He has said so repeatedly. He believes that freedom is God’s gift to everyone, everywhere. In order to actualize that freedom, he wants to install democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other place that doesn’t already have it.
Except for Europe. Europe evidently does not deserve democracy.
If the people in the member nations of the European Union were able to express their democratic opinion, they would vote overwhelmingly not to admit Turkey to the EU.
But that opinion does not accord with the intentions of the elite technocrats running the show, so they simply ignore it. And Mr. Bush seems to agree with them: sometimes the will of the people is of no consequence.
According to ANSAmed:
Turkey Should Become EU Member, Bush- - - - - - - - -
Ljubljana, June 10 — U.S. President George W. Bush said today in Ljubljana that the United States strongly believed Turkey should become a member of the European Union. Bush spoke at a news conference at the end of the EU-US summit in Ljubljana.
Here’s the way the system works: Yes, the voice of the people must be heard. However, when the voice of the people disagrees with the policies of the nomenklatura (who know what’s best for us), then the people must be encouraged to change their opinion.
The state brings all its powers of persuasion to bear — the media, propaganda in the state organs, large signs on the sides of buses and public buildings, the directing of funds to those who toe the line and withholding of funds from those who don’t — and if the people are good little boys and girls, they come to their senses and accept correction at the hands of their betters.
If, however, those pesky people prove recalcitrant, and persist in the error of their ways, then the voice of the people is obviously expressing itself in hate speech in one or more of its many forms — racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, disrespect for the State, etc. — and must be silenced.
Peoples of Europe, make no mistake about it: the majority of you are at best misguided, and at worst evil.
Your opinions will be changed, whether you like it or not.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Hat tip: insubria.
31 comments:
Turkey is a Muslim country that celebrates the slaughter of Christians, so having Turkey as a member of the EU, free to move about unabated, is sheer lunacy. The Pope will have none of it, and the Pope is the neck that turns Germany's head.
< > < > < > < >
Those symbols represent me shaking my head in disgust.
If George Bush thinks so highly of Turkey, then why doesn't he offer them US statehood? :)
I dont know if this has been coined yet but from now on I will use SMHID.
In contrast with Bush, I've actually examined the details regarding potential Turkish membership, and can only quote Maggie:
No, No, No
Meaning there are at least three - and possibly several more - reasons that Turkey cannot join EU. A sample:
- Turkey is not a European country. Case closed.
- Turkey does not fulfill the preconditions for starting the membership process, as defined by the political chapter of the 'Copenhagen Criteria'. Case closed.
- Turkey has not lived up to its promise of keeping the reforms going. Since the membership negotiations, according to EU Commisionar Olli Rehn, are 'closely coupled to the reform progress', they need to be suspended. Case closed.
Add to this the continuing occupation of Cyprus, incursions into Iraq, ill-treatment of Kurs, Alevis and other minorities, the democratic collapse due to the AKP party, the Armenian genocide and and whole stack of other details, we have our obvious conclusion:
Olli Rehn is as incompetent as Bush and should be fired. Bush can be excused, for it is not his job to have any understanding of things European. But it pretty damn is the job of Olli Rehn!
Bush can be excused, for it is not his job to have any understanding of anything?
Quoting Sam Harris:
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."
I personally doubt that Bush could even find Turkey on a map.
Bush can be excused, for it is not his job to have any understanding of anything?
Exactly. He has his wonderful staff of (non-elected) advisors to have that.
Reagan, on the other hand, would read the stuff himself, ask his advisors, and then make a qualified evaluation of the advice he got.
No wonder US approval of federal government is down from ~ 60% to ~ 30% in the last decade.
Anti Islamist,
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God."
That argument reminds me of a Portuguese Language teacher reason to hate America and highlight the Soviet Union after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democracy is a problem as well. Baron, if the people were to listen their best...
not always, but often... it would be good.
Also, if Turkey makes it to the E.U., we can only thank the United States, isn't it not?
Even the Eurocrats are afraid of Turkey... tht's why I still have hope on this issue...
I fail to see how Sam Harris, whose one dimension in life is to fight religion with athesim, gets any credibility at all. Harris is nowhere near believable in any context.
"If he said..." is a cheap shot that any first year (high-school, at that) logic or debate student would cut to pieces.
Just ask yourselves, people, how Obama would handle it.
Unlike the Baron, I believe that there is a legitimate argument for bringing Turkey (eventually) into the European Union.
But there are a LOT of preconditions to that entry, which Turkey is not as of yet meeting. And I question whether Turkey can ever meet them, because to meet them Turkey would have to prove that it was truly a European nation, and not a Euro-Middle East-Islamic hybrid.
