory is called. The very fact that there are such labels implies the existence of distinct cultural groups. If you don't believe that, then you also believe that international politics are identical to domestic politics.
You said ' Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia'. This implies that keeping Turkey away from Russia is a desirable result. Why is that desirable? Are we still in the Cold War era? To expand the power of the EU as a superstate? I have no wish for the EU to evolve into that, and I know I'm far from alone in that sentiment. From that standpoint, if you are of the idea that integrating Turkey will help the burgeoning bureaucracy expand its powers even further, I can quite easily oppose it on those grounds alone as a bad idea. You might disagree, but as a non-citizen of a member-state, I believe that your perception is skewed, and your empirical data less valuable than mine. You can disagree, but that's just your point of view and entirely subjective.
Ketara wrote:
Turkey would be an economic strain on the EU. Period.
Not period, disputed prediction. Whether or not you want to confuse fact with prediction is your own business, but don't try to pass one off as the other.
It is a statistical fact that Turkey has a relative underdeveloped economy in comparison to the economies of the classic EU members. Not only that, they have an incredibly high birthrate. You can talk all you like about a labour pool, but this presupposes the idea that the EU is a) a cohesive entity in need of such a workforce, and b) we are keen to produce things locally(that is to say Europe). The recent induction of many other economically unstable European nations has already provided a large workforce far in excess of the number of labourers required, especially in a recession. As we generally order everything from China, production is not an issue here.
The EU is already under financial strain aiding the development of other newer members, and subsidising less well off nations such as Ireland. Turkey is not a first world country, and as such, would require financial assistance, putting an even larger strain on the EU's finances. This is a fact, not a prediction. If Turkey were to join, it would require large amounts of financial investment that would put a strain on the EU economy. Not only that, but the incorporation of it's massive workforce, and the granting of free travel in Europe would result in even more exacerberated problems than we saw when the Poles started to mgrate to England-there simply aren't the jobs available. Hvaing a huge workforce is all very well and good, but if there's not labour for them, its a tad pointless.
Ketara wrote:
They have several diplomatic problems, several human rights problems, are barely even qualified to count as being geographically located in Europe, and are not a military power. In other words, the cons far outweigh the pros. What you may call 'strategic failings', I call 'common sense'.
Common sense? Not a real thing. All you're doing is referencing your own predilections. Strategic failure.
Diplomatic problems? Human rights issues? Yes, those are both problems, but they can both be rectified. Do you think I'm calling for immediate membership? I never referenced any sort of time table. More strategic failings. Never assume in an argument.
No, but considering the discussion was on Turkey joining the EU now, it is to be assumed you are talking about the same time period as the rest of us. Otherwise its pointless you even being here. You are the one who is attempting to pick holes in my point of view, to turn around and say you're not even talking about the same thing as me is tantamount to saying that you never had any idea of exactly what was discussed in the first place. Nice try at a diversion though.
They are a military power. Their military is larger than any of those currently in the EU. They also have extensive experience fighting insurgencies, and instituting regime change. That doesn't even enter into military issues of geography.
Let me clarify this. They are a military power in the sense that they have a military. In terms of global influence, actual technological level, and strike capability, they are not a military power. They do not have up to date weapons systems, nuclear devices, etc. You say we want them on board for their numbers in case of war, but then I ask you-a war with whom? The US? China? Russia? In the case of any of these powers starting squabbling with each other, nuclear armageddon is likely two days away, and how many conscripts Turkey can put in the field is a moot point.
I'd like to conclude this by saying that the onus is on you here to disprove me with fact. So far, virtually everything you've said has been subjective, and poorly developed. It has relied entirely on me feeling I have to respond to your allegations that my facts/opinion is rubbish. I refute this now, and say that the burden of the proof is now on you to lay down acts showing that the integration of Turkey to the EU, in modern day terms, is a desirable thing.
P.S. If you're about to claim that was never what you meant to say/imply, your very debate with me has been from one of that viewpoint. To refute it now would be to seriously undermine your own position.
Ketara wrote:So far, virtually everything you've said has been subjective, and poorly developed.
That's pretty clear - to term the argument thus far as lightweight would be a commendation. Puts me in mind of someone rejected from the Territorials on the grounds of paranoia. Accordingly I don't really understand the reason for the gushing compliments in your first paragraph.
