European Union to restart accession talks with Turkey next month

[7by7]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

Only from ignorant, intolerant bigots.

[simple1]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

So not hard to guess that that tosser Blair put his signature to it, was it?

Blair with all the other member States.

Be interesting to see Turkey's response, if they met the EU membership conditions and were then declined due to voter backlash. I know there has been a spat because Turkey wanted some payback with Israel, but if Turkey were to pull out of NATO as a result it would have significant EU & regional security implications

Edited October 26, 2013 by simple1

[Steely Dan]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

Only from ignorant, intolerant bigots.

Only 20% of EU citizens polled are for Turkish accession and only 44% of Turks are! It sure looks like the ignorant intolerant bigots have a large majority.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-european-union-relations-experiencing-chilly-period-poll.aspx?PageID=238&NID=54709&NewsCatID=351

[7by7]

Being against Turkish entry to the EU on political, economic etc. grounds is one thing.

Being part of "the mother of all backlashes" if Turkey does join purely because it is a Muslim state is completely different.

A difference I'd have thought anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see.

Of course, we all know how reliable opinion poll results are.

Edited October 26, 2013 by 7by7

[folium]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

Only from ignorant, intolerant bigots.

It sure looks like the ignorant intolerant bigots have a large majority.

Possibly in certain quarters of TVF....

[Publicus]

Since Turkey came under the dominance of the Peace and Justice Party and its strongman leader, both the government and a significant number of the population have been moving away from Europe and what might be called an EU system of values (as compiled in the 35 particular requirements of membership).

Now we see that by purchasing an air defense system from the CCP-PRC, Turkey is rupturing its relations with its NATO allies, all but two of which are in Europe. Turkey ostensibly has its own reasons for deciding on the CCP-PRC system, which is that Beijing agreed to technology transfer, meaning much of the systems would be manufactured in Turkey. However, the purchase of a major military weapons system from a government that is openly hostile to democracy and human rights is telling. It could appear now that Turkey would do business with the devil himself.

And after all this time, Turkey and the EU are still bogged down in discussing the same first one of the 35 criteria. More over, a pre-Peace and Justice Party Turkey in NATO would never have done any kind of military business with a government such as exists in Beijing.

Indeed, the Peace and Justice Party's leadership's focus on creating a Turkey that is an interlocutor between Europe and Asia would create a new identity and role for Turkey. PM Erdogan and his crew, led by a delusionary foreign minister, are not doing very well in pursuing this new self-appointed role, but they are determined to see it through - one could say bumble their way through to its ultimate conclusion, ie., a muddle.

For the West, these are the two dominant aspects of contemporary Turkey, i.e., the EU and NATO. Turkey is not doing well in respect to either. It is getting time to consider cutting Turkey loose and to begin to put the squeeze on it. On paper Turkey should be at least as important as Iran, however, the reality is that Turkey can't ever get up to the level of being an independent power or power broker.

Neither is Turkey serving as the role model to the Arab Spring populations the world thought it could, again, on paper.

The slow learner Erdogan doesn't know it yet but he can't have a redo of a contemporary Ottoman Turkey, i.e., a Turkey with the geostrategic reach and grasp of the Ottoman Empire, if not literally its physical presence. So the question becomes, does the West allow Turkey to play out that inability to its ultimate point of failure, or should the West just up and bitch slap Turkey back to reality right now,

It seems to me the contemporary world moves too fast for the West to show much more patience in the matter. But then the West has to realize that Turkey only looks good on paper.

[NeverSure]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

So not hard to guess that that tosser Blair put his signature to it, was it?

Blair with all the other member States.

Be interesting to see Turkey's response, if they met the EU membership conditions and were then declined due to voter backlash. I know there has been a spat because Turkey wanted some payback with Israel, but if Turkey were to pull out of NATO as a result it would have significant EU & regional security implications

I don't know. Turkey has gotten much of its military strength from the US. Now that it seems inclined to do biz with China, that will change.

The approximately 90 nukes which Turkey "has" belong to the US. Turkey is unable to fire them without US help. They are there mostly to benefit the US which likes to have assets scattered around the world.

