Printable View
Go on, I'm interested as to how I compare against a man who has written two books about himself and uses rhetoric which would make Churchill blush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
So speaking about the same old stuff, Obama is just as hawkish as Bush, the difference being he and his admin. are not a bunch of cretins. So when will he be giving the oil back to Iraq?
In order to avoid Godwin I'll only ask one question: What about unconditional surrender don't you understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The we have a brain comment is a bit weak too. Predecessors, plural? Other than changing perceptions, what has he done? What did Kennedy do?
OK, that was three.
I know a bad loser when I see one. Munich talk, Manchurianitis, whateveritis. I don't read half the posts that are written in this vein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
OK, last time I try to intellectually bait Adrian.
Me, a bad looser? There's no need for conflict. We can reason this out. :insertmanfunctioningsmilie: Perhaps if you actually saw me you would think differently.
But really, other than a great sounding and thoroughly prepared speech, what has he done? It's been less than a year and the majority of what he did is to place the US in a weaker position. Your comment about "predecessors" is correct if you're referring to the sub-prime mortgage bubble. Several administrations passed who were aware of the danger but did nothing out of fear of short term results. Instead of moving forward and carving his own path he is allowing his predecessor to define his actions.
Financially the US more beholden to foreign debtors. Yes this makes them more interested our continued survival but also increases their influence. His world-wide apology tour (topped off with that clumsy bow to, as some could say, an Arab version of W) did a lot to make the masses pee themselves with glee but ultimately reduced international prestige. See how much influence he has if his popularity plummets. Fireside chats only do so much.
What has this speech done? It's made a lot of people feel good for a while. We'll see what actions he takes to determine if they mean anything. He spoke quite differently as a candidate than he acts as a president.
as my AmCon article pointed out, his speech will placate a few without making us do anything at all.
Obama and his Democrats will make the U.S far more powerful that any retarded neo-con could, he is intelligent like Clinton, like that president's admin. Obama's will conceal the dirty deeds of U.S foreign policy and enable him to placate many of the critics and Muslims who may feel like tools of American power. He won't of course change any of the dynamics of U.S hegemony, he'll just make it "smart" again. If U.S hegemony floats your boat then you should be very happy with Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Perhaps if you didn't come charging into the backroom with such a confrontational attitude you would have realized I was not making any comparison between you and the President. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about someone speaking in a self righteous manner while moaning about the US murdering in wars. You speak as though you have some sort of moral authority. I cannot even discern where your position actually is- aside from the Israli's not existing anymore. You continually drip venom towards those you disagree with, so much so that i frankly find it both disturbing and irritating, which makes your proclamations of the Evil West(tm) all the more hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
Yeap, Obama is extending the terrible wrath of US hegemony. Obviously we must doing a real impressive job to outdo the Brits on Empire-based kill totals. Or Napoleon, or the Spaniards. Yeah, I'm glad we can outkill all the other ameteur hegemons of history.Quote:
Obama and his Democrats will make the U.S far more powerful that any retarded neo-con could, he is intelligent like Clinton, like that president's admin. Obama's will conceal the dirty deeds of U.S foreign policy and enable him to placate many of the critics and Muslims who may feel like tools of American power. He won't of course change any of the dynamics of U.S hegemony, he'll just make it "smart" again. If U.S hegemony floats your boat then you should be very happy with Obama.
Personal attack aside, my grounds for calling it murder are legal and factual. I'm not going to posture upon morals, but I will use the rule of law to posture. Self righteousness is destroying a country by helping to fund a brutal civil war, getting in bed with a string of disgusting authoritarian regimes, then, when you finally get a taste of what its really like, you dare to use a terrorist attack as a reason to barge into Afghanistan and start to bomb the crap out of a country your money and secret service has already ruined.Quote:
Perhaps if you didn't come charging into the backroom with such a confrontational attitude you would have realized I was not making any comparison between you and the President. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about someone speaking in a self righteous manner while moaning about the US murdering in wars. You speak as though you have some sort of moral authority. I cannot even discern where your position actually is- aside from the Israli's not existing anymore. You continually drip venom towards those you disagree with, so much so that i frankly find it both disturbing and irritating, which makes your proclamations of the Evil West(tm) all the more hypocritical.
