Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

The procedures and people that led to this situation are very much involved in the thread as they are paramount to the discussions of Israel and why it is supported. The countries actions are as important as peoples views of it's religion or geographic placement in this line of discussion. Minor minutiae is seemingly unimportant, but a chain of events led to those people being dropped on that ship, and a chain of events led from that to strained relations with Turkey and this exact conversation. To consider it irrelevant is to cut out a rather important piece of the puzzle. It leads to questions of Israels inability to follow international law and it's heavy handed use of force in situations that often times do not call for it. It may be one example, but it's an important one, and it's entirely relevant.

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

The procedures and people that led to this situation are very much involved in the thread as they are paramount to the discussions of Israel and why it is supported. The countries actions are as important as peoples views of it's religion or geographic placement in this line of discussion. Minor minutiae is seemingly unimportant, but a chain of events led to those people being dropped on that ship, and a chain of events led from that to strained relations with Turkey and this exact conversation. To consider it irrelevant is to cut out a rather important piece of the puzzle. It leads to questions of Israels inability to follow international law and it's heavy handed use of force in situations that often times do not call for it. It may be one example, but it's an important one, and it's entirely relevant.

So you're going to start at 1,000 BC and move forward? This is going to be a heck of a long thread.

Albatross wrote:Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.

German RAF planted a bomb in the building next to my baracks. It was christmas, The bomb was fortunately found and defused. I don't feel that they were scum.
The suicide bomber that drove into the American Embassy in Beruit and killed/injured guys from my unit, I don't feel that they were scum.
Both of these actions instilled in me a greater resolve to prevent further such occurances but did not make me dehumanize these groups. They were the enemy, nothing more.

As to the Al'qaeda, There is a history behind this organization that includes the west(CIA) as a fundemental part of their creation. You have to look into they "why" of these people becoming extremists. How are they recruited? How can we take away the tools for recruiting these disenfranchised individuals?

Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

The procedures and people that led to this situation are very much involved in the thread as they are paramount to the discussions of Israel and why it is supported. The countries actions are as important as peoples views of it's religion or geographic placement in this line of discussion. Minor minutiae is seemingly unimportant, but a chain of events led to those people being dropped on that ship, and a chain of events led from that to strained relations with Turkey and this exact conversation. To consider it irrelevant is to cut out a rather important piece of the puzzle. It leads to questions of Israels inability to follow international law and it's heavy handed use of force in situations that often times do not call for it. It may be one example, but it's an important one, and it's entirely relevant.

So you're going to start at 1,000 BC and move forward? This is going to be a heck of a long thread.

Sometimes you have to consider a lot of information when discussing something like financial support for a country of millions of people. It'll take some effort, but I'm sure the boat will get there eventually. Just watch out for helicopter drops.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive and given the multitudinous nature of it's supporters and their disparate and often dissimilar reasoning its fairly safe to assume that both of those statements are true.

The point is what other theories do people have?

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

Hmm. I will disagree as there are threshold point by which attitudes change. Some people, and yes this includes Americans changed their views after the invasion of Gaza in January 2009. the Turkish aid convoy is having a similar effect.

Also your theories miss issues that make some very uncomfortable.

1. Realpolitik. You shouldn't buy this for a second. Turkey is 'western-aligned', as is Egypt and Jordan. If you think Israel is Americas only friend in the region its about time you started to think who would tell you that ansd why, because it doesnt fit any of the facts. You could possibly out Jordan is you like as that is traditionally a UK ally not a direct US ally, but unless you have complete amneia over the Camp David agereement in 1979 you couldnt possibly count out Egypt as a US ally.

2. Religious. This I can and do believe is a big issue in the US. As a fundie and a theologian myself I can see the theology but dont agree with the way it is interpreted. Most European Christianity doesn't share this agenda either. However some Christians I know are very pro-Zionist, equal or more so that anything we have seen on Dakka the last few days. Some I knew well for years had a 'cylon switch' in them that turned on when they found I did not believe in supporting Israel irregardless of her governments actions. I left a church because of it, a very well run and friendly church up to that point.

There is are other options:

3. Propoganda. You will have to look up one of the older threads for my views on philosophical distortion through the mass media. I wont go into details here because at least one mod didnt like what I had to say about that, decreed it BS and locked the thread. Interesting as you normally laugh or counter-argue off a lie and the post, indeed the whole thread was polite and not in any way trolling, so I think I hit on something that some just didnt like aired.

4. Military cooperation. Israel is a law unto itself, but there is very good possibility that the alliance goes both ways. Israel has a pair and is willing to go an extra distance if the goal is right to them. I can see this being of use to the US, and perhaps sometimes Mossad or the IDF does things that an American president wants done but cannot ask to have done by his own people. I would suspect there is a price to that, but it will also be done quietly, hence what I am saying is pure conjecture. Israel really knows how to keep a secret, so if they do do favours, we wont know about them.