The US has been good to Turkey in selling them arms, but that could quickly change including getting spare parts. The US is quick to change policy and you can see Egypt for a recent example of that. Thailand is another. You're either friend or foe, and the US makes that clear.

As for any loss to NATO regarding Turkey, the other allies can handle it especially with the US in the mix.

[folium]

Since Turkey came under the dominance of the Peace and Justice Party and its strongman leader, both the government and a significant number of the population have been moving away from Europe and what might be called an EU system of values (as compiled in the 35 particular requirements of membership).

Now we see that by purchasing an air defense system from the CCP-PRC, Turkey is rupturing its relations with its NATO allies, all but two of which are in Europe. Turkey ostensibly has its own reasons for deciding on the CCP-PRC system, which is that Beijing agreed to technology transfer, meaning much of the systems would be manufactured in Turkey. However, the purchase of a major military weapons system from a government that is openly hostile to democracy and human rights is telling. It could appear now that Turkey would do business with the devil himself.

And after all this time, Turkey and the EU are still bogged down in discussing the same first one of the 35 criteria. More over, a pre-Peace and Justice Party Turkey in NATO would never have done any kind of military business with a government such as exists in Beijing.

Indeed, the Peace and Justice Party's leadership's focus on creating a Turkey that is an interlocutor between Europe and Asia would create a new identity and role for Turkey. PM Erdogan and his crew, led by a delusionary foreign minister, are not doing very well in pursuing this new self-appointed role, but they are determined to see it through - one could say bumble their way through to its ultimate conclusion, ie., a muddle.

For the West, these are the two dominant aspects of contemporary Turkey, i.e., the EU and NATO. Turkey is not doing well in respect to either. It is getting time to consider cutting Turkey loose and to begin to put the squeeze on it. On paper Turkey should be at least as important as Iran, however, the reality is that Turkey can't ever get up to the level of being an independent power or power broker.

Neither is Turkey serving as the role model to the Arab Spring populations the world thought it could, again, on paper.

The slow learner Erdogan doesn't know it yet but he can't have a redo of a contemporary Ottoman Turkey, i.e., a Turkey with the geostrategic reach and grasp of the Ottoman Empire, if not literally its physical presence. So the question becomes, does the West allow Turkey to play out that inability to its ultimate point of failure, or should the West just up and bitch slap Turkey back to reality right now,

It seems to me the contemporary world moves too fast for the West to show much more patience in the matter. But then the West has to realize that Turkey only looks good on paper.

Oh lordy....

"since Turkey came under the dominance of the Peace & Justice Party "(AKP) by which I presume you mean their election victories in 2002, 2007 and 2011. Each time increasing their share of the popular vote.

Quite agree that Erdogan is an increasingly autocratic premier.

Disenchantment with the EU project is hardly surprising given the foot-dragging led by Austria and France, and with Cyprus a & Greece being as obstructive as possible (because of your favourite island in the Eastern Med, Cyprus)

Buying missile system from China...technology transfer is key to allow Turkey to enhance its domestic arms industry, plus don't forget price is a consideration. As for supping with the devil and pre-AKP governments not dreaming of doing deals with non-NATO authoritarian countries, wrong again.

Traditionally the US was the pre-eminent arms supplier to Turkey until 1975 when the US Congress slapped an arms embargo on Turkey (despite the opposition of Pres. Ford) for guess what....? Invading Cyprus in 1974. That pesky island again! While arms supplies were resumed in 1980 this was a nasty shock so Turkey under non-AKP governments began to diversify their weapons suppliers, firstly to Germany, then Spain and Italy and between 1995-97, again well pre-AKP, bought a considerable amount of BTR 80s (armoured personnel carriers) and Mi-17s or Hips (transport hels) from that well-known, non-NATO, authoritarian country aka Russia.....

Turkey is considering buying more helicopters from Russia as the US have pulled out of a deal to sell them Super Cobras and the Agusta T129 is apparently not fit for purpose.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10619754.asp

Don't quite understand your comments that "Turkey only looks good on paper"...in what respect?