I do not drip venom, I post my views and in the case of Afghanistan I have supported them with facts.
My views on Israel, do not equate to mass murder or any type of violence towards someone just becasue of who they were born. I despise Israel becasue that kind of hatred is what I am opposed to, I don't care what you think of me for it.
Yes he is, "outdo", you seem to believe that I want to compare my colonial phalus with yours...Quote:
Yeap, Obama is extending the terrible wrath of US hegemony. Obviously we must doing a real impressive job to outdo the Brits on Empire-based kill totals. Or Napoleon, or the Spaniards. Yeah, I'm glad we can outkill all the other ameteur hegemons of history.
Let me tell you, that my nation's continued use of brutality and murder to get what it "wants" disgusts me and I despise any Briton who agrees with those policies.
Now, if you want to do something other than mock or insult me, why not pop over to the Afghanistan thread and dispute the facts? I'd be willing.
Ok, let's get a few points in order. First of all, I didn't attack you. I responded to the continued vitriol and lack of continuity which emanates from your posts. You dismiss the death of thousands on 9/11, as though they did not matter, yet you rage against the death of Palestians. That is hypocrisy, at least if you claim to believe every life is equally important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
You call the President a joke, a snake, and a murderer. You assume that 9/11 was nothing more than pretext, as though those lives were not important. You insert yourself into the mind of people you do not know, and assume the worst.Quote:
I do not drip venom, I post my views and in the case of Afghanistan I have supported them with facts.
First of all, hatred is itself a terrible thing to allow oneself to succumb to. To despise is to lose any impartiality. You despise Israeli's for "hatred', as though all Israeli's can be nicely summed into a neat category. Guess what? Its awfully easy for plenty of Israeli's, a number of whom have committed no crime other than being born in in the "wrong place" so to speak, to hide in shelters in their basement from continued rocket attacks and think "those Palestinians, they must all be evil, I have done nothing wrong to them and yet I must seek shelter from their rockets."Quote:
My views on Israel, do not equate to mass murder or any type of violence towards someone just becasue of who they were born. I despise Israel becasue that kind of hatred is what I am opposed to, I don't care what you think of me for it.
Second, you again are being hypocritical. You want the Israel to drop its weapons, and yet when Obama speaks to the Palistinians about themselves disarming, you deride it as "bollox". That, again, is hypocrisy. Not a personal attack, not slander. That is what you have stated.
Unfortunately, there are no smilies. I rather assumed it was obvious I was being sarcastic, and you seem to have misinterpreted my intention of the statement. It was not nice of you to insinuate, however, that I was measuring the US' penis against the UK's. Again, a bit hypocritical given you yourself complained of personal attacks.Quote:
Yes he is, "outdo", you seem to believe that I want to compare my colonial phalus with yours...
The intention of the statement was not moral equivelence or anything of the like. No, my intention was this; That US hegemony has, for a much larger percentage of the world's population, been much more beneficial than that of previous global hegemons. Previous hegemons literally comitted genocide at times, different times, yes, but the actions still speak for themselves. Compared to most hegemons, the US has been fairly benevolant for those that peacefully cooperate. It has been under US hegomony(post WW2, post Bretton Woods) that freedom of movement has exploded, that free trade has enabled greater cultural diffusion than ever before, that more people have been lifted out of poverty, that more technological advances in medicine, agriculture, and communication have been made. No previous hegemon has contributed as much to global prosperity than the US- Not Victorian Britain, not Napoleonic France, not the Ottoman Empire, not the Ming Dynasty, not Renaissance Spain.Quote:
Let me tell you, that my nation's continued use of brutality and murder to get what it "wants" disgusts me and I despise any Briton who agrees with those policies.
You're even more rubbish at it than I. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I am torn between liking the speech, as did most of the early posters in this thread, and disliking it for the reasons leveled by Louis.