Yes I am no friend of Israel, but I am very impressed by what they can achieve. More so than anyone else frankly. I certainly wouldn't want to cross them.

If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

Kilkrazy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive and given the multitudinous nature of it's supporters and their disparate and often dissimilar reasoning its fairly safe to assume that both of those statements are true.

The point is what other theories do people have?

Other than materialistic and religious connections you'd be strained to find a powerful line of reasoning beyond anti islamism and certain forms of western imperialism or jingoism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

Economic performance and good old fashioned european racism. Europe doesn't like muslims. Given Turkeys increasingly anti western tone and the subtle but continued islamization of its government (something that could be offset with EU status, but its already begun) some of their concerns are justified. If you consider the EU to be a trade block only then the reasoning is fairly thin, if you consider cultural values then warning lights shine fairly bright.

generalgrog wrote:The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

Once blood has been shed and violence has occurred bringing people back to the point of non-violent protest is nearly impossible. The situation would have to be stabilized for a while, the tools for genocide would have to be removed, and the people in the area would have to view the mounting casualties as an intolerable before there could even be a chance to start to teach non-violence as a tool.

It would be nice if a non-violent leader emerged but the area has a history of killing such individuals without blinking an eye. The Middle-East would require a major shift in culture for non-violent protests to work.

generalgrog wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

That doesn't explain the fondness for Israel. The Israelis don't believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

That doesn't explain the fondness for Israel. The Israelis don't believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

Not of a lot of Americans know or care about the reality behind Israel. Like with most economic and social topics popular sentiment is self generating. People like Israel because people like Israel.

Did the British or the U.S. Govt. believe in nonviolence? The Israelis are in a similar position.

And not to mention South Africa
GG

As a Pro-Israel American, I see our relationship as a special bond between us and them. While they are probably violent repressionists who kill anything that so much as glances at them funny, the government of Israel has provided the United States with headaches and heartaches ever since the Cold War and regional Arab-Israeli conflicts ended. Their militant stance against anything Islamic or nearby is pretty much everything that America could not want in today's day and age with allies of theirs.

That being said, despite all the negative connotations being a staunch ally of Israel brings, without Israel America would have alot less enemies in the world and fewer problems to deal with.

So in short we should continue to support Israel even if it costs the United States brownie points with people who concern themselves with human rights, relationships with arabs, and steady oil supplies.

generalgrog wrote:

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly. A Ghandi in Gaza woulsd be Israels worst nightmare. I honestly think sometimes they are heavy handed deliberately because then Hamas only uses violence back, which is easily labelled as Palestinian terrorism and thereby ignored.

What people dont see is that Ghandi was a product of the British Empire and Martin Luther King was a product of United States. Both power groups had huge rights issues at the time, but there was a limit in how far they would or could go. How far would the Million Man March go in say the Soviet Union or Hitlers Germany, or apartheid South Africa. Not very far.

Abbas is as near to a 'Ghandi' as you can expect us to see, a very pragmatic man. But non-coperation as per Ghandi is not possible, we know because they tried. Please remember that unlike 1930's India every utility is controlled by the occupying power. gaza is locked down, most forms of good are contraband. Water and electricity is controlled and supplies are limited, Hence the blockade running efforts by Turkey and why they didnt jkust land at Haifa. For some reason some good are too good for Palestinians:



The prohibited list is very caerefully drawn up as to prvent an independent infrastructure. Take meat as an example You cannot have fresh meat, that is a security issue because of border delays. Canned meat can be stored long term which gives Palestinians the opportunity to save up, frozen meat requires power and if the power is cut off then meat thaws and rots. Thus Palestinains cannot engage in civic disobedience because they reach a resource crisis if Israel flicks the switch off. This is coped down the whole list.

Also in the 1930s India et al the infrastructure was not being regularly bombed. Palestine cannot sit down and non-cooperarte as:
a) It wont last because most of the violence is started by individuals not centralised groups. Israeli settlers like taking pot shots as do small chaotic groups of Palestinians who are 'Hamas' in name but not under any real control or supervision.
b) I think a Ghandi would get shot by Mossad before he rose to any true prominence. For exactly the reason you gave, he would garner western support for the Palestinians. As Mossad knows pretty much everything going on in Gaza though a bewildering number of methods of evesdropping one couldnt rise undetected. Its not hard to imagine this, the Israelis deliberately kill people who are not terrorists but hamper Israel by other means, including press jounalists and foreign activists. This has in the past included young photogenic female US citizens. Journalists are banned from Gaza now anyway.
c) Rose Parks was asked to get off her seat, this wasnt reinforced by repeatedly shelling black neighbourhoods. Israel acts so harshly that it is impossible to get enough Palestinians to not be angry long enough. No wonder they cant get any Martin Luther King figures to gather around.

