Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

[Kanki]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

NO EU NO US!!

yippee, Independent Türkiye!!

(Turkish people think so %60)

[ferdi]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

I don't believe Turkey deserves to join the European union which is why this whole thing is endlessly dragging. They are ignorant and arrogant in thinking they have a chance. The country is run down by greed, poverty, religion and lack of resources. 12yr old kids are let into brothels if they could afford a packet of cigarettes for the pimp's dogs downstairs. They have no moral standards and they think they're good.

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

Sen Osmanlilar gibi katilsin...

maloom hast chi dari zer mizanee .har 2 taeet00n 1 hastid .keshvar koochike amma na NIROO.motasefam baratoon.

[Marie]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

have a look to my blog of course turkey wouldnt be able now and in the future to enter in eu

http://www.illegalstate.blogspot.com/

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

That's Wright

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

The American political establishment with their lap dogs in England along with their Zionist benefactors worldwide, are the single most dangerous threat to European nations. One of the many strategic reasons why Washington has been trying hard to promote Turkish integration within Europe is to undermine Europe's great potential -- one that could theoretically surpass the political primacy America is enjoying today. The other major reason why Washington relentlessly promotes the Turkish issues is because of Ankara's close geo-strategic relationship with Tel-Aviv. Concurrently, Washington's utter fear of a Russian resurgence, along with Moscow's close regional allies, slowly rising from their Soviet ashes, is also prompting Washington to undermine Russian spheres of influences worldwide. This profound fear of Russia reestablishing its economic and military power worldwide is precisely why Washington has been providing support for such nations as Bosnia, Albania, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and indirectly supporting the bloody rebellion within Chechnya.

Regarding Turkey's EU bid: needless to say, it would be suicidal for Europe to incorporate the nation of Turkey within its structures. Besides the obvious fact that Turkey is a relatively primitive nation with an Islamic heritage and a bloody past, Turkey has serious geo-political problems with virtually everyone of it's neighbors. Turkey has serious territorial disputes with Armenians, Greeks, Cypriots, Iranians and Syrians. Moreover, Turkey has serious internal domestic issues with its Kurdish population and resurging Islamic fundamentalists. I do not believe that European nations are so stupid as to turn these Turkish "terminal ailments" into European ones. No European nation, however liberal, is foolish enough to consciously inflict itself with the aforementioned Turkish problems. Despite all your well founded concerns, I have not see a single tangible evidence that the European Union is truly preparing to incorporate Turkey within its organization. The real problem, or dilemma, for Europe is that it needs Turkey as a buffer nation strategically situated at the crossroads of the Eurasian continent. Moreover, Turkey's large armed forces is also important for the military establishment and defense industry of Europe. Considering the aforementioned, it is no surprise that official European policy is to keep Turkey at an arms length -- that is, close but not too close.

Throughout the past twenty years or so, every time Turkey got close in its bid to join the European Union, some European nation throws a "block" that thereby delays Turkey's "application process" for many years. European Union nations have utilized many of these diplomatic "blocks" to keep Turkey at a safe distance. Just to mention a few: the Armenian Genocide issue comes up periodically, at opportune times, to undermine Turkeys international stature; the plight of the Kurds is also being constantly used as a means of highlighting Turkey's severe human rights abuses; the situation within Turkish occupied northern Cyprus and the problems with Greece regarding the disputed islands are also major geo-political issues that European Union use to undermine Turkish entry bids. More recently, even the Turkish economic blockade of the Armenian Republic was brought up by European officials as a 'problem'.

However, one can rightfully ask: what is the likelihood of Turkey joining the European Union 'after' it comprehensively resolves all its internal and external problems? The only logical answer to that rhetorical question that I can see is the following: if Turkey "comprehensively and completely" solved all its geo-political and socio-political problems -- there would be no Turkey left to speak of. Large portions of disputed lands within Turkey would return to its rightful owners and the Kurds will have independence. Turkey exists today as a superficial nation, much similar to the Zionist state of Israel, that was the artificial byproduct of several Europe nations at the end of the First World War. Turkey will eventually disintegrate and disappear into the pages of history -- it is only a matter of time. Europeans realize this and, thus, will never accept such a cancerous tumor within their domain.

When you people hear official European comments insinuating that Turkey will eventually join the European Union, realize that it is just a diplomatic chess game that is being played with Turkey. The Turks do realize this as well, which is why there is growing public sentiments within Turkey today that wants their government to give up on their 'futile' effort in pursing a membership within European Union. Again, I need to reiterate that Europe needs Turkey as a geo-strategic buffer and as a consumer state within the foreseeable future. Therefore, it will do its best not to completely alienate Ankara. However, within this diplomatic chess game, the real danger comes from Washington and London along with their Zionist parasites. If Washington and London are given the opportunity of dictating or heavily influencing domestic and foreign policy of Europe - it will become death of Europe and western civilization as we know it. My only hope for the survival of Europe and, thus, western civilization, is for the nations of France, Germany and Russia to somehow consolidate their resources and politically unite.

THAT'S WRIGHT

[Marie]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

maybe cuz its a terrorist state..

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

Who let this qunadz in our fourm, hope he gets his ass band soon. And do you know that the people of europe don't want Turkey in it nor do the countries. lol

[Kuja]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

Sarkozy seems determined.I dont believe he will change just for USA.

[Armenian]

Re: Why Turkey will never be admitted into the European Union

The following is what I written within the HAM website last week about Sarkozy's rise as president of France.

In my opinion, Armenians who are applauding Sarkozy's win in France because of his 'anti-Turkish' rhetoric are being somewhat shortsighted and naive.