President Obama's previous political associations and votes seem to indicate a modest preference for the Palestinian viewpoint in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. He will be supportive of Palestinian efforts and somewhat more likely to chastise Israel than the Bush admins -- more along the line of the Clinton adminstration (which has been demonstrated, at least with known public statements to date). Political support for Israel in key segments of the US electorate make it impractical for him to take an anti-Israeli stance, even if that is his preferred point of view (an unknown).
Obama's call for restraint and appeal to the angels of our better nature (interestingly, the concept of angels is part and parcel of all three of the faith systems involved) is a good one -- and he isn't really preferencing Israel despite our ties to them -- but I truly wonder if the audience heard him and how many are ready to make that kind of future happen. If those living there do not wish for/work for such a future, then no exterior force can impose it.
Default:
You keep looking for a future in which the US will repudiate many of its actions over the last half century or more; publicly state that we are no better than the next group of self-interested thugs; cease our unilateral support for any regime that does not clearly support/stand for human rights for all; and back away from any leadership role in international affairs and simply support -- as an equal voice -- the international groups of which we are members.
Guess what? It isn't going to happen that way. Someday our power may wane and history will force us to accept such a role -- it has happened before to many. Short of that, find a group of nations willing to stop us with the political will to bleed to make that stoppage happen or we will go on doing what we think is best for us and for the world -- that's what states do. All-in-all, I think the US record is somewhat less exploitative and very much less tyrannical than the records of other great powers, so you might find it difficult to gin up such an opposition.
World Peace?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif Yes oui ken! https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif
It's multilingual pun day!!
yes = yes in English
oui = yes in French
ken = yes in Hebrew
In English, yes oui ken is pronounced as 'yes, we can!'
A triple sowcow (Salchow)Quote:
Yes oui ken!
https://jimcee.homestead.com/nobelllogo-160.gif
With regards to the speech, I believe that it was the right speech for the right situation. While I acknowledge Louis' comments, I feel a concilatory form of address was right for the situation. The earlier speech in Turkey, was, in my opinion, the right choice there. In the position of President, no matter what you do you will be criticised. Its been reported that some Israelis are extremely disappointed, and many Americans are critical of the (constructive) criticism of Israel. That said were he to go hard on Hamas, then his audience in Cairo, and the wider audience of the Middle East would then have reacted poorly.
Honestly I admire his tact. There is a time and a place for straight talking, but in this case I think Obama has got it right.
Uhuh, nice of you to fabricate the views of your oponents...Quote:
Ok, let's get a few points in order. First of all, I didn't attack you. I responded to the continued vitriol and lack of continuity which emanates from your posts. You dismiss the death of thousands on 9/11, as though they did not matter, yet you rage against the death of Palestians. That is hypocrisy, at least if you claim to believe every life is equally important.
So, back to what I am really saying, the U.S had largely dismissed the deaths of many thousands of Afghans by claiming that the war there is a just war (yeah right).
So, it was hypocrisy was it? No, what it was was me having a strong view point which conflicts with yours.
Sorry, if I did call him a snale I apologise, I don't remember it, perhaps you could point me to the post...Quote:
You call the President a joke, a snake, and a murderer. You assume that 9/11 was nothing more than pretext, as though those lives were not important. You insert yourself into the mind of people you do not know, and assume the worst.
A joke, well yes to me he is a joke, a really foul one which is being played on peoples like the Afghans.
A murderer, well yes he is, he is now head of an administration which has murdered civilians, pretty soon he will have overseen the murder of far more people than Bin Laden. Perspective is a great thing, you should read up on how many civlians died in that country due to U.S money and support, oh and it was the U.S which supported the first Ilsmaic regime in Afghanistan and allowed those abuses of "liberty" and "freedom".
Nice opening sentence. Despise, sorry, what else are you meant to view the Isreali occupation as? Ever heard of the Plans D? No? Well why don't you go and have a look at them.Quote:
First of all, hatred is itself a terrible thing to allow oneself to succumb to. To despise is to lose any impartiality. You despise Israeli's for "hatred', as though all Israeli's can be nicely summed into a neat category. Guess what? Its awfully easy for plenty of Israeli's, a number of whom have committed no crime other than being born in in the "wrong place" so to speak, to hide in shelters in their basement from continued rocket attacks and think "those Palestinians, they must all be evil, I have done nothing wrong to them and yet I must seek shelter from their rockets."