Nice try general grog, but this will not happen until you get foreign peacekeepers in Gaza and the West Bank and a deal that keeps the IDF including its artillery and aircraft strictly out. If you manage to pull that off you might be in business. It will still take time for tempers to cool sufficiently to bring in your Palestinian Ghandi/King.

Frazzled wrote:
They weren't aid convoys. Aid travels through the port of Haifa.

Aid travels through multiple ports; including Ashod where the boats are now being towed, and the Port of Gaza inside the Israeli cordon which was the likely destination of the ships prior to interception.

WarOne wrote:As a Pro-Israel American, I see our relationship as a special bond between us and them. While they are probably violent repressionists who kill anything that so much as glances at them funny, the government of Israel has provided the United States with headaches and heartaches ever since the Cold War and regional Arab-Israeli conflicts ended. Their militant stance against anything Islamic or nearby is pretty much everything that America could not want in today's day and age with allies of theirs.

That being said, despite all the negative connotations being a staunch ally of Israel brings, without Israel America would have alot less enemies in the world and fewer problems to deal with.

So in short we should continue to support Israel even if it costs the United States brownie points with people who concern themselves with human rights, relationships with arabs, and steady oil supplies.

Spousal abuse post is reminiscent of spousal abuse case.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

That doesn't explain the fondness for Israel. The Israelis don't believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

Not of a lot of Americans know or care about the reality behind Israel. Like with most economic and social topics popular sentiment is self generating. People like Israel because people like Israel.

Yet increasingly, people in Europe don't like Israel.

Support for Israel has noticeably decreased since the days of the 67 and 73 wars, largely thanks to their treatment of the Palestineans.

What is different about the USA?

Frazzled wrote:If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

Because they would instantly become the largest nation in the EU, and shift the demography to favor Muslims. Additionally, there are nominal questions pertaining to the European nature of Turkey (the same questions that would arise if the US applied for Union), and similar issues with certain groups about the over-extension of the EU.

Yet increasingly, people in Europe don't like Israel.

Support for Israel has noticeably decreased since the days of the 67 and 73 wars, largely thanks to their treatment of the Palestineans.

What is different about the USA?

Lack of proximity. Nationalism. Jingoism. Zionism. The jewish lobby. The involvement in two wars largely justified as counterterrorist in nature. Lets be real here, we're the ones supporting them. Europe condemns or praises, but it largely just watches.

Orlanth wrote:
If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly.

Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly.

Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

Neither entity has any interest in peace. Their master doesn't want that.

WarOne wrote:
So in short we should continue to support Israel even if it costs the United States brownie points with people who concern themselves with human rights, relationships with arabs, and steady oil supplies.

Why? You listed a number of negative consequences arising from America's support of Israel, but no benefits. What does the United States gain by supporting Israel?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

I think that the continued settler activity shows, very clearly, that Israel is not interested in peace. Neither is Hamas, of course, though I think Hezbollah, as a whole, is a different story.

generalgrog wrote:Did the British or the U.S. Govt. believe in nonviolence? The Israelis are in a similar position.

And not to mention South Africa
GG

They did believe in non-violence to a point. The European culture has made a point of avoiding all-out total war. Look at the European reaction at Vlad Tepes actions in the 1400's. Some parts of the modern world have killed 800,000 men women and children without blinking an eye. If we could find a way of establishing a culture of non-violence in these areas,Don't you think we already would have done so?".

Israel is in a different position due to being surrounded by neighbors that do not have the same culture or similar religion. The culture in the area is one of aggression and militaristic might. The path to the non-violent mindset in the middle-east will be a long and time consuming one, but I view the fact that there are even protesters in the middle east as a sign of progress.

Frazzled wrote:If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Economic performance and good old fashioned european racism. Europe doesn't like muslims. Given Turkeys increasingly anti western tone and the subtle but continued islamization of its government (something that could be offset with EU status, but its already begun) some of their concerns are justified. If you consider the EU to be a trade block only then the reasoning is fairly thin, if you consider cultural values then warning lights shine fairly bright.

dogma wrote:
Because they would instantly become the largest nation in the EU, and shift the demography to favor Muslims. Additionally, there are nominal questions pertaining to the European nature of Turkey (the same questions that would arise if the US applied for Union), and similar issues with certain groups about the over-extension of the EU.

Both answers to Frazzies question are unfair and incorrect.


If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.
b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.
c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.
d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.