I have to chuckle at Henrik Clausen's formulations:
1. A small part of Turkey is in Europe, including its capital city.
2. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots voted for a reasonable end to the conflict. The Greek Cypriots, inflamed by nationalist frenzies, turned it down. The onus is on the Greek Cypriots now, not the Turks.
3. I am stupefied that anyone lucid could claim that Turkey is suffering a "democratic collapse due to the AKP party." It is universally acknowledge by all but the most rabid Islamophobes that the AKP has proven to be the best Turkish government in decades, in terms of the political and economic well-being of the nation. The AKP represents the democratic will of the Turkish electorate, based upon an election called after the crisis over the selection of President Gul. And now it is the Turkish military and secularists who are trying to short-circuit the democratic will of the Turkish people by having the AKP declared unconstitutional.
The worry about the AKP is what they will do in the future, not what they have done, which has been almost universally to Turkey's benefit since they came to power earlier in this century.
Finally, it must be recognized that the United States has strategic reasons, related to our ill-fated venture in Iraq and our plans to deal with the Iranian menace, to take the side of the Turks. That explains George Bush's statement. Given the fix he has gotten our nation into in the Middle East, any other stance would be disastrous to American interests and policy in the Middle East.
freedom is God’s gift to everyone, everywhere. Rubbish
Freedom is fought for by the blood sweat and tears of those who value it. Freedom must be valued lest we become negligent in its preservation.
It has absolutely nothing to do with mysticism.
The average Turk is simply not European-neither by heritage, custom, nor culture. Neither is the ruling class.
By the way, Gordon, the capital of Turkey is Ankara, not Istanbul. (And technically speaking, only half of Istanbul is located on the continent of Europe.)
I love this website; one of the best on the web.
Where else can you immerse yourself in intelligent discourse no matter the topic or vantage point.
I also like the new coin: SMHID. Pronounced 'Schmid'. Or Schmitter-Schmid, depending on where you were raised.
<><><><><>....
Of course Geo. Bush will encourage Turkey to join the EU. He is an Internationalist, not a Conservative. He loves multiculturalism, promotes amnesty for illegals and for the past 8 years he and Mexican President Fox, now Calderon, have been busily engaged in creating a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that America is a rightwing & Conservative thinking nation that will always behave in a Conservative fashion; nothing could be further from the truth. For the past fifty years, Gramscism and Frankfurt School ideology have been infiltrating the educational system, the government, the judiciary, the media & entertainment industries and all aspects of American life in much the same way that Socialism has permeated Europe. As a result of this infiltration, just about all of the cultural ideas, political thought and morality that Europeans find so obnoxious about the US, are products of this extreme Left wing ideology. Certainly, there are still the corporations, there’s still Billy Graham, there is still rock n' roll and the place still looks like America, but the Conservative, Capitalist, Christian soul of this country has been eaten away and replaced by political correctness, welfare dependency, an entitlement mentality, multiculturalism, green/vegetarian/eco belief systems and sneering anti-Christian sentiment.
Just take a look at the Presidential choices that have been foisted upon the people of this nation. The media played up their own extreme leftwing choices and played down, or totally ignored the Conservatives that they objected to. Obama was promoted by Democrats who was then transformed into a Messianic figure by the Leftwing media, McCain was nominated because Leftist Democrats switched parties to vote for him (their preferred choice amongst Republicans). So America’s next president will either be an America-hating Marxist Democrat or an elderly Republican Left-winger who condones illegal immigration. No Conservatives in sight. Both will enthusiastically join the clamor for Turkey to join the EU and will probably be thrilled at the thought of the EU embracing other Islamic nations (as has already been touted).
America is busy self destructing. Don’t expect any help, unless the Conservatives can regroup for 2012.
This is probably good news in the long run. Bush is so hated by the Europeans, that they will instantly get their backs up about anything he thinks is a good idea. One hopes that the neo-cons will start insulting European with names again, like "Turk-hating panty-waists", to make them even more resistant.
Former Gordon said:
Unlike the Baron, I believe that there is a legitimate argument for bringing Turkey (eventually) into the European Union.
That's insteresting. Let's look at it.
But there are a LOT of preconditions to that entry, which Turkey is not as of yet meeting.
I guess you agree that the preconditions for opening the negotiations are not even met at this time.
I have to chuckle at Henrik Clausen's formulations:
1. A small part of Turkey is in Europe, including its capital city.
Apart from the detail that you are not aware which city is the capital of Turkey (Ankara is), this argument doesn't fly. Having part of your area in a different continent doesn't make you belong there.
