Article

2004-10-05 Europe

Postpone the Brave New World: EU hardens accession conditions

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-05 9:52:31 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 LOL, Bulldog.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-05 10:53:22 AM|| 2004-10-05 10:53:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Officials say they support the conclusion that Turkey has made sufficient progress to begin membership talks. But at the same time, the EU will signal a major shift in how it deals with prospective members. Starting with Croatia next year, membership negotiations will be longer and harder. Promises of reform will no longer be enough to conclude negotiations.

What looked like a very makeable twenty five yard field goal has been turned into something just a wee bit more difficult....

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-05 11:43:23 AM|| 2004-10-05 11:43:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Isn't this usually called the "bait and switch"?

Posted by mojo 2004-10-05 12:44:06 PM|| 2004-10-05 12:44:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 "Our introductory offer at favorable terms/rates has expired. We do have a new program with slightly ~~stiffer~~ different terms and conditions. Apply today - we'll get back to you...."

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-05 12:47:35 PM|| 2004-10-05 12:47:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 If the EU had been lax about letting a not-fully-reformed Turkey join, you people would have seen that as further indication of Europe being turned to an extension of Middle-east.

If the EU had turned Turkey down flat, you'd have attacked EU as being the ally of jihadis in undermining democracy in Turkey -- this has been the attitude of several Rantburgers in the past, especially since idiot-Bush urged EU to let Turkey enter.

Now that EU is being responsible about the countries it allows to enter and strict about the criteria they must fulfill, you are calling this responsibility "squirming".

Doublethinking duckspeakers, the lot of you.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 1:41:17 PM|| 2004-10-05 1:41:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 if the EU countries lived up to the lofty ideals they hold others to, we wouldn't call them the hypocritical pseudo-elite assholes that they are.

But "doublethinking duckspeakers" was highly entertaining, and rather creative, for you ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-05 1:53:33 PM|| 2004-10-05 1:53:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I thought Aris said he was leaving and never coming back.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-10-05 1:54:17 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-10-05 1:54:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Frank> "if the EU countries lived up to the lofty ideals they hold others to"

Make it specific, Frank. Which "lofty ideal" *exactly* is being violated by EU countries even as its used to bar accession to Turkey?

And wasn't recently the problem that EU countries held *themselves* to a very lofty ideal, e.g. when there was a iron-hard watch against Heider's Austria? Ofcourse back then the claim was that the evil EU violated the rights of its member-states.

Robert> Your mind seems to be taking many months processing outdated information. You should consider upgrading it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 2:54:19 PM|| 2004-10-05 2:54:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 If the EU had been lax about letting a not-fully-reformed Turkey join, you people would have seen that as further indication of Europe being turned to an extension of Middle-east.

If the EU had turned Turkey down flat, you'd have attacked EU as being the ally of jihadis in undermining democracy in Turkey -- this has been the attitude of several Rantburgers in the past, especially since idiot-Bush urged EU to let Turkey enter.

Depends which of us you mean - the firebreathing islam haters, or the utopian neocons and overly nuanced liberal hawks? :) I doubt the the muslim haters would have had any problem with the EU turning down Turkey, and I for one would not have attacked the EU for letting them in.

Some of course try to be BOTH islamophobes AND utopian neocons. I admit to having difficulty figuring such people out.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-05 3:03:51 PM|| 2004-10-05 3:03:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Poor Aris doesn't know which way to point his guns. Of course the EU would be wise to admit the non-jihadist, resolutely secular nation of Turkey. Turkey is the best model existing for what muslim countries should aspire to become.

Embracing, instead of pissing on, Turkey would send a hugely positive signal that the west is serious about friendship with democratic, normal, sane, moderate, reasonably liberal and open muslim nations. Which is of course why Bush and Rumsfeld, brilliantly, have continued to push so hard for this.

Posted by lex 2004-10-05 3:21:13 PM|| 2004-10-05 3:21:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 lex> Poor Aris doesn't know which way to point his guns. Not sure what exactly you mean by this. My stance on Turkey has been consistent: EU isn't ready to accept it yet.

EU *might* be ready to accept it in a decade from now. Depends on whether the EU and Turkey will be different by then, and in which direction.

"that the west is serious about friendship with democratic, normal, sane, moderate, reasonably liberal and open muslim nations"

Sorry but we have to judge "Reasonably liberal" according to European, not Middle-eastern standards. We won't lower our bar, they've gotta raise theirs. The bar can't be lowered in order to send a politically correct message of inclusiveness.

And ofcourse the other problem is the economical aspect of it, which has little to do with culture.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 3:44:36 PM|| 2004-10-05 3:44:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Turkey is at least as liberal as the corruption-ridden banana republic to its west. I don't recall Turkey ever having civil war between fascists and communists during the past few generations.

Posted by lex 2004-10-05 4:03:55 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:03:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Turkey is at least as liberal as the corruption-ridden banana republic to its west.

Freedom House: Greece 1/2, Turkey 3/4
Reporters without Borders: Greece 6.00, Turkey 35.00
(The lower the better)

Reality: It disagrees with you.

I don't recall Turkey ever having civil war between fascists and communists during the past few generations.

