SHOULD OBAMA OFFER TURKEY MEMBERSHIP OF THE USA

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
SHOULD OBAMA OFFER TURKEY MEMBERSHIP OF THE USA - TO GAIN FAVOUR WITH MUSLIMS

The pretext of the USA suggesting Turkey be allowed to join the EU, is that Turkey is an unstable, secular, state, that needs to be “anchored” within an established, democratic, structure such as the EU.

The USA seems to be insensitive to the fact that it has absolutely NO authority to comment on or influence the domestic agenda of the EU.

There is a somewhat “circular”, argument that thankfully shows the USA logic to be false, and raises the question as to the USA’s real intentions . . .

If Turkey was considered stable and secure - it would NOT need the confirmation, surety, confidence, it is suggested would result from EU membership. However, if Turkey is NOT considered stable and secure - why would the EU jeopardise whatever it has secured, by risking division and discontent - by even considering Turkey as a member ?!


A conclusion was drawn in an other thread . . . The USA action in pandering to the Muslim world - with two very similar actions and intentions, both directly effecting Europe (Kosovo, and Turkey) - has the potential to cause conflict, disharmony, disunity and disruption within and throughout the Europe/EU. Is therefore that “conflict, disharmony, disunity and disruption within and throughout the Europe/EU”, also a subsidiary (maybe even prime) objective of the USA ?!
 
#2
(Brought over from the "Only US airbase in central Asia to close" thread - where it was in risk of driving that thread “off-the-rails” !!)

ghost_us said:
Sergey's just doing his job.
http://cicentre.com/disinformation.htm

"On the other hand -- and this is the other side of the Soviet intelligence, very important: perhaps I would describe it as the heart and soul of the Soviet intelligence -- was subversion. Not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies, to weaken the United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs. To make America more vulnerable to the anger and distrust of other peoples."
Although we do not (to my knowledge) have a dedicated thread on Turkey, there is a separate thread on Kosovo (which I occasionally BUMP).

. . . . . unilaterally the USA itself has done/is still doing its best to “to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies”, and "To make America more vulnerable to the anger and distrust of other peoples”.

- recognising and supporting the illegal declaration of independence by Kosovo, and
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=86376/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=1360.html

- unnecessarily, suggesting and supporting Turkey’s accession to the EU. (I will leave it to President Sarkozy to put Obama in his place !!).

“Obama, Sarkozy clash over Turkey EU bid”
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Obama_Sarkozy_clash_over_Turkey_EU__04052009.html

“Leave Turkey’s bid to join EU to us, Nicolas Sarkozy warns Barack Obama”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6041404.ece

“ . . . Sarkozy warns him to keep out of Turkey's relationship with EU”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...am-Sarkozy-warns-Turkeys-relationship-EU.html
 
#4
(Also brought over from the "Only US airbase in central Asia to close" thread - where it was in risk of driving that thread “off-the-rails” !!)

ghost_us said:
I would think a couple whining frogs over a symbolic gesture is hardly the same as Sergey coming to this site and actively working to sew discord and distrust between the US and UK.
Your supercilious, disregard of the opinions of millions of Europeans, can not be dismissed as comments from “ . . a couple whining frogs over a symbolic gesture”.

You have already negated whatever Obama/USA is trying to achieve by denigrating, dismissing, what he said, as a “symbolic gesture”. The USA’s “symbolic gesture”, has the potential to cause unrest and discontent throughout Europe - or, as some might suggest, is that also an objective of the USA ?!

ghost_us said:
Not everyone is going to like everything the US does. This is true of any country and not just the US. I think Obama is doing more than any other US president to cater to the whims of the rest of the world, more so than a lot of Americans would bother.
(I really will have to come back to this paragraph later).

ghost_us said:
I think most Americans could really give a toss about the French crying about what Obama said. The french have their interests and are backseat drivers when it comes to NATO. Mending muslim sentiment is much more important to *our* current mission than some crying frenchman.
That might be fine, if it is just for domestic US consumption vis a vis the USA’s problems throughout the Muslim world. Unfortunately, US Presidents “gobbing-off” (speaking irresponsibly) about ill considered suggestions - would have very serious consequences for those European countries the USA is supposed to regard as allies !!

The arrogance of your response is astounding. I really do hope you do not work for, or have any serious influence over, the USA Government or its policies!

It is NOT just about the French. It is NOT just about Sarkozy. If the USA does not wish to pay attention to how its actions have repercussions in those parts of the world it thought were “on-side”, then the USA is going to be in for a surprise when some of those parts of the world it thought were “on-side”, say enough-is-enough.

The USA again does itself NO favours, disregarding the opinions of, and sacrificing the goodwill of, its European allies.

Some are quite aware that the USA does what benefit’s the USA, and never mind the repercussions elsewhere in the world. You suggest that the USA has learnt the costs of such a cavalier attitude with regard to the Muslim world. It would seem that the USA is incapable of learning one lesson, and transferring the knowledge from that lesson to another area/situation.
 
#5
I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised. They've always seemed more favourable to Eurosceptic British politicians than those who've opted to make the best go of it they can.

I've no doubt the US would prefer not to have an alternative reserve- or oil-trading currency to the dollar, nor to have to face emerging economies with additional competition from a similarly developed trading block.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top