It is quite natural to assume that Sarkozy's J-e-wish roots would have helped shape his overall outlook on life and his approach to politics. It is also obvious that this man in question seems to be very fond of the criminal "Neoconservative" Kabal running the show in Washington DC. Moreover, his anti-Russian, anti-Iranian sentiments are quite pronounced within his political rhetoric. There is also a danger that he might eventually drag France into the bogus "War on Terror" as well.

Take a close look at his recent comment about Russia and America:

In an interview ahead of the May 6 runoff, Sarkozy said, "If you asked me which of the [two] countries France will have closer relations with - the United States or Russia, known to us for its Chechen war -'the U.S.' would be my answer."

After the global chaos and destruction that has been created by the bloodthirsty Kabal in Washington DC how dare this Sarkozy character complain about Russian's actions within Chechnya? Does anyone else see how absurd of a comment this is by him, especially coming from a man that is to lead France?

As a result, I fear that his political rhetoric and his foreign policy formulations may in the longterm be actually harmful to Armenia's interests. So, let's not be surprised if in the future Sarkozy "moderates" his anti-Turkish stance - due his greater fears/paranoia over the Arab/Persian Muslim world and his very warm sentiment towards the Kabal in Washington DC. Sarkozy or no Sarkozy Turks would have never been admitted into the European Union. Thus, in the big picture, Sarkozy's win is a potential setback for European politics, not to mention Russian, Iranian and Armenian interests.

I hope I'm wrong but only time will tell.

In related news from Moscow:

Russian analysts warily optimistic over Sarkozy win

Nicolas Sarkozy's victory in France's presidential polls Sunday is unlikely to influence the country's traditionally amicable relations with Russia, but they may lack warmth, Russian analysts said in post-election comments. Conservative Sarkozy won 53% of the vote, against 47% for Socialist Segolene Royal. Sarkozy, who served as finance and interior minister in Jacques Chirac's outgoing government, is an advocate of liberal economic reforms and tough policies on crime and immigration. He opposes further European Union expansion, but is a staunch champion of trans-Atlantic integration. His vision for France's policy regarding Russia is not immediately clear. In an interview ahead of the May 6 runoff, Sarkozy said, "If you asked me which of the [two] countries France will have closer relations with - the United States or Russia, known to us for its Chechen war -'the U.S.' would be my answer."

Speaking to Europe 1 radio, he said that if elected France's next president, he would raise the issue with President Vladimir Putin, as "Russian democracy has progress to make."

The remarks alerted France watchers in Russia, making some predict a chill in the relations with the Kremlin, accused by human rights organizations of abuses in Chechnya, where Moscow has been intermittently waging a war against separatist militants since 1994. Leonid xxxxsky, second in charge of the international relations committee in parliament's State Duma lower house, described Sarkozy's pronouncements on Russia as "dubious."

Strategic Analysis Institute Director Alexander Konovalov, however, downplayed their possible impact on relations between the two countries: "Both Sarkozy and Royal have taken issue with Russia on human rights and European values. But we'll remain among France's major partners, as has historically been the case."

Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Politika think tank, said that under Sarkozy, relations will, perhaps, lack the warmth of his predecessor, Chirac.

"Unlike Jacques Chirac, Sarkozy has no close personal relations with the Russian leadership," Nikonov said. "There is no reason therefore to expect a quick rapprochement between Russia and France, especially given that Russia's relations with NATO and the European Union, of which France is part, are far from brilliant."

Chirac has been friends with Putin, and both were allied in their opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But Sarkozy, belonging to the same Conservative UMP party as Chirac, seeks to repair the trans-Atlantic rift caused by the Iraq war, and has already signaled to President George W. Bush that Washington could rely on the friendship of France. According to International Security Center Director Alexei Arbatov, "France will be pursuing closer cooperation between the European Union and the U.S., and will support the U.S. in its increasingly aggressive, heavy handed global policies."

Bernard Owen, the head of France's Comparative Elections Study Center, whose own political science research focuses on Russia, said major changes in French-Russian relations are unlikely as "Russia is an important country and one to be reckoned with."

He put Sarkozy's comments on Chechnya down to his lack of knowledge of the real situation.

"Me personally, I think he is not informed well enough about developments in Chechnya," Owen said in a RIA Novosti interview. Senior Russian lawmakers also said French-Russian relations are unlikely to suffer under Sarkozy, but predicted his pro-American stance would make France less independent in its international policies.

"Sarkozy's victory gives reason to believe relations between Russia and France will be at least as steady, but I hope they will develop further," said the speaker of Russia's lower house, Boris Gryzlov. He is the leader of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, with which Sarkozy's Union pour un Mouvement Populaire has long-standing ties. UMP representatives attended United Russia's national congress last December, at which Gryzlov's party approved an action plan in the lead up to a legislative election set for late 2007.

In France, however, quite a few people seem concerned about where Sarkozy's tough style may leave them. His Socialist rival warned ahead of the runoff ballot that the 52-year-old hardliner would bring in a climate of brutality if elected. Indeed, France's new leader has been hugely unpopular with North African immigrants since he ordered the violent suppression of riots in the fall of 2005 when serving as interior minister. Following Sarkozy's election this Sunday, youths from immigrant communities torched cars and clashed with police in protest. Overnight, about 35 cars were reportedly set on fire in Paris alone, and 79 people were detained for taking part in the protests. According to official French statistics, a total of 172 automobiles were set alight in the central Ile de France province.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070507/65039060.html