Ah, I see, Robert Crawford's mind was stuck some months back, but *your* mind is stuck in the 1950s. Gotcha.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 4:11:44 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:11:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 It's the Greeks who are stuck in the 1960s-1970s. That's the period I was referring to. You jokers are still blaming us for your own misery from that era. But you win on the "liberal" question.

Still, I'm sure you'd still agree with the banana republic characterization. I would also point out that EU membership has a liberalizing effect, which is why Bush and Rumsfeld, again, brilliantly, have urged membership for not only the former Warsaw Pact nations of Cz-Pol-Hu but also Turkey.

Posted by lex 2004-10-05 4:18:22 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:18:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Why didn't you choose to cite Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index this time, Aris?

Greece: 4.2
Turkey: 3.2

Both /10. Greece marginally better. EU average: 6.5. EU itself: ? Who knows. No competent auditing is done. Billions of taxpayers' money just disappears, and many billions more is wasted propping up uneconomic, inefficient and unsustainable agricultural practices.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-05 4:19:31 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:19:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Bulldog> Believe or not, the time between my last response and now was taken downloading the 3 mb Transparency International report -- I don't have a broadband connection and it took me 7-8 mins or so. Was just about to say to lex, that his "corruption-ridden" is appropriate to refer to Greece when compared to most of the rest of Europe, but again fails when he uses it in a comparison between Greece and Turkey, since Turkey's even worse.

Lex> Sorry, no civil war with communists (or anyone else for that matter) in the 1960s-1970s. The last civil war we had (and only one involving communists AFAIK) was in the late 1940s.

"jokers are still blaming us for your own misery from that era. "

Yup. But whether for good or bad, EU doesn't have a "no-whining" criterion for entry.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 4:40:49 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:40:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 lex> "I would also point out that EU membership has a liberalizing effect"

You mean that EU promotes freedom? You mean EU is a *good* thing where world liberty is concerned? Wow.

I suggest not to dare speak it too loud in this forum, though.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 4:46:34 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:46:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 What was lex pointing at? I'm stumped. And I don't think it's my poor eyesight. Is someone going to point out that the EC/EU prevented us barbarous Euro hordes starting another World War after '45 next?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-05 4:51:15 PM|| 2004-10-05 4:51:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Yes, the EU is, within Europe, a good thing for US interests: it diminishes greatly the chance that Europe's perennial tendency toward illiberal extremes will cause another suicidal European war that requires yet another US intervention and loss of American life.

It's the EU's ridiculous posturing on matters beyond Europe that's so annoying. Especially as regards the middle east. If the EU nations were content to accept their fate as a rich, happy, quiet, and harmless old folks' home that's of little importance to any other region's security, then I'd have no problem whatsoever with the EU. Might be a good retirement destination.

Posted by lex 2004-10-05 5:04:36 PM|| 2004-10-05 5:04:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 The EU restrains the continent's pernennial inclination toward communism or fascism. It's esp. useful as a club that sets a high bar for aspiring new democracies who wish to join in on the EU gravy train.

But an increasingly integrated EU adds no value to wealthy, sane, stable liberal Britain.

Posted by lex 2004-10-05 5:08:53 PM|| 2004-10-05 5:08:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 But an increasingly integrated EU adds no value to wealthy, sane, stable liberal Britain.

*shrug* It's Britain's choice whether it feels the EU is good or bad for her. Nobody will try to forcefully prevent her from leaving, I assure you.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 5:16:55 PM|| 2004-10-05 5:16:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The EU restrains the continent's pernennial inclination toward communism or fascism.

It does? How? Simply stating something with an air of authority doesn't make it true. Is this assumption derived from the logic that a sufficiently large population is in itself enough to buffer politics? That is demonstrably nonsense. Germany and Italy turned fascist, and China and Russia, Communist. Are Denmark and Andorra's politics a neck-snapping endless volley from one extreme to another? China's population is far greater than Europe's. Some help.

The US (and NATO) has done far more to prevent another World War than the EC/EU has. IMO, the EU, with its attempts to portray the US as a common threat, a cartoonish villain, is more likely to cause one.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-05 5:34:26 PM|| 2004-10-05 5:34:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Now that EU is being responsible about the countries it allows to enter and strict about the criteria they must fulfill, you are calling this responsibility "squirming".

Because that's what it is. Since it's pretty obvious that the EU doesn't like Turkey as it is now, they're simply going to drag it out as long as possible. No simple yes or no, just a long drawn-out pace. Ooooh, Turkey is now ready for TALKS! Yessiree....

EU *might* be ready to accept it in a decade from now.

Somebody relay this information to the Turkish government, and see what they have to say about it.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-05 6:25:09 PM|| 2004-10-05 6:25:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 The EU restrains the continent's pernennial inclination toward communism or fascism.

It does? How?

By allowing liberal Czech, Poland, Estonia to join the club and denying entry to authoritarian Slovakia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Ditto for Slovenia vs Croatia.

By kicking Greece out of what was then the EC when the military quashed democracy and then letting Greece back in once it had shown an ability to cast off authoritarianism.

Posted by lex 2004-10-05 6:33:47 PM|| 2004-10-05 6:33:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 lex> Greece was never part of the EC before the junta -- perhaps you are thinking of the Council of Europe. And Slovakia is hardly authoritarian and it is indeed inside the EU -- perhaps you are thinking of Moldova, which like Ukraine and Belarus forms the trio of Russia-leaning countries with an authoritarian bend.