As a bridge between Europe and the rest of Asia turkey cannot change its geographical location and remains a key strategic linchpin north towards Russia, east towards the Central Asia and south and south East to the Middle East. That's why Incirlik is such an important USAF base and home to the nuclear warheads stored in Turkey. In terms of intelligence gathering Turkey is also very well located. Don't forget the oil/gas pipelines that cross and terminate in Turkey.

http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=247:the-role-of-turkey-in-the-global-energy-bolstering-energy-infrastructure-security&catid=106:energysecuritycontent0510&Itemid=361

Early dreams of linking up with Turkic communities in Central Asia (which predated AKP and appeared post the USSR collapse) have largely subsided and I don't get your comment about a "redo of a contemporary Ottoman Turkey"...where?

What reality do you so charmingly want to slap Turkey back into?

How is Turkey not as important as Iran?

Turkey has come a long way from a failing economy, rampant inflation, almost as many military coups as LOS, and virtual army rule for decades. It still has much to resolve namely the Kurds, other minority groups and its treatment of journalists is shocking. But it is a largely functioning democracy, with a vastly improved if somewhat fragile economy, and has the second largest military in NATO with huge amounts of operational experience, and all within a majority-muslim country. Not the perfect role model but could be that if it puts it mind to it.

Personally I would far rather have Turkey on my side than against me and also feel that it has been shoddily treated by the EU. Taking in Greece and not Turkey....strewth, that was a bright idea!

Edited October 26, 2013 by folium

[folium]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

So not hard to guess that that tosser Blair put his signature to it, was it?

Blair with all the other member States.

Be interesting to see Turkey's response, if they met the EU membership conditions and were then declined due to voter backlash. I know there has been a spat because Turkey wanted some payback with Israel, but if Turkey were to pull out of NATO as a result it would have significant EU & regional security implications

I don't know. Turkey has gotten much of its military strength from the US. Now that it seems inclined to do biz with China, that will change.

The approximately 90 nukes which Turkey "has" belong to the US. Turkey is unable to fire them without US help. They are there mostly to benefit the US which likes to have assets scattered around the world.

The US has been good to Turkey in selling them arms, but that could quickly change including getting spare parts. The US is quick to change policy and you can see Egypt for a recent example of that. Thailand is another. You're either friend or foe, and the US makes that clear.

As for any loss to NATO regarding Turkey, the other allies can handle it especially with the US in the mix.

As earlier pointed out the US monopoly of arms supplies to Turkey ended with the US arms embargo of 1975-79.

The missile deal with China is still to be finalized and may be a bargaining tool to extract a better price or more technology transfer from the US or indeed Russia. There are plenty of willing arms suppliers to be played off against each other.

The nuclear devices at Incirlik AFB are in fact air delivered B61s, which are US owned and managed, like the ones that used to be held at Lakenheath in the UK, and are "reportedly" still in bases in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy. US nuclear missiles in Turkey have a long history and the Jupiters at Cigli AFB near Izmir triggered the deployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba and the ensuing Missile Crisis in 1963.

Losing Turkey from NATO would be more of a political and geostrategic blow than a tactical one. But not good news anyhow and the rest of NATO would not be able to or want to pick up the slack.

[NeverSure]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

So not hard to guess that that tosser Blair put his signature to it, was it?

Blair with all the other member States.

Be interesting to see Turkey's response, if they met the EU membership conditions and were then declined due to voter backlash. I know there has been a spat because Turkey wanted some payback with Israel, but if Turkey were to pull out of NATO as a result it would have significant EU & regional security implications

I don't know. Turkey has gotten much of its military strength from the US. Now that it seems inclined to do biz with China, that will change.

The approximately 90 nukes which Turkey "has" belong to the US. Turkey is unable to fire them without US help. They are there mostly to benefit the US which likes to have assets scattered around the world.

The US has been good to Turkey in selling them arms, but that could quickly change including getting spare parts. The US is quick to change policy and you can see Egypt for a recent example of that. Thailand is another. You're either friend or foe, and the US makes that clear.

As for any loss to NATO regarding Turkey, the other allies can handle it especially with the US in the mix.

As earlier pointed out the US monopoly of arms supplies to Turkey ended with the US arms embargo of 1975-79.

The missile deal with China is still to be finalized and may be a bargaining tool to extract a better price or more technology transfer from the US or indeed Russia. There are plenty of willing arms suppliers to be played off against each other.

The nuclear devices at Incirlik AFB are in fact air delivered B61s, which are US owned and managed, like the ones that used to be held at Lakenheath in the UK, and are "reportedly" still in bases in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy. US nuclear missiles in Turkey have a long history and the Jupiters at Cigli AFB near Izmir triggered the deployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba and the ensuing Missile Crisis in 1963.

Losing Turkey from NATO would be more of a political and geostrategic blow than a tactical one. But not good news anyhow and the rest of NATO would not be able to or want to pick up the slack.

I agree with much of what you're saying except the part about the rest of NATO not being able to pick up the slack.

Less and less does the US need a place like Turkey as it turns more to the water and to long range bombers. The water gives stealth to nuclear subs and flexibility to carrier groups and other assets. The long range supersonic stealth bombers add a new dimension.

The US has a history of not screwing around with countries which don't show clear loyalty. Messing with China doesn't cut it.

We'll see...

[Scott]

I spent considerable time working in Turkey and a good portion of that worked was in association with the US Military. The US views Turkey in a similar light as they do Thailand. They are geopolitically important and they are allies. Both countries have screwed around with that alliance, but they are important allies.

I don't think that in reality the US cares too much whether Turkey is a member of the EU or not, but I do think the US will support Turkey getting what it wants, if it wants to be a part of the EU. I also think that the US would rather have Turkey, and Thailand for that matter, more on their side than someone else's side.

The final point is that in both Turkey and Thailand, the military play a pivotal role in the running of the country. In both, if you want something done, you do not call the PM, you call the head of the military. In essence, the military run the country in both cases. Powerful militaries make powerful friends and even worse enemies.

The actual idea of Turkey being in the EU is not really the question, it's more about where will it be if it isn't in the EU or aspiring to be a part of the EU.

Mine is an opinion based on my limited exposure with both countries.

[Steely Dan]

Letting a muslim country join the EU would cause the mother of all backlashes if you ask me.

Only from ignorant, intolerant bigots.

It sure looks like the ignorant intolerant bigots have a large majority.

Possibly in certain quarters of TVF....

There's now't funnier than seeing progressives trying to marginalize the majority, though provided our politicians are progressive ideologues the majority seldom get their wishes anyway.

[Steely Dan]

Folium wrote

Personally I would far rather have Turkey on my side than against me and also feel that it has been shoddily treated by the EU. Taking in Greece and not Turkey....strewth, that was a bright idea!

And I would rather have South Korea than either of them, but it isn't in Europe, nor is Turkey, if we leave your plates on the shelf for a minute else Australia might as well join in union with Africa and Antarctica. Greece was 'taken' as you put it seeing as it is in the heart of Europe and indeed contributed hugely to Judeo-Christian science and philosophy, you can't say the same of Turkey since the fall of Constantinople.

[7by7]

Turkey is part of Europe in many ways already.

For example:-

• Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe.
• Turkey is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights and a member of the European Court of Human Rights (perhaps not a good example considering Turkey's human rights record; but it does show Turkey as part of Europe).
• Turkey is a member of UEFA and it's teams play in European competitions such as the Champions League. It's national team plays in the European Championship and in the European qualifying rounds for the World Cup.
• Turkey is a member of European Broadcasting Union

One cannot use the argument that Turkey should be denied membership of the EU because geographically most of it is not in Europe: that ship sailed long ago.

Edited October 27, 2013 by 7by7

[folium]

Turkey is part of Europe in many ways already.