Like, was Russia an American country when it owned Alaska? I think noone in their right mind would claim that Denmark is an American country? Yet, for a tiny speck of land (3%), Eurocrats suddenly declare Turkey 'European'. Because it fits their purpose.
Historically and culturally, Turkey is Turkish. There's around ten Turkish countries, including Turkmenistan, and they hold pan-Turkish congresses. Turkey is Turkish and has the best Turks on the planet.
2. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots voted for a reasonable end to the conflict.
It would take a very fickle grasp on international law to consider that (the Annan Plan) 'reasonable'. It was a tool for abandoning the Republic of Cyprus and letting Turkey eventually take over the entire island.
The Greek Cypriots, inflamed by nationalist frenzies, turned it down.
This includes the wonderful biased word 'Greek Cypriots'. Can't we just, once and for all, agree to use 'Cypriots'? Greece is a different country, quite far away.
Yes, the Cypriots turned it down. For they looked into the details and realized they'd lose the claim to their own nation if they accepted *that* deal. The majority against it was 76 %. You may, at you disretion, discount *any* result of a referendum as an unjust result of 'nationalist frenzy'. I think you should respect this one, for it's large and based on people discussing the merits of the plan.
BTW, the vote was rigged in disfavor of Cyprus. I won't go into details here.
The onus is on the Greek Cypriots now, not the Turks.
Right. As if it wasn't Turkey who inflamed separatist sentiment in Cyprus to begin with, then exploited it as an excuse for invading and occupying the best part of the island.
The Turks should leave. Period.
3. I am stupefied that anyone lucid could claim that Turkey is suffering a "democratic collapse due to the AKP party."
Then I suggest you have a nice, close look at the details. There's a fierce battle for secularism going on, for the Constitutional Court of Turkey has deemed that AKP is dismantling democracy. That case has merit.
The AKP represents the democratic will of the Turkish electorate, based upon an election called after the crisis over the selection of President Gul.
Again, if you follow the details, you will find that it also represents the influence exercised by awarding government contracts to the companies that support AKP, the rise of Islamic business known as the 'Anatolian Tigers', and a glacial drift towards more Islam in the Turkish society.
And now it is the Turkish military and secularists who are trying to short-circuit the democratic will of the Turkish people by having the AKP declared unconstitutional.
Yes, that's the AKP and the EU spin on the situation. Independent experts see it as a reassertion of secular principles. Even when weakened by loss of economical influence (see above) and a minority in parliament, the secularists battle on. That's good.
Note that the express lack of confidence that EU has in the Constitutional Court is another 'case closed' reason not to negotiate for EU membership. Why? Because having 'stable democratic institutions' is a precondition for opening these negotiations in the first place. Olli Rehn is quietly undermining his own position.
The worry about AKP is legitimate and deserves to be played out in the Turkish Supreme Court, not be dictated by EU civil servants.
Finally, it must be recognized that the United States has strategic reasons, related to our ill-fated venture in Iraq and our plans to deal with the Iranian menace, to take the side of the Turks.
Indeed. This was most likely the motivation for the US to support the Annan Plan for Cyprus (see above), for by handing Cyprus back to the Turkish regime it escaped in 1874, Turkey was thought to be more 'negotiable' in the first place. But that's (A) a bad way to deal with Islamic countries and (B) bad, because Cyprus wasn't America's property to give away.
That explains George Bush's statement.
In a way, yes...
Given the fix he has gotten our nation into in the Middle East, any other stance would be disastrous to American interests and policy in the Middle East.
Apart from the reasons above, I believe the incompetence of the Bush administration would make any proposal disasterous...
Just look at the Balkan policy. It was adopted wholesale from the Clinton administration, which had managed to mismanage skirmishes into the most profound disaster Europe has experienced since WWII.
Yet, the Balkan policy received no overhaul when Bush assumed office.
One would expect that, given the extensive terrorist connections of the Albanian and Bosnian regimes, at least on September 12th 2001 the policy would be fundamentally changed. Didn't happen, the US preferred to 'show its power' by creating another mafia state in the heart of Balkan - soon to be united with Albania, in spite of given promises.
Getting below the spin is good.
Instead of spouting hatred of Islam, perhaps readers of Gates of Vienna should direct their righteous hatred againts representatives of the global power order, such as President Bush? Figures like Bush are the REAL enemy here.
Ass, don't tell me what to do.
Saharians, no need to spread hatred of any kind.
Get into the details of what goes on, show the politicians that they could do better. Then vote them out of office if they don't.