Bomb-a-rama> "Since it's pretty obvious that the EU doesn't like Turkey as it is now, they're simply going to drag it out as long as possible." And that's "squirming" according to you?

"No simple yes or no, just a long drawn-out pace."

When somebody living with you asks you to marry them, I think that saying "I feel we are not quite ready for marriage yet, let's have a long cohabitation period where we try to work out the problems but we don't commit to anything as yet" is an honourable response to make.

Is that "squirming" according to you? I'd say "better patient than hasty". There's no procedure for other EU countries to evict a member yet. That's why we don't want to regret it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 6:54:17 PM|| 2004-10-05 6:54:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Btw, for the above analogy to work, you'll have to assume that the person being asked to marriage wouldn't have the power to easily divorce them afterwards -- the same way that the EU doesn't have the power to evict a member.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 7:02:59 PM|| 2004-10-05 7:02:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 "I feel we are not quite ready for marriage yet, let's have a long cohabitation period where we try to work out the problems but we don't commit to anything as yet"

Aris, on a purely personal note: Don't Try That. Hem and haw and go work in the yard or in the barn. Trust me. Clear datum.

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-05 7:20:52 PM|| 2004-10-05 7:20:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Just an analogy, Shipman. On a likewise personal (and thus irrelevant) note I'd be very unlikely to move in with anyone that I *wouldn't* be ready to also marry. But I'd not find it wrong for others to take the approach I described, if they feel it suits them best.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 7:34:13 PM|| 2004-10-05 7:34:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 hmmmm roomed with guys, I see?

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-05 7:36:11 PM|| 2004-10-05 7:36:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "Promises of reform will no longer be enough to conclude negotiations. According to the strategy paper - seen by the BBC - benchmarks for the implementation of reforms will have to be met. And for the first time, the EU will introduce a brake clause - the possibility to suspend negotiations in the case of a serious and persistent breach of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Benchmarks (to measure whether reforms have met the test) or benchmarks for
*implementation* of reforms (to show a turn towards progress but not satisfying European standards for "liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms")? Quite different. The second would leave quite a bit of wiggle room timewise, I would think.

Are the "principles" explicit or open to interpretation?

Posted by jules 2 2004-10-05 7:55:13 PM|| 2004-10-05 7:55:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 jules> In the end it doesn't matter how explicit or implicit the "principles" are, because 25 nations will have to individually give an assent vote, plus the European Parliament gonna have to give an assent vote, before Turkey is allowed to enter. And each of these is fully free to deny Turkey entry for whatever reason, including their own interpretations of whether the criteria for "liberty, democracy, human rights, etc" have been been passed or not.

One blackball is enough, even though ofcourse any nation would hate to use its veto in isolation and will first attempt to find others to share the rejection of Turkey.

So, you see... as long as the question of Turkey's suitability is in *any* doubt, the system of 25 potential vetos makes it practically impossible for it to enter. Even Cyprus wouldn't have entered were it not for having Greece as an ally on the inside.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-05 8:36:54 PM|| 2004-10-05 8:36:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Is that "squirming" according to you?

Yep, sure is. They wanna join, and you and your French/German cohorts are looking to throw as many obstacles in their path as possible. All under the premise of not wanting to be "hasty".

But go ahead and take your time; it's going to take like, ten, twenty years possibly before anything happens? Make sure you're not being hasty. Others will call it by its real name, and it starts with "SQ".

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-06 1:06:47 AM|| 2004-10-06 1:06:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Thank you, Bomb-a-rama. As you say, we'll make sure of not being hasty.

"Caution" and "squirminess" are identical, heh? We don't need no stinking mind, go with the gut feeling instead. Cheering or booing, as I've said in the past --- other alternatives are mocked. It tells more about you than about the EU though, this attitude.

Yes, it's quite likely to take ten, twenty years possibly before anything happens: and that's bad, because...? Norway on her part has been making sure that she'd not been acting hastily for the last 40 years -- and unlike the EU's case with Turkey, Norway would even have an out atleast.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-06 5:59:23 AM|| 2004-10-06 5:59:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Yes, it's quite likely to take ten, twenty years possibly before anything happens: and that's bad, because...?

Hey, what's another twenty years when you've been snubbed for forty already? Turks obviously need to be reminded of their place, eh? Turkey might be crashing the party a lot sooner than you think, Aris!

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-06 6:04:50 AM|| 2004-10-06 6:04:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 The racism is yours, Bulldog, not mine. This has nothing to do with punishing the Turks, nor "teaching them their place".

I was in favour of the Annan plan --- that means I was already in favour of a Turkish community entering the EU, of Turkish becoming an official language of the EU. I am still in favour of the Turkish-cypriots entering the EU, within or without a reunification with the Republic of Cyprus.

But Turkey is poor, humongous, and democratically lacking. EU is not ready to accept it yet, the same way it wouldn't be ready to accept Russia. Russia's size makes it impossible for it to ever enter EU, Turkey's case is not as problematic, so she still may, just not yet.

Snubbed for forty years? LOL, yes according to you I'm sure that even the Soviet Union should have been given a seat. We don't need no steenking mind.

And dude, why the hell are you in favour of Turkey's entry in the EU? EU is a *bad* thing according to you remember? So, why hate the Turks so much?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-06 6:15:26 AM|| 2004-10-06 6:15:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 It's just a meaningless game. Before 10 years is over, the current muslim population of Western Europe-- ~18.5 million -- would reach about 45 million, while European indigenous population is in decline. Provided that things stay the same, by 2050, 50% of population would be muslim and by 2099, 85%+. But things would not be the same. Within 10 years, Islam will conquer Europe and shari'a would be the new codex of law. Sorry Euros, there's nothing you can do about it and when you realize you should, it will be already too late. You self-wussification would be turned into dhimmification without too much of an effort.

Posted by Conanista 2004-10-06 6:50:15 AM|| 2004-10-06 6:50:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 The racism is yours, Bulldog, not mine.

Projecting racism once again, Aris? Why is it always you who tries to drag race into conversations? You are race obssessed, and I must infer, racist. You should aspire to higher issues.

But Turkey is poor, humongous, and democratically lacking.

Well the EU meets the last two criteria, and is on its way to achieving the third. Turkey's moving the other way in at least two.

Turkey is ... humongous ... Russia's size makes it impossible for it to ever enter EU

And you know what? I call bullshit. Tell me why size suddenly matters. Germany must now be too large for your inexplicably size-limited EU? Are there just too many God-damned krauts in the club for your liking? Does smaller = better as far as you're concerned? Why? What nonsense. What a lame excuse.

Snubbed for forty years? LOL

It's certainly more than 30... But how much longer would you ideally like the amusing snubbing to go on for? As you've suddenly announced to us your objection that Turkey is too humungous to join, I assume you'd like it to be a running joke at Turkey's expense forever.

And dude, why the hell are you in favour of Turkey's entry in the EU? EU is a *bad* thing according to you remember? So, why hate the Turks so much?

Why do Bush and Cheney 'hate' Turkey so much? Two words for you: Trojan horse. The way EU federasts like yourself get your knickers in a twist at the mere mention of Turkey shows you want no room in your aspirational middle-aged moribund post-Christian euro socialist real-world drop-outs' superstate for a mass of young Turks. Turkish membership of the EU would be good for everyone except committed federalists. No superstate EU for you. Instead back to a more sensible free trade concept without restrictive ties and a monstrous and ambitious Government. Don't you get it?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-06 6:56:43 AM|| 2004-10-06 6:56:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 "The racism is yours, Bulldog, not mine. Projecting racism once again, Aris? Why is it always you who tries to drag race into conversations?"

Oh, sorry, I forgot that for you bigotry because of nationality and bigotry because of race are two *entirely* different things. I just can't be bothered to differentiate between them, though. I've never seen a reason to.

Why size "suddenly" matters?

Oh, yes, size "suddenly matters". Here's one from me from March 2003: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b5j17c%249ku%241%40usenet.otenet.gr

Size doesn't "suddenly" matter, it always mattered. Besides the political issue, a poor small country wouldn't affect EU's budget as much. A poor *huge* country does. Taking in Albania, even though she's even poorer than Turkey wouldn't be an economic problem. Turkey would.

Germany is wealthy and fully democratic. Russia and Turkey are not.

Russia, where population is concerned, is bigger than any two other EU countries combined. Where land-area is concerned she has borders with Mongolia and China and even North Korea.

If you don't see why that makes it different from Germany which is at the geographical center of Europe, then again that's your problem.

"Why do Bush and Cheney 'hate' Turkey so much?"

Bush and Cheney, unlike you, haven't claimed that EU membership is horrible. They meant it as a good thing for Turkey, when they asked EU to let it in.

"Trojan horse. "

Am glad you admit that's your reason. If Bush and Cheney likewise have that reason they should be honest about it: "We want Turkey inside the EU as a trojan horse to destroy it."

"Turkish membership of the EU would be good for everyone except committed federalists. "

According to you, "committed federalist" is anyone who doesn't want to turn EU into a mere copy of EFTA.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-06 1:02:08 PM|| 2004-10-06 1:02:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 On other of your questions.

"But how much longer would you ideally like the amusing snubbing to go on for? "

Until Turkey is atleast a 2/2 in the Freedomhouse scale, and until the possibility of national vetoes have been extinguished from most decision making processes, and the percentage of population representation required for a vote to pass the Council of Ministers, goes down to atleast 60% from the current 72% or the proposed 65% of the EU constitution.

"The way EU federasts like yourself get your knickers in a twist at the mere mention of Turkey shows you want no room in your aspirational middle-aged moribund post-Christian euro socialist real-world drop-outs' superstate for a mass of young Turks."

It shows that we recognize UK's and USA's pressure for Turkey's entry as the Trojan Horse that you admitted it to be.

This "EU federast" here would have no problem with the young muslims of Bosnia or Albania or even Azerbaijan joining up -- in fact I'm eagerly waiting it: in Azerbaijan's case when it becomes democratic enough ofcourse.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-06 1:16:05 PM|| 2004-10-06 1:16:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Not a Trojan Horse any more than our advocacy of Polish EU membership was.

It's Bush and Rumsfeld who are pushing muslim nations toward democracy and Chirac who's supporting the fascist "resistance", not the other way around. Helping Turkey gain membership in a club of democratic western nations will ensure the survival of Turkish democracy. Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory.

Posted by lex 2004-10-06 1:19:45 PM|| 2004-10-06 1:19:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 It wasn't I who voiced the conspiracy theory about the Trojan Horse, it was Bulldog. I, on my part, I am quite willing to accept the possibility of a decent motive on Bush's and Cheney's front.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-06 1:27:46 PM|| 2004-10-06 1:27:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Oh, sorry, I forgot that for you bigotry because of nationality and bigotry because of race are two *entirely* different things. I just can't be bothered to differentiate between them, though. I've never seen a reason to.

You moron. Racism is simply biological prejudice, nationality is about culture, religion, mores, attitude and outlook... You can be an ethnic Indian but 100% British, or an ethnic Lithuanian who is French. Is it really so hard to grasp? You can't differentiate between racism and culturalism, other -isms... How old are you? You're a typical bloody lefty in this respect. You scream "RACISM" whenever you feel threatened and expect to be able to taken seriously. It's pathetic. You should be f*cking sorry...

I don't have the time to waste responding to all the rest, Aris. Do you really think I'd be reading your own blog entries elsewhere to know size doesn't 'suddenly matter' to you? Get a grip. You've never mentioned 'size' before, here. And as far as I'm concerned, it's still a lame excuse. I'd respect your argument more if you stuck to the real issue - cultural. Turkish propserity is rising. It's corruption is barely worse than Greece's. The most popular (and often stated) reason for objection is that it is Muslim. Which reflects badly on EU nationalists like yourself.

The Trojan horse factor is one reason why I support Turkish entry. It's not the only one, but it is the main one.

lex - Chirac's in favour of Turkish EU membership. Perhaps you think that's strange, but it's true. Another factual error on your part. When are you going to apologise for ignorantly accusing the average Brit of being anti-Semitic?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-06 6:16:18 PM|| 2004-10-06 6:16:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 "Racism is simply biological prejudice, nationality is about culture, religion, mores, attitude and outlook... "

No, a person's nationality isn't about religion, it's not about mores, it's not about attitude and it's not about outlook.

I'm sure that TGA for example, would be very insulted if you told him that he must share the attitude, the mores, and the outlook of Hitler in order to be part of the same nation as Hitler was.

Nor do I feel that I have to share the opinions, outlooks, mores or attitudes of any other Greek in there in order to be considered Greek. I'm Greek only by the fact that I was raised by Greek parents in a Greek culture.

Nothing about opinions in that definition. Nothing about accepting or rejecting the widely held beliefs of that culture. Nothing about believing in the religion of people sharing that culture.

You are born and raised in your nation, same as you are born into your race. To insult a person because of their nation is same as to insult them because of their race.

Do you really think I'd be reading your own blog entries elsewhere to know size doesn't 'suddenly matter' to you?

You are definitely not obliged to follow my posts here or elsewhere, as long as you don't imply that I invent new criteria "suddenly".

Is it really so hard to grasp? You can't differentiate between racism and culturalism, other -isms...

Yes, I have a hard time understanding why hating e.g. all Jews is better than hating all blacks.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-06 11:22:42 PM|| 2004-10-06 11:22:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 No, a person's nationality isn't about religion, it's not about mores, it's not about attitude and it's not about outlook.

Wrong. Are you saying that a black immigrant to Greece can never be considered Greek? That their children couldn't be? What shite you do come out with. Unless, of course, you really believe that. Which makes your idea of 'nationality' merely biological, and I would say racist, and rather primitive.

From Chambers:
race; the descendents of a common ancestor...
nation; a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition, whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state; the people of a state...

In my book, race is a poor means of judging anyone, however it is patently true that you can assess the collective behaviour of people as nations. That is not to say that all individuals are the same, just that the collective actions of the whole are important, and indicative of the characteristics of the people's culture. This is all far too nuanced for you, I guess. You stick to your all-cultures-are-the-same, all-people-are-independent-thinkers-not-influenced-by-their-peers moral relativist bullshit.

Yes, I have a hard time understanding why hating e.g. all Jews is better than hating all blacks.

Are you trying to imply that I hate all members of a group, or a religion? If so, please explain why you think that is the case. There's a considerable difference between having a high or low regard for groups of individuals based on ethnicity, and having high or low regard for different cultures. I have no problem with anyone who is black, arab, Jewish, Welsh, Greek, English - unless their character offends me. The human hardware, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as I've experienced, is a neutral thing. It's the software that determines behaviours and attitudes. Religion is a software that can seriously fuck large groups of individuals, e.g. Wahabbist Islam. It's got nothing to do with race. It's culture, and nations, by and large, are defined by a shared culture.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 5:12:45 AM|| 2004-10-07 5:12:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 Yup, that Wahabbi OS is a two-bob piece a shit allright.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-10-07 6:25:54 AM|| 2004-10-07 6:25:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 No, a person's nationality isn't about religion, it's not about mores, it's not about attitude and it's not about outlook. Wrong. Are you saying that a black immigrant to Greece can never be considered Greek? That their children couldn't be?

Their children might very well be if they were raised in the Greek culture. There's nothing biological about what I claim. Immigrants themselves may very well achieve Greek citizenship, and for me the willing participation in the functioning of the common society of men is more important than questions of what actual nation they belong to.

But we're not talking about citizenship, we're talking about nationality. And I will not be one to deny them their own heritage if they want to retain it by telling them stupid things like e.g. "you have to choose whether you are Albanian or Greek" -- which is similar to saying "you have to choose, whether you are Jewish or American". A man's "software" can partake in more than one one culture traditions, even in cases where he has only one citizenship.

a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition, whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state;

Hey, what do you know, no "opinions" or "attitudes" or "mores" in that definition. It doesn't say "a body of people sharing the same religion, opinions, attitudes, morals". Why, I wonder.

"In my book, race is a poor means of judging anyone, however it is patently true that you can assess the collective behaviour of people as nations."

But you are a racist (oh, sorry, a bigot -- big difference) if you take it from the collective to the personal, and start evaluating or *punishing* any person because of their nationality.

That is not to say that all individuals are the same, just that the collective actions of the whole are important, and indicative of the characteristics of the people's culture.

Yes, you can probably figure the mathetical *average* of the attitudes and mores of a nation.

But tell me, when you spoke about my supposed desire to collectively punish the Turks, did you imagine I would be so psychopathic and inhuman as to believe that you can punish a statistical abstraction without hurting individual innocents?

"Are you trying to imply that I hate all members of a group, or a religion?"

No, it's you who were trying to imply that about me. "Those Turks must obviously be reminded of their places", you said, when I said Turkey and the EU weren't ready for Turkey's membership at this time.

What exactly did you mean by that if not that I wanted to collectively punish them? How would you feel, if someone implied to you that your actual opinions meant "Those Jews must be taught their place."

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 9:18:52 AM|| 2004-10-07 9:18:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 Now who's squirming? Squirming about individual words in a dictionary definition. We're not talking about citizenship, we're talking about nationality: squirming about the nature of the debate (you go from race to nationality to citizenship - what next?).

But you are a racist (oh, sorry, a bigot -- big difference) if you take it from the collective to the personal, and start evaluating or *punishing* any person because of their nationality.

You are the racist, Aris. We've established that. It is you who are obssessed with race. A Jew cannot be a Briton, eh? A Jew cannot be Greek either? YOU ALONE think that race is an obstacle to nationality. Stop projecting your own odious rasicm onto others, knobshite.

When a neighbouring country invades your own, will you approach each invading soldier to ask him how he feels about his actions? Or will you fight? If you refuse to fight, on the absurd principle that you're facing a statistical abstraction, not real people, your nation, your country will perish. You may think your transnationalist utopianism is high-minded. It's just a cop-out. Are you a pacifist? I think you must be. Let me know when you join the real world.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 11:19:15 AM|| 2004-10-07 11:19:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 Bulldog, you are illiterate. Just my above post said that a Jew *can* be an American (and thus a Jew can ofcourse also be a Greek or a Briton or whatever ofcourse) the same way that a person can feel both Albanian and Greek -- but you are obviously too dumb to read. I likewise said that race has nothing to do with nationality, but once again you, Bulldog, are too stupid to be able to read.

Keep on playing with yourself, I'm not your wank-toy.

And the thing about war is that it doesn't matter how the other person feels about you or whether they are nice or bad. That's why the division usually made is between soldiers and civilians, not nice enemies and bad enemies.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 4:58:58 PM|| 2004-10-07 4:58:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Yes, Bulldog, *obviously* I am a pacifist. That's why I supporting invading Syria, Iran, Sudan or all three. Because of my extreme pacifism.

And since you are too illiterate to read even plain words, I should probably tell you that my last sentence was sarcasm.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 5:05:06 PM|| 2004-10-07 5:05:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 If a Jew is an American, he, by nationality, is an American. He is not just an American citizen. It is you, moron, who is the illiterate here. Now shut the fuck up, you self-important freak. We've both wasted enough of Fred's bandwidth.

Keep on playing with yourself, I'm not your wank-toy.

LOL. Projecting again.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 5:19:53 PM|| 2004-10-07 5:19:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 If a Jew is an American, he, by nationality, is an American

If a Jew is an American, then by nationality he might be both Jewish and American, depending on how he feels about the issue. A Jewish American friend of mine certainly feels "culturally Jewish" even though not religiously much of a believer. And he certainly also feels American.

You keep on failing to understand the point that "A man's "software" can partake in more than one one culture traditions". You want to limit people to only one nationality per force.

Fuzzy sets confusing your tiny brain?

Or are you gonna be claiming that "Jewish" is by necessity a reference to religion, and has no hint of a common national identity? Many people exist who are religiously atheist or agnostic but *nationally* (aka ethnically, aka culturally) Jews. Aka they were born and raised in Jewish culture, same way I was e.g. born and raised in Greek culture.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 5:41:04 PM|| 2004-10-07 5:41:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 What's it say on his passport, wank-toy? He may be racially Jewish, feel part of the Jewish nation but his loyalty, legally and when push-comes-to-shove will be to America, or he shouldn't be entitled to said passport (unless he's a dual national, which is a fuzzy area - safe to say he's not a citizen of "both America and The Jewish Nation"). Seriously, you're wasting Fred's bandwidth with your inane hair-splitting.

...*nationally* (aka ethnically, aka culturally)...

Complex language is wasted on you, isn't it? They are not synonymous words.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 6:01:49 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:01:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Passports are about citizenships, boy. Different national minorities don't get different passports, boy.

Loyalty "legally" is about *citizenship*, boy. And refer to #46 about the willing participation in the structures of the state, which I already said is more important to me than what cultural tradition someone feels partake in his/her heritage.

Aka a citizen's loyalty and willing participation to the democratic state is more important than his nationality aka whether he feels "British" or "foreign" to you, according to your bizarre absurd criteria of holding the same "mores, attitudes, opinions" as you -- the criteria *you* have defined for nationality, and yet don't appear in either dictionary nor can appear in a passport.

If you could only read, this thread wouldn't have needed to exist at all, you know.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 6:13:18 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:13:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Observe Bulldog "squirming" with his definitions: At #42 "nationality is about culture, religion, mores, attitude and outlook", ten posts later at #52 nationality is suddenly about what is written on a person's passport, and about a person's *legal* loyalty...

It's always bitterly amusing to see doublethink in motion. Bulldog holds both these definitions in his mind and he doesn't even see that they are as different as they can get.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 6:18:05 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:18:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 If only your racist pea-sized brain could comprehend that race does not 'aka' nationality, you wouldn't keep on making such an ass out of yourself, boy.

You think "boy" is an insult? LOL! As I said before, you have a lot to learn about English, you arrogant 'tard.

And refer to #46 about the willing participation in the structures of the state, which I already said is more important to me

Arrogant? ME? Pretentious? Moi? Do you think it matters what you think?! The fact is that (inconvenient though it may seem to you): your American friend's nationality is American.
Please re-read that until you comprehend. And then go and look up 'nationality' in an English dictionary.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 6:26:21 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:26:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 I'm not commenting on this incredibly stupid thread again. You're making too much of an idiot out of yourself. ;)

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 6:29:22 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:29:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 "race does not 'aka' nationality"

I never said that race was "aka" nationality, I very clearly said that it was NOT. But as I said: you are illiterate.

"And then go and look up 'nationality' in an English dictionary."
www.dictionary.com : 2. A people having common origins or traditions and often constituting a nation.

My friend celebrates Hanukkah (common traditions, anyone?). Jews around Europe did the same pre WWII -- they were an interspersed Jewish nation far before there was a state that they could call their own.

And I assure you that my tone of voice would definitely make "boy" a very clear insult. In this case it says "little kid who pretends to be a man".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 6:34:29 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:34:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 And btw, oh yes, I'm EXTREMELY arrogant. I've never denied that.

But if you don't care about what I think, you shouldn't have started off interpreting and misinterpreting my thoughts on the first place.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 6:38:06 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:38:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Grips for Sale! Grips for Sale!
Get your Grips right here!

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-07 6:45:58 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:45:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!

Your weak and unimaginative insults won't work on me, Aris. (And 'boy' does not say "little kid who pretends to be a man"; lost in translation, son.)

I never said that race was "aka" nationality

Oh no? You said:

Many people exist who are religiously atheist or agnostic but *nationally* (aka ethnically, aka culturally) Jews

'Race' is far closer to synonymity with 'ethnicity' than 'nationality'. You are let down by your ignorance again.

Enough.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 6:49:31 PM|| 2004-10-07 6:49:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 dictionary.com, Bulldog, once again:

Ethnicity: "1. Ethnic character, background, or affiliation. 2. An ethnic group. "
Ethnicity: "an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial OR CULTURAL ties;"

Ethnic: "Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, NATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, LINGUISTIC OR CULTURAL heritage."
"Being a member of a particular ethnic group, especially belonging to a NATIONAL GROUP BY HERITAGE OR CULTURE but residing outside its national boundaries: ethnic Hungarians living in northern Serbia. "
"A member of a particular ethnic group, especially one who maintains the LANGUAGE OR CUSTOMS of the group."

When people talk about the Kosovars being ethnic Albanians, I assure you they are not talking about some-sort of Albanian *race* dependent on blood-descent. They are talking about national characteristic like language and culture.

I know your own fucking language better than you know it yourself, Bulldog.

Read all the mention about customs and national characteristics above, little ignorant *boy*.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 7:07:42 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:07:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 thank you for another wonderful multi-day-spanning thread Aris....I just skip them now...

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-07 7:11:38 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:11:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 You are welcome, Frank. You'd be even more welcome if you skipped them in silence.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 7:15:24 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 oooohhhh... help! help! I'm bein' oppressed!

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-07 7:16:46 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:16:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Holy Bandwidth Batman!

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-10-07 7:17:02 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 I know your own fucking language better than you know it yourself, Bulldog.

It doesn't surprise me that you think that, Aris. Do you know the meaning of 'delusional'? Why don't you look it up, you ludicrously arrogant boneheaded dickwad.

From Chambers:

ethnic, concerning nations or races; pertaining to the customs, dress, food etc. of a particular racial group or cult; foreign; exotic; pertaining to a particular racial group; between or involving different racial groups...

You don't know shit.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 7:28:29 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:28:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 I "don't know shit", Bulldog? But even your own definition says about ethnic: as "concerning nations" and "pertaining to customs, dress, food, etc".

Ooh, is that culture and nationality, methinks? And yes incidentally the cultural and national characteristics that some racial groups may also exhibit. Cheerio.