For example:-

• Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe.
• Turkey is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights and a member of the European Court of Human Rights (perhaps not a good example considering Turkey's human rights record; but it does show Turkey as part of Europe).
• Turkey is a member of UEFA and it's teams play in European competitions such as the Champions League. It's national team plays in the European Championship and in the European qualifying rounds for the World Cup.
• Turkey is a member of European Broadcasting Union

One cannot use the argument that Turkey should be denied membership of the EU because geographically most of it is not in Europe: that ship sailed long ago.

How could you forget the most important European institution of all time, that has been in existence since 1956.......

The Eurovision Song Contest

Turkey has appeared in this since 1975. Other outliers that contest this artistic high-point are Israel, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Even Morocco turned up once, was humiliated and never seen again....

Amazing how flexible 'Europe's" boundaries can be when you put your mind to it.

[Publicus]

I don't know. Turkey has gotten much of its military strength from the US. Now that it seems inclined to do biz with China, that will change.

The approximately 90 nukes which Turkey "has" belong to the US. Turkey is unable to fire them without US help. They are there mostly to benefit the US which likes to have assets scattered around the world.

The US has been good to Turkey in selling them arms, but that could quickly change including getting spare parts. The US is quick to change policy and you can see Egypt for a recent example of that. Thailand is another. You're either friend or foe, and the US makes that clear.

As for any loss to NATO regarding Turkey, the other allies can handle it especially with the US in the mix.

As earlier pointed out the US monopoly of arms supplies to Turkey ended with the US arms embargo of 1975-79.

The missile deal with China is still to be finalized and may be a bargaining tool to extract a better price or more technology transfer from the US or indeed Russia. There are plenty of willing arms suppliers to be played off against each other.

The nuclear devices at Incirlik AFB are in fact air delivered B61s, which are US owned and managed, like the ones that used to be held at Lakenheath in the UK, and are "reportedly" still in bases in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy. US nuclear missiles in Turkey have a long history and the Jupiters at Cigli AFB near Izmir triggered the deployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba and the ensuing Missile Crisis in 1963.

Losing Turkey from NATO would be more of a political and geostrategic blow than a tactical one. But not good news anyhow and the rest of NATO would not be able to or want to pick up the slack.

I agree with much of what you're saying except the part about the rest of NATO not being able to pick up the slack.

Less and less does the US need a place like Turkey as it turns more to the water and to long range bombers. The water gives stealth to nuclear subs and flexibility to carrier groups and other assets. The long range supersonic stealth bombers add a new dimension.

The US has a history of not screwing around with countries which don't show clear loyalty. Messing with China doesn't cut it.

We'll see...

Indeed, the Pentagon's new strategic concept of super high tech AirSea Battle (ASB) radically changes everything about the military posture of the United States and directly affects Turkey itself, Turkey in NATO and the matter of Turkey's possible accession to the EU.

AirSea Battle consists of US air and naval forces operating on an integrated basis. The AirSea Battle strategy allows the air and naval forces of the United States to stand off any continent and conduct high tech missle, fighter and bomber assaults that can penetrate the defenses of any country, the CCP-PRC especially and in particular, but any country, to include Russia. The AirSea Battle strategy includes either or both attack and boomer submarines and ICBMs in the continental United States - the latter if necessary.

Under the AirSea Battle strategy, missiles and nuclear warheads in places such as Turkey become both irrelevant and obsolete and, perhaps, a hindrance, a strategic limitation. Relying on an increasingly unreliable government, such as in this instance the AKP government of Turkey, would become unnecessary under the AirSea Battle strategy. Moreover, Turkey isn't even remotely close to EU accession and, as I point out in previous posts, is moving away from Europe and EU values, making its candidacy for accession all the less likely..

AirSea Battle, not incidentally, relegates an army as a country's major fighting force. AirSea Battle relies principally on integrated air and naval forces supported by Marine combat forces. Army forces are declassed to a backup role of support, cleanup and occupation of territory essentially already neutralized by ASB combat forces.

Turkey is most welcome to play in the EUFA and to purchase weapons systems from the CCP-PRC, and even to be expelled from NATO, or to quit NATO.

Would the United States prefer to have Turkey as an ally? Of course it would. Washington has always supported Turkey's controversial accession to the EU, for example, but more because that's what Turkey used to consider of great importance and used to want with some degree of intensity. Used to want.

Turkey's previous purchases of arms from governments outside of NATO and the EU member states, from other than the US in particular, occurred mostly because the US had embargoed arms sales to Turkey due to a coup, an extra constitutional event that used to occur there with some frequency and regularity. US law requires such an embargo, as recently occurred concerning Egypt.

However, Turkey ain't what it used to be and still isn't going to be what it never was.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

I don't know. Turkey has gotten much of its military strength from the US. Now that it seems inclined to do biz with China, that will change.

The approximately 90 nukes which Turkey "has" belong to the US. Turkey is unable to fire them without US help. They are there mostly to benefit the US which likes to have assets scattered around the world.

The US has been good to Turkey in selling them arms, but that could quickly change including getting spare parts. The US is quick to change policy and you can see Egypt for a recent example of that. Thailand is another. You're either friend or foe, and the US makes that clear.

As for any loss to NATO regarding Turkey, the other allies can handle it especially with the US in the mix.

As earlier pointed out the US monopoly of arms supplies to Turkey ended with the US arms embargo of 1975-79.

The missile deal with China is still to be finalized and may be a bargaining tool to extract a better price or more technology transfer from the US or indeed Russia. There are plenty of willing arms suppliers to be played off against each other.

The nuclear devices at Incirlik AFB are in fact air delivered B61s, which are US owned and managed, like the ones that used to be held at Lakenheath in the UK, and are "reportedly" still in bases in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy. US nuclear missiles in Turkey have a long history and the Jupiters at Cigli AFB near Izmir triggered the deployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba and the ensuing Missile Crisis in 1963.

Losing Turkey from NATO would be more of a political and geostrategic blow than a tactical one. But not good news anyhow and the rest of NATO would not be able to or want to pick up the slack.

I agree with much of what you're saying except the part about the rest of NATO not being able to pick up the slack.

Less and less does the US need a place like Turkey as it turns more to the water and to long range bombers. The water gives stealth to nuclear subs and flexibility to carrier groups and other assets. The long range supersonic stealth bombers add a new dimension.

The US has a history of not screwing around with countries which don't show clear loyalty. Messing with China doesn't cut it.

We'll see...

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, involving US Jupiter missiles in Turkey, was not precipitated by the presence of the missiles in Turkey per se.

It's of passing mention and interest to this thread topic, so I don't intend to make a big deal of it.

It would suffice to say the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962 was precipitated by the madness of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev after Prez Kennedy's miserable and pathetic performance at the Vienna summit between the two. Kennedy was so awful that Khrushchev concluded that he could easily push Kennedy around, which is the major reason Kennedy had to stand up against Khrushchev in that nearly fatal instance of blatant Soviet aggression 90 miles away from the United States in Castro's Cuba.

[simple1]

In this topic & others talking to potential and actual conflict zones many posters boast of the overwhelming fire power and military strength of the US, yet fail to mention the general inability of the US to win the peace

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. The topic is about Turkey - EU.

[NeverSure]

In this topic & others talking to potential and actual conflict zones many posters boast of the overwhelming fire power and military strength of the US, yet fail to mention the general inability of the US to win the peace

There is no such thing as winning the peace in this world of conflicting cultures and one religious dogma which believes the rest of us must convert or die.

There is only keeping them at bay, understanding that they will try another tactic. In that regard, the US can level anything if the need arises.

[NeverSure]

I have no clue what business it is of the US as to whether Turkey joins the EU. If I were the EU I wouldn't care one whit what the US thought about it.

If Turkey was a US neighbor and wanted free access for its 70+ million people, I guarantee you the answer would be "No," just as it is with Mexico.

A difference would be that Mexico has a Christian (Catholic) culture and isn't to be feared for much more than the drug smuggling and criminal gangs who mostly fight and kill each other. The other problem of course is the cost of hosting them and letting them integrate.

But a Muslim country on the border with free access? Forgetaboutit.