Many people have talked about a 20-40 year timeline for the Islamization of Europe. If Turkey is admitted to the EU, my bet is Europe is ruled by Islam in less than 10 years.
Henrik,
Saharians, no need to spread hatred of any kind.
No, hatred should not be indiscriminately spread. But hatred can be very useful if directed in the right way. If you are against hatred, you'll only find a limited base of allies. People who apply hatred are tolerant of your kind, you should tolerate them too.
Get into the details of what goes on, show the politicians that they could do better. Then vote them out of office if they don't.
Well, good luck with that!
It's far too late to comply strictly to such a strategy. Try to vote away the EU superstate if you can. Of course we should get into details and be voting, but that alone would have too marginal an effect. "Details" won't move neither politicians nor the public. The West cannot be reasoned out of its current predicament. Politics is about power, and power is ultimately about the will and the means to apply violence, better than your opponent. If that is not understood, nothing will be achieved.
However, politics is also about mythology and rhetorics. And that should be used extensively, and the dug out details should be used to paint strong and suggestive rhetorical/mythological images. But political myths and rhetoric have to have balls in order to work. If they are castrated of the power aspect (the will and the means to apply violence) and of their function of channeling hate, they will just create insignificant movements with no real impact. People cannot be reasoned out of something they haven't been reasoned into in the first place. And the threat of violence always beats words (unless the words have a proper power base).
CS, I didn't mean to say 'no violence', only 'no hatred'.
A good soldier doesn't hate the enemy while shooting at him. He might aim for the legs, too - partly in order not to take lives, partly to increase the burden on the enemy, as a wounded soldier takes more resources than a dead.
Henrik,
CS, I didn't mean to say 'no violence', only 'no hatred'.
Well, it's good you do not say no to violence. And I should stress that what I'm promoting is the ability to apply violence, and the preparedness to do it, so there can be a proper threat of violence--which is the only basis for real political power. But if someone calls you, you need to execute of course.
During the heydays of our celebrated democratic reform movements some hundred years ago, it was not the strength of their arguments that made the change, but the fact that it was backed by the threat of revolutionary violence.
Anyway, to say yes to violence, but no to hatred, is just weird...
A good soldier doesn't hate the enemy while shooting at him. He might aim for the legs, too - partly in order not to take lives,
That's a very irresponsible soldier. Aiming for the legs is a bad idea. The same for police officers. In their training they are taught to aim for the torso, if they decided they need to shoot. Aiming for the legs means to high risk to miss. The bullet might hit someone innocent and the enemy might get the time to kill one of your own in the time you gave him.
partly to increase the burden on the enemy, as a wounded soldier takes more resources than a dead.
Well, it's not so likely that it's Christian soldiers we are about to meet. Where did you get the idea that Muslim warriors would care anything for wounded if it becomes a burden. Not even Christian Russians care too much.
You live in an idealistic dream world, Henrik.
Henrik Clausen:
First, I will admit to a huge error in identifying Istanbul as the "capital city" of Turkey. And you make an excellent argument about Turkey being a part of the Turkic peoples stretching eastward. I just wanted to point out to you that your categorical statement that Turkey "is not a European Country. Case closed," is not, geographically, correct.
After that, your arguments fall apart.
a. Your "spin" on the AKP is much more distorted than any pro-AKP "spin" being put forward by the EU and the US.
b. Your "spin" on the Cyprus situation is even more outrageous. It is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annan_Plan_for_Cyprus . It was rejected by the Greek Cypriots because they want to take back Greek control of the entire island, the Turkish Cypriots be damned. Looking at its terms, any claim that it "was a tool for abandoning the Republic of Cyprus and letting Turkey eventually take over the entire island" is ridiculous fantasy. The model for the Cypriot state would have been Switzerland, a notorious example of instability (sarcasm).
As their predecessors wanted to do in 1974, when they overthrew the elected Cypriot government in a military coup and tried to force "Enosis", or unification of the island with Greece, then ruled by a vicious military junta. The Turkish response was necessary to prevent another "forced transfer" (modern day terminology: ethnic cleansing) of Turkish Cyriot populations similar to the Greek and Turkish forced population exchanges of the 1920's. Yes the Turkish army was pretty ruthless in setting up the Turkish Cypriot mini-state, but the Greeks remain the majority culprits in the whole Cyprus mess, especially after the Turkish Cypriots swallowed their pride and fears and supported the Annan Plan.
c. And then you bring a whole new level of distortion and spin when you introduce the former Yugoslavia mess into this discussion. The U.S. and Europe exacerbated this problem not by intervening, but by intervening TOO LATE. After the Serbians (and, to some extent, the Croatians) had started implementing their revenge fantasies against Bosnians and Albanians, after these populations turned to Islamic radicals because the West had abandoned them, and after the resulting political mess became intractable.