And nonetheless you claimed that my usage of "ethnicity" in connection to "nationality" and "culture", means that I was saying that nationality and race were one and the same.

Your insanity again, not mine.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 7:42:11 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:42:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 And if you choose Chambers, here's a whole *essay* about the word ethnic from Chambers: http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-eth1.htm

"By that time, it seems that for most people the word had lost the connection with religionâdisparaging in effect if not in intentâand had adopted a more neutral one of a person belonging to an IDENTIFIABLE CULTURE WITH COMMON RACIAL, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS OR LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS, very much the way we use it now when we speak formally."

Even with granting you choice of battlefields, still you failed.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 7:46:53 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:46:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Insanity? This is like debating colours of the spectrum with someone who's colourblind. One of the blessings of the English language is that words have different meanings. Hence, nation can be applied to both state and race. If you can't deal with that, I suggest you stick to Greek. Refer to post #44. The word nation can mean "the people of a state", not just a race as you obstinately seem to think.

Farewell. It's been so much fun.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 7:49:42 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:49:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 oops sorry that wasn't Chambers website.

"Nation" can definitely not be applied to "Race", except in racist terminology (e.g. the people calling themselves "white nationalists"). They are using that phrase only because "racism" sounds too nasty nowadays.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 7:52:50 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:52:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 And how many times must I repeat to you that nation is not a synonym for "RACE" and I never said it was??

How many times before you accept that ethnicity however *can* indeed mean "nation"?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 7:57:37 PM|| 2004-10-07 7:57:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 "Nation" can definitely not be applied to "Race"...

You've fallen off the edge of reason, Aris. I was arguing that nation need not mean race. Now you're denying there can be any association between nation and race? LOL

And where's the word 'nation' in your non-Chambers reference to the word 'ethnicity'?! It's a word used primarily in relation to race, just as I was saying... You should to go to bed.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 8:01:02 PM|| 2004-10-07 8:01:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 I never denied that ethnicity can mean nation. You refused to countenance the idea that nationality can be considered independent of race. Nation, however, is most commonly used as synonymous with state. Race, in that context, is an irrelevance.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-07 8:08:42 PM|| 2004-10-07 8:08:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 I was arguing that nation need not mean race. Now you're denying there can be any association between nation and race?

There can be association only in the sense there can be association between "nation" and "religion". They are not synonyms and can never be. "Race" same as "religion" is simply one of a characteristics that may mark the majority of a national (aka ethnic) group.

And where's the word 'nation' in your non-Chambers reference to the word 'ethnicity'?!

Well "CULTURE WITH COMMON RACIAL, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS OR LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS" does make it pretty close to a nation's description, don't you think, and pretty *far* from making it a mere synonym for "race" as you claimed.

If you want to sleep, nobody's stopping you. I'm a nightowl, myself.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 8:13:08 PM|| 2004-10-07 8:13:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 "I never denied that ethnicity can mean nation. "

I think that your objection to when I said "nationality (aka ethnicity)" is well noted, having launched a new row all on its own.

"You refused to countenance the idea that nationality can be considered independent of race."

When you asked me if the children of a black immigrant can be Greek, and I said yes ofcourse they can be Greek if they are raised in "Greek culture", I think I had made it quite clear that the culture you are raised in is much more important than the incident of your race.

In highschool I knew a black kid for example -- a *Greek* black kid. He was the adopted son (I believe, never asked him right out) of a Greek couple who had lived in Zair for a very long time. Having raised by Greeks, he was undeniably Greek, regardless of race.

Now that I've put it in the specific rather than the general, will you get it?

Or will you say that the kid was "ethnically Zairian" or some foolishness like that, even though we was raised as Greek?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 8:20:59 PM|| 2004-10-07 8:20:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 "I never denied that ethnicity can mean nation. "

I think that your objection to when I said "nationality (aka ethnicity)" is well noted, having launched a new row all on its own.

"You refused to countenance the idea that nationality can be considered independent of race."

When you asked me if the children of a black immigrant can be Greek, and I said yes ofcourse they can be Greek if they are raised in "Greek culture", I think I had made it quite clear that the culture you are raised in is much more important than the incident of your race.

In highschool I knew a black kid for example -- a *Greek* black kid. He was the adopted son (I believe, never asked him right out) of a Greek couple who had lived in Zair for a very long time. Having raised by Greeks, he was undeniably Greek, regardless of race.

Now that I've put it in the specific rather than the general, will you get it?

Or will you say that the kid was "ethnically Zairian" or some foolishness like that, even though we was raised as Greek?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-10-07 8:21:00 PM|| 2004-10-07 8:21:00 PM|| Front Page Top

18:11 Mrs. Davis
18:07 Tony (UK)
17:47 Ari Tai
14:26 Anne Haight
13:15 Voidseeker
12:58 Dan Goodpasture
12:38 Dan Goodpasture
12:05 ed
11:59 BS Detector
10:40 richard mcenroe
09:53 Bill
09:41 Paul H.
02:02 JOHN KERRY SUCKS!!
00:57 Mr. Oni
23:35 Paul
23:04 Grunter
22:53 TShipman
21:34 richard mcenroe
20:21 Aris Katsaris
20:20 Aris Katsaris
20:13 Aris Katsaris
20:08 Bulldog
20:01 Bulldog
19:57 Aris Katsaris