[Scott]

This will be the final reminder to stay on topic. The topic is about the EU and Turkey. It is not about the ability/inability of the US military.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted.

[simple1]

In this topic & others talking to potential and actual conflict zones many posters boast of the overwhelming fire power and military strength of the US, yet fail to mention the general inability of the US to win the peace

There is no such thing as winning the peace in this world of conflicting cultures and one religious dogma which believes the rest of us must convert or die.

There is only keeping them at bay, understanding that they will try another tactic. In that regard, the US can level anything if the need arises.

I trust Scott will permit a response.

You and others keep on keeping on about killings and destruction & at the same time ignoring the consequences. It is all about putting in place policies for "winning the peace" otherwise the US/NATO will end up in never ending wars with ongoing loss of life of their military personnel, haemorrhaging of billions of dollars and so on.

"convert or die" only applies to a very small minority with this outlook the likes of whom have in certain situations, such as the Sunni Triangle in Iraq, were taken on by the local Sunni leaders, with support by the US. The same review of policy is being taken by ISAF and the Afghan security forces to enable the locals at town and village level to take on the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups, equally so endeavouring to assist the Pakistani government - in other words policies aiming to eventually win the peace. This approach may take 10/40 years, but it damn site better than solely being focussed on the kill, kill approach without an end in sight.

As previously posted I am of the belief that the West needs to desist in interfering in the political affairs of majority Islamic countries that has been one of the major contributing factors to the violence and radicalisation for the past 140 years. This in my opinion is the best approach to "keeping them a bay"

[Credo]

No problem with leaving them alone, but they have a tendency to be nasty to one another and then large numbers of them tend to leave their home country and tend to end up as refugees and end up in our countries.

I have no problem with Muslims or Islam or any other religion, but large numbers coming to our countries puts a lot of pressure on resources, regardless of religious affiliation. The closer the background and culture, the easier it is to assimilate.

[NeverSure]

In this topic & others talking to potential and actual conflict zones many posters boast of the overwhelming fire power and military strength of the US, yet fail to mention the general inability of the US to win the peace

There is no such thing as winning the peace in this world of conflicting cultures and one religious dogma which believes the rest of us must convert or die.

There is only keeping them at bay, understanding that they will try another tactic. In that regard, the US can level anything if the need arises.

I trust Scott will permit a response.

You and others keep on keeping on about killings and destruction & at the same time ignoring the consequences. It is all about putting in place policies for "winning the peace" otherwise the US/NATO will end up in never ending wars with ongoing loss of life of their military personnel, haemorrhaging of billions of dollars and so on.

"convert or die" only applies to a very small minority with this outlook the likes of whom have in certain situations, such as the Sunni Triangle in Iraq, were taken on by the local Sunni leaders, with support by the US. The same review of policy is being taken by ISAF and the Afghan security forces to enable the locals at town and village level to take on the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups, equally so endeavouring to assist the Pakistani government - in other words policies aiming to eventually win the peace. This approach may take 10/40 years, but it dam_n site better than solely being focussed on the kill, kill approach without an end in sight.

As previously posted I am of the belief that the West needs to desist in interfering in the political affairs of majority Islamic countries that has been one of the major contributing factors to the violence and radicalisation for the past 140 years. This in my opinion is the best approach to "keeping them a bay"

This is on topic.

The wars in S. Europe (or W. Asia if you prefer) will never stop. You really need to understand that Islamic terrorists kill people all over the world and there will never be a peace unless they change. They are the killers. There is no other group like them in the world.

You simply cannot hold NATO responsible for there not being a peace. The best NATO can do is try to keep them at bay.

Turkey is almost totally Muslim and among them are radicals. This is unlike anything that's historically been in the EU or that fits the EU culture.

If the EU opens its doors to them, I predict that it will be the extremists who will be most interested in having unfettered access to EU countries and the EU will never be the same, much to its regret.

In your last paragraph, you show only that you don't know who started the world wide conflict or how horrible some of their deeds have been. That's daily now and it's worldwide. They mass kill civilians ala the London train bombing etc. etc.