There is no reason why Kosovo has to stay a "mafia state," and there is no real legitimate proof that Bosnia has ever been a "mafia state." As for Kosovo rejoining Albania, so what? As long as the far northern 10% of the country that is majority Serbian is reunited with Serbia.
If Europe and the U.S. work with these states and welcome them into our political and economic groups, just as we are welcoming Croatia and other Balkan states, they will be just like all the other nations in the area - imperfect, but not "mafia states."
Former Gordon, you are making a very significant mistake in relying in Wikipedia as a source, even moderately reliable, in matters like this.
Both of these issues, Cyprus and Yugoslavia, are highly controversial, and one needs a truckload of details to get the record straight. There's been a lot of spin - not least by the US government who desperatedly wanted their Bondsteel base - and the temptation to demonize one side of the conflict is significant.
But time and space does not really permit me to take apart the spin and propaganda you're bringing up here. That'd be a task for a different day. I could find a few links for Cyprus, though.
For the record, I absolutely reject your assertions of being 'outragious' in my assessment of these situations. These are issues I've studied in some depth, and while I respect anyones right to buy into the various propaganda produced by the Turkish and US governments, I utterly reject accepting these interpretations myself.
Henrik, I apologize for using inflammatory language. "Wrong" would be a better description about your assertions regarding Cyprus and the former Yugoslavia.
You make the mistake that many zealots for a cause make - and in this case your mistake is making the true statement: Muslims and Islam are bad for Europe into the false statement: , Muslims and Islam are ALWAYS in the wrong.
Just because Islamic countries are generally hellholes doesn't mean that a country like Turkey is the equivalent of Syria or Iran. Would Turkey's entry into the EU be bad for Europe? Maybe, probably. Would it have the same impact as the entry of Iran or Saudi Arabia into the EU? I don't think so.
Just because Muslims are generally aggressors in their conflicts with other peoples doesn't mean that the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo were aggressors against the Serbs and Croats.
Just because Muslims are bad for western, developed European nations such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Great Britain, etc. doesn't mean that the same problems with Muslims exist in Bosnia or Albania or Kosovo (or Indonesia and Malaysia for that matter).
An inability to see that all is not black and white, even if a general pattern exists is a road to disaster that you, and all the Gates of Vienna enthusiasts, should avoid.
"Wrong" would be a better description about your assertions regarding Cyprus and the former Yugoslavia.
No.
your mistake is making the true statement: Muslims and Islam are bad for Europe into the false statement: , Muslims and Islam are ALWAYS in the wrong.
Nope, missed it. I don't care much that Turkey is a Muslim country. What it did to Cyprus is wrong, and I'd have said the same if a Christian country had done it.
... doesn't mean that the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo were aggressors against the Serbs and Croats.
Oh. They broke 17 of the 19 ceasefires there.
But actually you have a point. The real devilish aggressors in Yugoslavia were neither Bosnians nor Albanians. They were the Mujahedeen imported from Chechnya and Afghanistan. These were really wild people causing unbelieable atrocities. Without them, peace would have been much easier.
Further, I think you missed an ímportant point entirely, namely that the West and UN, more than anyone else, made fatal mistakes that caused the situation to develop from skirmishes to a catastrophe. I think I mentioned this before, it bears repeating.
Specifically, the initial reactions by EU were confusing and uninformed, as it tried to preserve the Yugoslavia that was already disintegrating. Helmut Kohl did the opposite, encouraging separation by Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a decent solution had been found for the Serbian groups in those regions.
The EU reaction of course encourage Milosovic, whose project was to preserve Yugoslavia (not establish a Greater Serbia - he never said that), and the EU statements could only be understood as support for this (quite hopeless) project.
UN forces failing to keep their promises of protection and disarmament also infuriated local commanders.
Finally, the whole story about exterminaction camps in Bosnia was a lie, pure and simple. I've seen the documentary about how that terrible story was created - one of the worst pieces of propaganda since WWII.
There's a lot to learn about Yugoslavia still...
Summing up, having repeated important details, I reject you accussation of seeing things only in black and white, that it leads us down a road of disaster, and that this is a general problem with the GoV friends.
Just the name "Turkey" should disqualify it.
What a ridiculous title for a nation.
(Plus, the stuffing is toxic.)
Would they allow a country named "Buzzard" or "Vulture" into the EU?
Which is the real nature of this turkey.
(Or, cuckoo's egg, to be most exact.)
decatur - well said.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.