Ketara wrote:
You said ' Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia'. This implies that keeping Turkey away from Russia is a desirable result. Why is that desirable? Are we still in the Cold War era? To expand the power of the EU as a superstate?
No, to prevent Russia from attaining power which might be used to affect the EU negatively. Power is a zero sum game, but it isn't implicitly something which expands or contracts. It can also deny.
Ketara wrote:
I have no wish for the EU to evolve into that, and I know I'm far from alone in that sentiment. From that standpoint, if you are of the idea that integrating Turkey will help the burgeoning bureaucracy expand its powers even further, I can quite easily oppose it on those grounds alone as a bad idea. You might disagree, but as a non-citizen of a member-state, I believe that your perception is skewed, and your empirical data less valuable than mine. You can disagree, but that's just your point of view and entirely subjective.
Well, if its empirical it isn't subjective, but that's beside the point.
I've not addressed bureaucracy at all, though an ineffective Europe does benefit the US.
Ketara wrote:
It is a statistical fact that Turkey has a relative underdeveloped economy in comparison to the economies of the classic EU members. Not only that, they have an incredibly high birthrate. You can talk all you like about a labour pool, but this presupposes the idea that the EU is a) a cohesive entity in need of such a workforce, and b) we are keen to produce things locally(that is to say Europe). The recent induction of many other economically unstable European nations has already provided a large workforce far in excess of the number of labourers required, especially in a recession. As we generally order everything from China, production is not an issue here.
Not yet. China's economy progressing as it has, the ability to purchase will diminish in the future. The price of oil will also rise; increasing the cost of shipping. Local production is something every state should always look in to.
I understand the absence of necessity in my argument, I use that argument constantly. However, when dealing in prediction necessity is only relevant when establishing a premise.
Ketara wrote:
The EU is already under financial strain aiding the development of other newer members, and subsidising less well off nations such as Ireland. Turkey is not a first world country, and as such, would require financial assistance, putting an even larger strain on the EU's finances. This is a fact, not a prediction. If Turkey were to join, it would require large amounts of financial investment that would put a strain on the EU economy. Not only that, but the incorporation of it's massive workforce, and the granting of free travel in Europe would result in even more exacerberated problems than we saw when the Poles started to mgrate to England-there simply aren't the jobs available. Hvaing a huge workforce is all very well and good, but if there's not labour for them, its a tad pointless.
You are right in identifying this as the largest barrier to Turkish membership. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that Turkey should be admitted now, only that membership should be considered desirable.
Ketara wrote:
No, but considering the discussion was on Turkey joining the EU now, it is to be assumed you are talking about the same time period as the rest of us.
The rest of you agreed upon a period to discuss?
Ketara wrote:
Otherwise its pointless you even being here. You are the one who is attempting to pick holes in my point of view, to turn around and say you're not even talking about the same thing as me is tantamount to saying that you never had any idea of exactly what was discussed in the first place. Nice try at a diversion though.
Not a diversion so much as an honest query from someone assessing a schizophrenic conversation. Many people jumped into this argument, and no one set out the founding premises. This is common on the internet; people carrying assumptions from other, unrelated, conversations. But it should be pointed out as foolish when it occurs.
Ketara wrote:
Let me clarify this. They are a military power in the sense that they have a military. In terms of global influence, actual technological level, and strike capability, they are not a military power.
In those terms there are only 3 military powers in the world: France, Britain, and the US.
Ketara wrote:
They do not have up to date weapons systems, nuclear devices, etc.
Actually, they are nuclear capable; thanks to the NATO nuclear sharing program. Also, they do have up to date weapon systems; being major contributors to the JSF program, and continue to spend significant amounts of money on modernization.
Ketara wrote:
You say we want them on board for their numbers in case of war, but then I ask you-a war with whom? The US? China? Russia? In the case of any of these powers starting squabbling with each other, nuclear armageddon is likely two days away, and how many conscripts Turkey can put in the field is a moot point.
You're thinking in a Cold War mode. War happens outside major state conflicts. As with all developed nations, the EU's conflicts will primarily relate to otherwise backwater regions. Central Asia will be particularly interesting.
Ketara wrote:
I'd like to conclude this by saying that the onus is on you here to disprove me with fact. So far, virtually everything you've said has been subjective, and poorly developed. It has relied entirely on me feeling I have to respond to your allegations that my facts/opinion is rubbish. I refute this now, and say that the burden of the proof is now on you to lay down acts showing that the integration of Turkey to the EU, in modern day terms, is a desirable thing.
There is no fact in this conversation. Any fact is tangential to the statement as we are dealing in prediction. The closest point of reference I can find is Meternich Europe, but even that fails to encompass the scale of future endeavors. Such is policy debate.
Ketara wrote:
P.S. If you're about to claim that was never what you meant to say/imply, your very debate with me has been from one of that viewpoint. To refute it now would be to seriously undermine your own position.
It wouldn't undermine anything, it would simply clarify. You might feel that it undermines something, but feelings are irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jazz is for Losers wrote:
That's pretty clear - to term the argument thus far as lightweight would be a commendation.
Why would I ever present real scholarship in a forum where I would not credited?
I'm just trying to get over the idea that slavs are considered self-evidently white. I knew race and racism are really weird things that'll change entirely over the course of a generation, but when you actually see it in front of you it's still pretty odd.
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to get over the idea that slavs are considered self-evidently white. I knew race and racism are really weird things that'll change entirely over the course of a generation, but when you actually see it in front of you it's still pretty odd.
It's probably due to a lack of direct interaction. I only see that they have white skin, thus they are white. Social paradigms are unimportant from afar.
Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.
Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.
Albatross wrote:Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.
Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.
Shocker.
Ding Ding Ding! Albatross wins the thread by pointing out why Shuma's flawed statement that the EU is a "whites only" club is bad trolling.
Albatross wrote:Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.
Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.
Shocker.
Ding Ding Ding! Albatross wins the thread by pointing out why Shuma's flawed statement that the EU is a "whites only" club is bad trolling.
I'm pretty sure I've admitted that it was a subtanceless and snide comment like three times now.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's probably due to a lack of direct interaction. I only see that they have white skin, thus they are white. Social paradigms are unimportant from afar.
I was thinking less about social paradigms and more about the racism targetted at Slavs under Nazi Germany. Ignoring deaths from war and famine, the Nazis killed around 7 million Slavs, more or less for being Slavs. They were certainly considered a different, lesser race.
Thinking about this some more, it might not just be a generational thing but also a US/Europe thing. Just goes to show how racial groupings really do say nothing about the people being grouped, but a lot about the people doing the groupings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.
Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.
Shocker.
More to the point, one of the primary considerations of being considered 'white' is being a developed country, so you actually get this self-reinforcing cycle of perceived racism.
If the people of Spain looked as they did, but the country was stuck on the end of Africa and not the edge of Europe, we'd wouldn't call them white.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm pretty sure I've admitted that it was a subtanceless and snide comment like three times now.
But it's an interesting topic, you don't mind if we talk about it some more, do you?
Provided other people are interested in the same, that is.
ShumaGorath wrote:I consider south africa to have a large white population personally.
I probably didn't make my point very well. I was saying that given how the Spanish look, if their nation was in Africa and their cultural and economic ties were with African nations we wouldn't think of them as white. However, the Spanish are more closely tied to European countries and have a level of development equivalent to Europe, and so we call them white.
Skin colour is only a small part of how people go about assigning race.
ShumaGorath wrote:I consider south africa to have a large white population personally.
I probably didn't make my point very well. I was saying that given how the Spanish look, if their nation was in Africa and their cultural and economic ties were with African nations we wouldn't think of them as white. However, the Spanish are more closely tied to European countries and have a level of development equivalent to Europe, and so we call them white.
Skin colour is only a small part of how people go about assigning race.
Perhaps when they have a more personal connection, but from most of the pictures I've seen spaniards seem fairly white by contrast to the latino racial profile seen in the Americas. Were they more geographically close to africa I doubt I would make the connection between the two racially. As I have little contact with traditional spanish culture I can realistically only draw a view of race from skin color, and in that I routinely see darker people stateside that I would consider white.
Well, I lived in Spain for nearly 2 years - perhaps I can offer a perspective?
The Spanish people I spoke to considered themselves white, from what I can gather - one or two certainly referred to themselves as 'white people'. However, in terms of skin colour, I was a LOT whiter than them - although that might have something to do with being a pasty northern european!
They did seem to me to be of a slightly different ethnic grouping - as sebster rightly pointed out (iirc), they are fairly close to being north-african. There has traditionally been a lot of north-african influence on Spain, and vice versa - spain still has colonies there for example.
I did. 
Obviously. 
And certainly. 