Turkey does not have the largest population in the proposed EU, Germany does. It will be the largest by territory but that in itself isnt indicitive. Besides Populations is not of itself that strong an indicator of a nations voice in the European parliament. Smaller countires are demographically overrepresented, also a nations economic strength is taken into account. Turkey could not 'dominate' or even threaten to dominate the EU, now would it turn Europe Moslem if itself.

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.

I find that little portion of your reasoning a bit pointless. The concept of a traditionally 'recognized' invisible boundary governing membership into the EU when that 'boundary' would rest in the middle of the country is a bit of a stretch.

b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.

At this point I really don't think anyone cares what the greeks think. They are a fiftieth of the european population and they haven't really handled member status all that gracefully have they? As for the entry being permitted by greece, I'm sure that can be changed. Greece is receiving a bailout that was illegal by the EU charter a year ago as is.

c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.

And yet they would be the fastest growing economy in all of europe, a zone where economic stagnation is currently the reality.

d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.

How does that matter..?

Turkey does not have the largest population in the proposed EU, Germany does. It will be the largest by territory but that in itself isnt indicitive. Besides Populations is not of itself that strong an indicator of a nations voice in the European parliament. Smaller countires are demographically overrepresented, also a nations economic strength is taken into account. Turkey could not 'dominate' or even threaten to dominate the EU, now would it turn Europe Moslem if itself.

Given germanies falling population and turkeys rapidly rising one I think they could cover the five million head disparity in a few years (If they haven't already). I think the change would work to the counter of what Dogma believes though. Greater ties with europe could well begin to reverse the islamization of the Turkish government that has been occurring for some time. However thats not really a point in their favor.

Orlanth wrote:
Both answers to Frazzies question are unfair and incorrect.


If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.
b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.
c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.
d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.

Huh? Together, Shuma and I touched on all those issues. You basically said that we were incorrect, and then proceeded to imitate our arguments.

Orlanth wrote:
Turkey does not have the largest population in the proposed EU, Germany does. It will be the largest by territory but that in itself isnt indicitive. Besides Populations is not of itself that strong an indicator of a nations voice in the European parliament. Smaller countires are demographically overrepresented, also a nations economic strength is taken into account. Turkey could not 'dominate' or even threaten to dominate the EU, now would it turn Europe Moslem if itself.

I agree, but I'm not the one arguing against Turkey's inclusion in the EU.

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly.

Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

Neither entity has any interest in peace. Their master doesn't want that.

Hezbollah and Hamas do not want peace. But I think they would stomach a peaceful form of victory, then deal with him afterwards and pehaps even ignite a new war.
Mossad would need to bump off your peaceful demogogue far quicker than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Both answers to Frazzies question are unfair and incorrect.


If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.
b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.
c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.
d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.

Huh? Together, Shuma and I touched on all those issues. You basically said that we were incorrect, and then proceeded to imitate our arguments.

Up to a point. however I found Shumas comments about failed entry to be a result of european racism rather than speccifically Greek. Also you were wrong in fact and principle about Turkey tipping European demographics towarss Islam. Wheras it wouldnt make much difference.

We are heading too far off-thread here.

Taking it back to the orginal commentary Turkey is a valued ally of the US, debunking the idea that Israel is the US's only friend in the region.
I think Frazzie was trying to delimit Turkeys value as an ally by point out Turkeys failure to join the EU. This is not relevant as Turkey, is listed by the CIA as a 'developed country', even if others like the World Bank disagree, Turkey is moderate Islamic so its good to be seen as their friends sometimes, Turkey also has a strong military. Finally Turkey is a strong member of NATO and has been for a long time.

Orlanth wrote:

Taking it back to the orginal commentary Turkey is a valued ally of the US, debunking the idea that Israel is the US's only friend in the region.
I think Frazzie was trying to delimit Turkeys value as an ally by point out Turkeys failure to join the EU. This is not relevant as Turkey, is listed by the CIA as a 'developed country', even if others like the World Bank disagree, Turkey is moderate Islamic so its good to be seen as their friends sometimes, Turkey also has a strong military. Finally Turkey is a strong member of NATO and has been for a long time.

Turkey also has a unique problem with minority populations living within/near their border. The Kurds and Armenians constitute some of the most sensitive topics in Turkish relations with people who share the same space as the Turks. In many ways I find it morbidly amusing that Turkey criticizes the Israelis for their actions when Turkey has gotten away with much more genocidal actions that have been largely ignored or swept under the rug. Perhaps their status as a third/second world nation for the last 80 years has made it more forgiveable for them than a more advanced first world nation like Israel.


Turkey's alliance with Israel does have limited benefits. Turkey's secularism puts them at odds with their more fundamentalist neighbors and limits their impact on the Middle Eastern political world.