Second, you again are being hypocritical. You want the Israel to drop its weapons, and yet when Obama speaks to the Palistinians about themselves disarming, you deride it as "bollox". That, again, is hypocrisy. Not a personal attack, not slander. That is what you have stated.
Isreal and America's attempts at "peace" have all been bollox, one sided affairs whereby the lackey of a Superpower gets it easy while the opressed natives get stuff all. Yeah, so I am sorry if I write off Obama's talk of peace as a re-run of Camp David.
Sounded like you were taking the piss.Quote:
Yeap, Obama is extending the terrible wrath of US hegemony. Obviously we must doing a real impressive job to outdo the Brits on Empire-based kill totals. Or Napoleon, or the Spaniards. Yeah, I'm glad we can outkill all the other ameteur hegemons of history.
Yes actions do speak for themselves, do you even know what your country has done over the past fifty years, under the guise of groups like the World Bank?Quote:
The intention of the statement was not moral equivelence or anything of the like. No, my intention was this; That US hegemony has, for a much larger percentage of the world's population, been much more beneficial than that of previous global hegemons. Previous hegemons literally comitted genocide at times, different times, yes, but the actions still speak for themselves. Compared to most hegemons, the US has been fairly benevolant for those that peacefully cooperate. It has been under US hegomony(post WW2, post Bretton Woods) that freedom of movement has exploded, that free trade has enabled greater cultural diffusion than ever before, that more people have been lifted out of poverty, that more technological advances in medicine, agriculture, and communication have been made. No previous hegemon has contributed as much to global prosperity than the US- Not Victorian Britain, not Napoleonic France, not the Ottoman Empire, not the Ming Dynasty, not Renaissance Spain.
Good god, the U.S has been as rapacious as any Hegemon in history, don't fall for the benevolent giant bollox, the U.S has actively tried to screw over most of the Third World.
No I don't, I have views which lead me to believe that yours are generally wrong, so we have arguments, that is all.Quote:
You keep looking for a future in which the US will repudiate many of its actions over the last half century or more; publicly state that we are no better than the next group of self-interested thugs; cease our unilateral support for any regime that does not clearly support/stand for human rights for all; and back away from any leadership role in international affairs and simply support -- as an equal voice -- the international groups of which we are members.
That is why I dislike Hegemons and Imperial powers.Quote:
Guess what? It isn't going to happen that way. Someday our power may wane and history will force us to accept such a role -- it has happened before to many. Short of that, find a group of nations willing to stop us with the political will to bleed to make that stoppage happen or we will go on doing what we think is best for us and for the world -- that's what states do. All-in-all, I think the US record is somewhat less exploitative and very much less tyrannical than the records of other great powers, so you might find it difficult to gin up such an opposition
I think the U.S record is just as blood stained as any others, I think if you read up on the "Backyard" or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq or Pakistan, you might grasp where I am coming from.
So, then, I assume that you do not see any situation in which a war is just?Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
Nice try to paint me into a corner as the bad guy in this argument. It is hypocrisy. You claim US cassus belli in Afghanistan was bollox, despite the deaths of innocents in a beligerant attack. The US responds and only then do you rage against civiian deaths.Quote:
So, it was hypocrisy was it? No, what it was was me having a strong view point which conflicts with yours.
On the first point- you call him a liar, deceiver, and murderer. Sure sounds like a snake to me.Quote:
Sorry, if I did call him a snale I apologise, I don't remember it, perhaps you could point me to the post...
A joke, well yes to me he is a joke, a really foul one which is being played on peoples like the Afghans.
A murderer, well yes he is, he is now head of an administration which has murdered civilians, pretty soon he will have overseen the murder of far more people than Bin Laden. Perspective is a great thing, you should read up on how many civlians died in that country due to U.S money and support, oh and it was the U.S which supported the first Ilsmaic regime in Afghanistan and allowed those abuses of "liberty" and "freedom".
As far as him being a joke for the Afghans- I suppose then, that it would make everything better if we picked up and left?