Stop apologizing for them please, and show that at least you know the truth.

Thank you.

[7by7]

Using your logic and prejudices the activities of the IRA and other republican terrorists means that the Republic of Ireland should not have been admitted to the EU; the activities of ETA means that Spain shouldn't have been; ditto for the Red Army Faction and Germany! I could go on.

Islamic fundamentalists and terror groups no more represent ordinary Muslims, in Turkey or anywhere, than the above groups represent ordinary people in those countries.

Terrorists of whatever ideology can and do already operate within the EU. Turkey's admission wont change that one iota.

[simple1]

In this topic & others talking to potential and actual conflict zones many posters boast of the overwhelming fire power and military strength of the US, yet fail to mention the general inability of the US to win the peace

There is no such thing as winning the peace in this world of conflicting cultures and one religious dogma which believes the rest of us must convert or die.

There is only keeping them at bay, understanding that they will try another tactic. In that regard, the US can level anything if the need arises.

I trust Scott will permit a response.

You and others keep on keeping on about killings and destruction & at the same time ignoring the consequences. It is all about putting in place policies for "winning the peace" otherwise the US/NATO will end up in never ending wars with ongoing loss of life of their military personnel, haemorrhaging of billions of dollars and so on.

"convert or die" only applies to a very small minority with this outlook the likes of whom have in certain situations, such as the Sunni Triangle in Iraq, were taken on by the local Sunni leaders, with support by the US. The same review of policy is being taken by ISAF and the Afghan security forces to enable the locals at town and village level to take on the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups, equally so endeavouring to assist the Pakistani government - in other words policies aiming to eventually win the peace. This approach may take 10/40 years, but it dam_n site better than solely being focussed on the kill, kill approach without an end in sight.

As previously posted I am of the belief that the West needs to desist in interfering in the political affairs of majority Islamic countries that has been one of the major contributing factors to the violence and radicalisation for the past 140 years. This in my opinion is the best approach to "keeping them a bay"

This is on topic.

The wars in S. Europe (or W. Asia if you prefer) will never stop. You really need to understand that Islamic terrorists kill people all over the world and there will never be a peace unless they change. They are the killers. There is no other group like them in the world.

You simply cannot hold NATO responsible for there not being a peace. The best NATO can do is try to keep them at bay.

Turkey is almost totally Muslim and among them are radicals. This is unlike anything that's historically been in the EU or that fits the EU culture.

If the EU opens its doors to them, I predict that it will be the extremists who will be most interested in having unfettered access to EU countries and the EU will never be the same, much to its regret.

In your last paragraph, you show only that you don't know who started the world wide conflict or how horrible some of their deeds have been. That's daily now and it's worldwide. They mass kill civilians ala the London train bombing etc. etc.

Stop apologizing for them please, and show that at least you know the truth.

Thank you.

I have never apologised for terrorists no matter their nationality or politics. Regards the truth as to the growth of Islamic terrorism against Western targets it is primarily politically motivated. I suggest you need to understand why this is so and think about US/NATO political policies to wind back this threat.

[Scott]

Turkey is a country. Islam is a religion. The topic is about accession talks with a country. I realize that the religion and culture are factors, but they are not the sole factor. Please try to stay focused on the topic.

[Steely Dan]

Okay, just for fun here's a little numbers game.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130612-50249.html

Radical Islamists in Germany numbered 42,550 in 2012, according to surveillance services, and the number of Salafists, who espouse an austere form of Sunni Islam, within the movement grew to 4,500 from 3,800 in a year, he said.

Now if there are say 4 million people in Germany of Turkish origin then approximately 1% of them are the forehead brusing nutcases. If you extrapolate the same percentage to Turkey as a whole then a population of 75 million would suggest 750,000 of them. If they are able to move freely within the EU I shudder to imagine the mayhem they would cause.

P.S Quickly apropos Football and Eurovision, I take it Israel will begin accession talks soon, afterall they won Eurovision twice in a row and you are less likely to get lots of boom bang a bang from the Israeli populace.