I've been reading a lot, about the "NON" from France, being more due to it's own internal policies then other thing.

But that the Dutch NO, was in fact more due the Constitution itself, and in part that, the Dutch would prefer a limitation/stop regarding the present imigration policy into the EU.

And that this, could be seen has a possible hindrance regarding further discussions about the possible Turkish admitance into the EU.

I would like to ask the members, about their views regarding the possibility of Turkey getting into the EU, advantages/disadvantages, etc.

For myself, i'm in favour or Turkey getting into the EU, due to historical connections to what is being presented, so far, as the "future" of the EU. It's deep manpower, which is at present times so needed in the aging Europe, and it's deep resources that would become more available to the EU companies.

I still think that the "democratic" state needs some improvement in Turkey, but that way so would Bulgaria, Romania, and most former Eastern Block countries.
A more dire need in my opinion, is the civic rights, where it's unaceptable from an European (better use E.U.) point of view, that A member (or possible member) of the European Union, limits or at least closes it's eyes regarding rights for women, egualitarism, etc.

I'd like to see Turkey admit their atrocities and genocide against the Armenians in 1895 and 1915 before they are truly accepted by Europeans. Even the Germans and Japanese have admitted their crimes against humanity. Turkey steadfastly hides and supresses any mention of their crimes.
Perhaps we Americans will have to do so at some time too, we wiped out a whole nation of Indians and filled it with slaves from Africa.

Mog I do SALUTE you

Normally the people that "attacks", methaphoricly speaking, the others fails to see his own mistakes.

I gather that every nation HAS made things that are shameful or less "good" at any event for them. Though the historical context does change and HAS to be taken in regard when one's "analysing" that particular event.

My nations' was an active slave trader, from africa to the americas, and did help reduce the indian populations in South America.
Though i don't recollect other atrocities that might have been made in other parts of the globe.

One always remember the German and Japanese genocides in WW 2, but forgets the Soviet one under Stalin against it's own people, the Turkish under Enver Pasha (the major oposite to Kemal Ataturk, that at the end was killed by the Soviet Armenian Army in 1921 i think) against the Armenians, North American against the Native American populations, English against the Boers, etc.

Ofcourse that if we go through this side, will never end up sorrying ourselves.
I remember a story about a most famous Portuguese General, Afonso de Albuquerque, that made atrocities to "intimidate" a cities population, so that when he finally attacked that city, they were so "afraid" that he almost met no resistance. The so called atrocities, at our present point of view would have been real atrocities, but at the time, were considered "common" practice and in some countries of the region are still practiced.

The City is ORMUZ, a city considered inconquerable (i've forgotten the correct term in english), and the defending army was around 30.000 men. Afonso de Albuquerque had 6 Galleons and 400 exhaust men. But was considered at the time has the "bane of the Turks"... so his notority DID help a lot

Every country in the world was involved in slave trade and slavery. Although only western civilization to my knowledge was involved in ending it.

The Armenians never dealt in slaves! They never attacked any nation. They have been persecuted for being Christian in a Muslim area for centuries.

Mog... that's not properly correct.

I can't talk much about slavery with the Armenian people, but it's a bit complicated NOT to envisage that in a time where it was common practice all over the place.
Regarding the "they never attacked any nation", as far as i know, Armenia an ancient and most proud nation, has been as much warfaring as all the other nations in the world, past and present.
Armenia, managed an unique fact of dividing itself into 2 nations at a time, that o Big Armenia and Little Armenia (on the Cilician Mountains), unique because it was not a "secession" but a migration of it's own people, and later on of the establishment of a "new" nation.

Anyway hopefully, i'll see yet, the Georgian and Armenian nations amongst the ones on the EU, this IF they so do wish so.

Well, you are correct, the Armenian Empire was quite large at one time, about 2500 years ago. They must have been wiping out people too. Sigh. I was thinking more of relatively modern times, I guess. I stand corrected.

bah corrected this isn't a lecture about history

THOUGH we could transform it into something funny... like... "a Bizzarre... and hopefully funny... episode about one's country history... hopefully military"

My country HAS lots of bizzare stuff... we were kind off... considered as "crazy" in the XV century the kind of "Asterix the Gaulois" kind

Do they have "court orders" like this in Turkey?

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8181172/

TR

TR that's what no one wants in the EU... or anywhere else if you have a westerner culture/background (one must keep that in mind).

Women still are persecuted a lot in turkey, but nothing compared with what they were before, + the EU has been forcing Turkey to "advance" into a more "modern" society before it will be accepted into the EU, though the US for some reason said that they would try to "press on" for the admission of turkey into the EU... as payment for its' "support" in the Iraq affair. AND everyone knows that A cultural aspect isn't changed just like that.
But the youth in Turkey is frankly more "actual", and as far as i know, a Turkish city folk can be compared to most EU city folks.
Being the major problems in the rural areas, but in the rural areas of most countries we still find "unhealthy" anacronisms...

P.S. - I've left a capital, to live in a "kind of" yet "rural" area, though it's at 200 meters from the sea

No. Turkey does not have that kind of court order. They are a relatively secular society for a Muslim country. There are radical elements that gain support from time to time among portions of the populace, but in the past their gains have always been thwarted by the military...the military see themselves as the appointed guardians of Attaturk's secular legacy. Probably not the best way to keep your country from becoming a radical Islamist nightmare, but it seems to work for them. They are making steady progress at modernization.

The US is not pressing Turkey's admission because of their support for our efforts in Iraq. They actually opposed our movement of troops through their territory to open the northern front. This cost us time, concentrated all our advances in the south, and possibly led to many of the problems we have faced since due to the increased time to reach and subdue the Sunni triangle north of Baghdad. It allowed many of the Iraqi insurgents (and Saddam for that matter) an escape valve of sorts as we moved into the capital.

We are supporting their move towards the EU because the alternative...them moving away from the EU...is much worse for everyone. It should progress slowly, but should happen at some point in the future.
Cheers,
H.

Well we can always get the Italians to upgrade their 5000 tanks for them.
I think a question of trust has been brought into question even among Americans by their performance prior to the Iraq invasion.

TR

well... thay were trying to grab whatever they could from the US, to allow them into Iraq's northern border...

Specially regarding the Kurdish problem.
After all... it wouldn't help anything for the Turks that a Kurdistan appeared next to a Turkish border.
It would has fommenting a new "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland".

(Besides that... the Turks NEVER liked what was imposed to them after WW1... well... they managed to subvert all the agreaments they made with the Allied nations, and even wage a few wars in the 20's against it's neighbours to secure what they could from it's former borders (they managed to regain some Greek lands back, and a few Bulgarian if i'm not mistaken + ones from a "paper" Armenia drawn by US President Wilson))

Back to my post...
Since they "seem" not to having found much support by NATO nations (afterwards they got some NATO Patriots has a "defensive" measure... and if i'm not mistaken a few German troops), + what the US must have proposed wasn't THAT worthy of taking the risks involved, they backed down (why DID they openly support the US to afterwards back down, i would love to know). Which forced the US to turn onto nations previously considered "Persona Non Grata" by it's Foreign Affairs Cabinet (some Caspian nations, formerly with weapons embargos).