Murder- I don't deny that a lot of innocent people in Afghanistan have been caught in the crossfire. Its a hell hole right now. Now, tell me, why do you think civilians have died in afghanistan? Because the US is out to murder them in front of the entire rest of the world, when 40+ nations followed us in? Because we're sadistic?
I don't deny Isreal has all too often behaved in an exessively violent manner, nor that the US has supported them. Palestians have suffered much. That is precisely why they must lay down their arms. Peaceful resistance is the only method by which they can de-legitimize Isreal. You did not counter my point, instead attacking Israel again. I am not here to discuss history, I am here to discuss possible solutions.Quote:
Nice opening sentence. Despise, sorry, what else are you meant to view the Isreali occupation as? Ever heard of the Plans D? No? Well why don't you go and have a look at them.
Isreal and America's attempts at "peace" have all been bollox, one sided affairs whereby the lackey of a Superpower gets it easy while the opressed natives get stuff all. Yeah, so I am sorry if I write off Obama's talk of peace as a re-run of Camp David.
And, of course, as I stated earlier, you are inserting yourself into the minds of others(Obama) and assuming you know what they are thinking.
Pardon? "Taking the piss". Afraid I'm not familiar with that specific terminology.Quote:
Sounded like you were taking the piss.
"My country?" If you believe that the US runs the world bank, you are quite mistaken. Unless, of course, you can provide some kind of evidence tha supports your claim.Quote:
Yes actions do speak for themselves, do you even know what your country has done over the past fifty years, under the guise of groups like the World Bank?
Has the US "screwed over" some people? Yes. Have there been deaths under US watch? Yes. Has it been bad, awful, for some? Yes. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens in life. There are winners, there are losers. In my view, the losers under US hegemony have been fewer and less subjugative than under the eye of other historical hegemons. Further, unlike you, I acknowledge that the US has benefitted large numbers of people around the world through economic liberalisation. You have not countered my point that more people around the world are now going through life with greater prosperity than ever before. The US, in partnership with our fellow imperialist Britain, created the GATT, bringing world tarrifs to a level shockingly close to zero(excluding agriculture). Goods, ideas, technology, and people, have never so easily spread across national boundaries. Some have benefitted more than others. Only a select few have purposefully shut themselves off from this world of free trade- Maoist China, North Korea. China suffered terribly until they finally opened up, and North Korea remains a twisted version of the Kim family's magical kingdom.Quote:
Good god, the U.S has been as rapacious as any Hegemon in history, don't fall for the benevolent giant bollox, the U.S has actively tried to screw over most of the Third World.
So things would have been hunky-dory in all of those places without US action/intervention/influence? Poppycock. Trying to assign all of the responsibility to the US for suffering in those times/places isn't reasonable. I could just as easily argue that it would have been worse for the locals without our influence/efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar
You also mis-state the case regarding the third world. Some of our efforts have misfired (the IMF and World Bank have caused a lot of pain with their reforms and economic mandates for example), but by using the term "actively" you specifically ascribe this as having been our intent.
Had we been "actively" engaging in such a policy, we would have been using food as a weapon with targeted starvation; curtailing all investment that was not specifically associated with resource extraction, and actively aiding/abetting warlordism in order to have the locals keep themselves impoverished and impotent. Instead, we send our military to die to end warlordism (hasn't always worked by any means and it hasn't been tried uniformly at all), allow our companies to invest major amounts in infrastructure development throughout the world, and try to feed people even when their own government's are the ones using the starvation weapon.
Hegemons (actually, I think Great Power is more apt) are always a part of the history. I would suggest that you look carefully at those time frames/regions when there was no dominant power or set of powers setting the framework for interaction; you'll find that everybody in all their nations and tribes were more "equal" -- in their Hobbesian existence.
So am I, so am I. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon10.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Part of me likes Obama's policy of Shock and Thaw. Part of me wonders exactly whom and what Obama thinks he's making amendments with.
One has to be practical. Maybe in the end, in the long run, a detente with Islam will bolster the moderates, and so help to put an end to this shameless ideology of violence, torture, rape and inane focus on Palestine.
While simultanously, outside of America (hehe), secular Muslims can be bolstered and moderate Muslims pried away from the clutches of their violent and intolerant ideology.
Forgive me Louis for not bringing this up earlier, as I had to catch up with the posts (some interesting arguments going on here) but can you explain this statement from President Obama's speech in Turkey?
Hugh?:inquisitive:Quote:
Turkey is an important part of Europe.President Obama
I think my geography is a bit hazy at best, but Turkey isn't even on the same continent, no?
PS: That's what sometimes gets my goat. Many of his speeches are often loaded with these inaccuracies, historical or otherwise. Like the time he claimed that the Berlin airlift made it possible for his Kenyan father to come to the United States. I guess Kenya is now a part of Germany.:no: I do appreciate the tone of his rhetoric as you do of course.
Istanbul is partially inside Europe and so is a tiny bit of the surrounding area aswell.
Anyway he's probably mainly positivly refering to that Turkey may become a member of EU, thus becoming a part of the European hemisphere.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Istanbul, and I agree with your surmise. I have always seen Turkey as a sort of land bridge between east and west, with influences form both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/op...iedman.html?em
Thomas Friedman wrote an intersting column. Below the abridged version:
'Bush' as a necessary historical step. A kind of Ronald Reagan - despised for his warmongering attitude, yet appreciated by history for being a hammer of historical progress. Could Bush' legacy improve, could he be remembered for forging democratic chance? For all of Bush' lunacy, for his disastrous, even despicable policies, I say the verdict is not yet in...Quote:
something is going on in the Middle East today that is very new.
What we saw in the Lebanese elections, where the pro-Western March 14 movement won a surprise victory over the pro-Iranian Hezbollah coalition, what we saw in the ferment for change exposed by the election campaign in Iran, and what we saw in the provincial elections in Iraq, where the big pro-Iranian party got trounced, is the product of four historical forces that have come together to crack open this ossified region.
First is the diffusion of technology. The Internet, blogs, YouTube and text messaging via cellphones, particularly among the young
Second, for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics
Third, the Bush team opened a hole in the wall of Arab autocracy but did a poor job following through. In the vacuum, the parties most organized to seize power were the Islamists — Hezbollah in Lebanon; pro-Al Qaeda forces among Iraqi Sunnis, and the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Mahdi Army among Iraqi Shiites; the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Hamas in Gaza. Fortunately, each one of these Islamist groups overplayed their hand by imposing religious lifestyles or by dragging their societies into confrontations the people didn’t want. This alienated and frightened more secular, mainstream Arabs and Muslims and has triggered an “awakening” backlash among moderates from Lebanon to Pakistan to Iran. The Times’s Robert Mackey reported that in Tehran “chants of ‘Death to America’ ” at rallies for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week were answered by chants of “Death to the Taliban — in Kabul and Tehran” at a rally for his opponent, Mir Hussein Moussavi.
Finally, along came President Barack Hussein Obama. Arab and Muslim regimes found it very useful to run against George Bush. The Bush team demonized them, and they demonized the Bush team. Autocratic regimes, like Iran’s, drew energy and legitimacy from that confrontation, and it made it very easy for them to discredit anyone associated with America. Mr. Obama’s soft power has defused a lot of that. As result, “pro-American” is not such an insult anymore.
I don’t know how all this shakes out; the forces against change in this region are very powerful — see Iran — and ruthless. But for the first time in a long time, the forces for decency, democracy and pluralism have a little wind at their backs. Good for them.
~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~
There is a fiercely contested, long running debate in Europe about a possible Turkish membership of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Obama's statement above is a deliberate political statement. Not particularly new or shocking. For geostrategical reasons, it has long been the US's preference to see a Turkish EU membership.
I myself oppose Turkish membership. Obama's flirt with the Turks was not received well by those who oppose membership.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6041404.ece
Ah, the sweet irony of history: five years ago, Chirac, rather: France and Germany, were in favour of a Turkey membership, and chastened America for anti-Islamic interventionism. Currently, Sarkozy and Merkel are very outspoken opponents of a Turkish membership, and chastize America for it's pro-Islamic interventionism. :laugh4: