Austrians say: either Croatia is in or we block Turkey

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
What's that?

Gotschee is a part of southern Styria, now Steierska(?), where a special (old) German speaking minority lived. They were persecuted and in large parts expelled at first after WWI but worse after WWII, when they got hit by the hate of partisans.

You are prejudiced, as You have radical and untrue impressions that You somehow believe concern entire, or majority of a nation.
You may just be ignorant, though

It's not about "entire" or even "majority". You won't tell me that catholicism, and a conservative one, isn't strong enough to influence politics in Poland much more than in other nations. I forgot who of Barroso's team it was, but some Polish conservative representatives voted against a candidate, against the European conservatives (which is their right, just as much as the "other side" did in Buttiglione's case). As they have been democratically elected, so I think it's fair to assume they represent a special Polish kind of catholicism.
Another, Austrian, example: In my view, there exists a "special Austrian kind of xenophoby", yet I don't think it's true for all Austrians nor that the majority were xenophobes of the worst brand. It means that there exists a xenophoby with particular typical elements that differ from other countries and it means that it can be sensed to exist in public debate, tabloids etc., i.e. it's somehow endemic.

Now, if you'd argue against catholicism and nationalism, fine. I perfectly know there are not few Poles doing this. But as I interpret it, you're both nationalist and conservative catholic individual, thus, actually a perfect subject of my critique, not because you are Polish.

You, OTOH, label me as object of your dislike of Germans (or making me collectively responsible for what some Prussian aristocrats did to Poland more than 200 years ago), though I neither am German, less Prussian, nor feel to be so, nor hold their views. You decided I am one. period.

But I'm glad that you believe yourself that your opinion is a minority position in Poland.

But You believe it is a problem, just not important one?

Exactly, not important enough. And other nations have other problems, so excluding Poland over that issue would have been unfair.

Carinthia is German (Austrian) today, so let it stay that way. However, if some part of it remained largely or majorly Slovenian...

AND decided to want to belong to a Slovenian state, they should be allowed to hold a referendum about it in the areas in dispute and so be it. Same should count for all minority regions. It's simply not right to force a native population (i.e. inhabiting a certain area traditionally) to live in a state they don't want. However, there's hardly that urge in Carinthia, the only referendum held there, in 192something, was favorable for Austria (with the votes of many Slovenians).

It should've been given to someone who once owned it, had any historical or ethnical rights for it; division between Poland and Lithuania would be most right - as leaving it to Germany was not quite possible.

I think the fairest solution would have been to make it a German, yet occupied territory, like after so many other wars. Or maybe even try to create a 3rd German state (no, I don't mean Austria, but GDR and Western Germany )

Oh, and You are so well-informed about what is dominant in Poland...?

Well, I don't think Theology of Liberation, right? Or even a comparatively liberal clergy (compared to other European catholic countries)?
See above the notion about Polish representatives in EU parlament, take the desire to have God in the European constitution (something Austrian episcopy did not demand, though surely it wouldn't have minded. They just didn't mingle into politics openly).

What do You mean exactly by "conservative catholicism".
If someone would like to exclude Netherlands from the community for being too liberal, would that be legitimate too, anyway?

There's a difference between "not letting in" and "throwing out" A community might simply not want someone to join who isn't in accordance with its values.
So, technically, if Netherlands apllies to join the community and conservative or other forces don't want it in because of its liberalism, it's legitimate that they vote "No".
Consequently, laicistic politicians might object to a country that, in their opinion, is not in accordance with that ideal.

First of all, as we see, You are an atheist. Why would the church listen to an atheist telling it how to change and what's good for it?
If You deny the faith at all, You should not try to change it.

I think you're of the track here. I don't want to change catholicism, it's not my right to do so. And I don't want to change it, though I certainly wouldn't mind if it did. Everyone may join or leave the club, if one doesn't like it. But I may have an opinion of catholicism and different opinions on different tendencies within it.
And, more importantly, it bothers me when catholic values I don't share are present in political and social discussion, because then, it affects me.
If catholics believe the condom is bad, well, bad for them. When catholic politicians start stopping to fund programs promoting use of condoms, it bothers me. It's the right of those politicians to hold that view and I have a right to label that with the attribute I want (backwards).
It's because of the political dimension, not about the inner belief.

Secondly, expulsion of Austria from Germany is only second half of XIX century, and as we've seen during Anschluss, the Austrians at least then, or at least large part of them, still felt German.
Take Hitler for example, anyway.
The forbiddement of union between Austria and Germany was unfair in my opinion, btw.
Perhaps today Austrians feel as being a separate nation, but I guess it is due to ww2. They do not want to share the guilt perhaps?
Still, they speak German, for definite most of history Austria was part of German history, bah, it was the center of German history for a long time.

A bit short, but true in essence. Though there was a seperate Austrian identity since at least the baroque, it was for a long time not understood as opposed to German identity. In 1918/9 you'd have found few voices not arguing for the Anschluss.
Austrian identity was first promoted during the Austrofascism, as reaction to Hitler, but it's not become strong. WWII changed everything and definitely it was convenient for the builders of our Republic to whitewash Austria's role (that, and the fact that the new/old elite was in Concentration camps during the Nazi regime). That has only started being reversed since late 1980s.
But not only to the exterior, also to the interior (even more), the reshape of identity worked. Today, there are about 3-5% of Austrians who'd consider themselves being "Germans". Today, being "Austrian" is generally seen as exclusive to being "German", few would say "both".

There's no reason why I shouldn't consider You German, but that You wish that.

I think you understood now, that to me, nationality is about identities and not blood. And as Austrians don't consider themselves to be Germans, they aren't.

Also, by your own defence of Germans from my bad, bad prejudiced opinions You've proven You are emotionally attached to this nation.

I've often defended the French in French bashing threads by some Americans here. You don't believe I'm French either, right?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Gotschee is a part of southern Styria, now Steierska(?), where a special (old) German speaking minority lived. They were persecuted and in large parts expelled at first after WWI but worse after WWII, when they got hit by the hate of partisans.

You mean that it belongs to Slovenia now?

It's not about "entire" or even "majority". You won't tell me that catholicism, and a conservative one, isn't strong enough to influence politics in Poland much more than in other nations.

And what? That there's an ultraconservative party doesn't mean the rest is the same.
Even God of OT would spare Gomora and Sodoma if there were a few just in them.

I forgot who of Barroso's team it was, but some Polish conservative representatives voted against a candidate, against the European conservatives (which is their right, just as much as the "other side" did in Buttiglione's case). As they have been democratically elected, so I think it's fair to assume they represent a special Polish kind of catholicism.

They represent one of the branches, pretty much oposed to the hierarchy. The leader of this branch is charismatic priest Rydzyk from Torun city.
They even do not let him use "catholic" addition to the stuff He makes. You must have permission of the church for that.
Yet, He is very popular, and his Radio Mary is, apart from being popular, pretty scary place sometimes, true.
Yet, his star seems to be declining.
Do You take opinion about French politics f.e. basing on what Le Pen would say?

Anyway, You did not explain what did You find so scary in behaviour of this party in EU-parliament.
They believe EU membership conditions for Poland were not good (and they were not good at all), and that the EU is anti-Christian organisation today (which is right, look at what they've done to Buttiglione),
they are just too emotional about it.

Now, if you'd argue against catholicism and nationalism, fine. I perfectly know there are not few Poles doing this. But as I interpret it, you're both nationalist and conservative catholic individual, thus, actually a perfect subject of my critique, not because you are Polish.

Me? Oh c-mon.
I'm not nationalist and I'm not conservative catholic.

You, OTOH, label me as object of your dislike of Germans (or making me collectively responsible for what some Prussian aristocrats did to Poland more than 200 years ago), though I neither am German, less Prussian,
nor feel to be so, nor hold their views. You decided I am one. period.

I do not hold You responsible for German deeds for Poland. Why would I?
Btw, it's not 200 year ago, but during last 200 years.

Exactly, not important enough. And other nations have other problems, so excluding Poland over that issue would have been unfair.

I'm sorry, I've misunderstood one your earlier post. Nevermind.

AND decided to want to belong to a Slovenian state, they should be allowed to hold a referendum about it in the areas in dispute and so be it. Same should count for all minority regions. It's simply not right to force a native population (i.e. inhabiting a certain area traditionally) to live in a state they don't want. However, there's hardly that urge in Carinthia, the only referendum held there, in 192something, was favorable for Austria (with the votes of many Slovenians).

That's one possible way of deciding the souvereignity over such region.
But it's not always fair.
If You had to chose between living in a state You lived in your all life, a state rich and stable, and a newly formed, poor state of doubtable future, what would You chose?
Also, which side would You expect to be better organised? Which side would have more means to influence the decision, one way or another?
I guess that's no arguement for You. But see; if in Byelorus after ww1 there would have been a plebiscite, there would be no Byelorus today.
I'm not sure about it, You know. It is logical to make the people inhabiting area decide.
On the other hand, this way we may finish having Marseilles an oversee departement of Algeria...

I think the fairest solution would have been to make it a German, yet occupied territory, like after so many other wars. Or maybe even try to create a 3rd German state (no, I don't mean Austria, but GDR and Western Germany )

I don't like it. After some time, they would unite and some guy may again demand an exteritorial way through Poland.

Well, I don't think Theology of Liberation, right? Or even a comparatively liberal clergy (compared to other European catholic countries)?

It depends on a person, really.

See above the notion about Polish representatives in EU parlament, take the desire to have God in the European constitution (something Austrian episcopy did not demand, though surely it wouldn't have minded. They just didn't mingle into politics openly).

The church should take part in politics where ethical questions appear.
To have God in Constitution - I do not support that, but understand. To have Christianity mentioned in preamble of Constitution, it is pretty obvious.

There's a difference between "not letting in" and "throwing out" A community might simply not want someone to join who isn't in accordance with its values.
So, technically, if Netherlands apllies to join the community and conservative or other forces don't want it in because of its liberalism, it's legitimate that they vote "No".
Consequently, laicistic politicians might object to a country that, in their opinion, is not in accordance with that ideal.

Do You think there are just laicistic politicians in Europe, huh? Especially that, if I may remind You, the founders of it were devouted catholics.
And in this case, the difference between not letting in and throwing out is slight. It is European Union, which is bound by its name to be able to contain all the European states. If it's not able to, let it change its name to "some of Europe's Union"

I think you're of the track here. I don't want to change catholicism, it's not my right to do so. And I don't want to change it, though I certainly wouldn't mind if it did. Everyone may join or leave the club, if one doesn't like it. But I may have an opinion of catholicism and different opinions on different tendencies within it.
And, more importantly, it bothers me when catholic values I don't share are present in political and social discussion, because then, it affects me.
If catholics believe the condom is bad, well, bad for them. When catholic politicians start stopping to fund programs promoting use of condoms, it bothers me.

Look here: if catholics would like to BAN condons, that would be too big interferance of religion into politics.
But why should the catholics financially support something that's against their religious views?
Here You do not defend ideological neutrality of the state, here You want to force your ideology on someone else.
You think using condoms is good? OK for You. But do not force others to financially support using them.
You'll say it's about fighting the diseases...
But so would, even more, sexual abstinency do the trick.
Yet, the church does not demand from the state to promote sexual abstinency, does it?

It's the right of those politicians to hold that view and I have a right to label that with the attribute I want (backwards).
It's because of the political dimension, not about the inner belief.

Define "backward"

I think you understood now, that to me, nationality is about identities and not blood. And as Austrians don't consider themselves to be Germans, they aren't.

If I considered myself Zulu, would I became one?
If the Bavarians decided they want to be a separate nation, would they became one despite all their language, history and earlier German identity?

I've often defended the French in French bashing threads by some Americans here. You don't believe I'm French either, right?

No, I think You've done that because You hate US


Also, You say You generally supported Polish membership, while earlier, You've said You were not pleased about it?

[klinastrom]

About Cyprus, the audacity of Turkey knows no bounds. After having their army murder and rape thousands of Greek cypriotes and capturing half of the island they now still refuse to recognise Cyprus as an independent country. All UN declarations call for the redrewal of the turkish occupation forces but as long as Turkey has US and UK backing they simply refuse. The only way Turkey can enter to Europe is with its US funded army. But thankfully that has weakened too and is no longer the case.
What Turkey basically says is accept us or we'll turn up even worse than we are now (tortures, genocides of Kurds, fights with Greece, occupation of Cyprus).

That is not a very compelling argument anyway. It is the classic turkish bully mentality, something that is a far cry from European reality.

[Heresson]

Oh c-mon. There's no "Kurdish genocide"

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
You mean that it belongs to Slovenia now?

Yes

And what? That there's an ultraconservative party doesn't mean the rest is the same.
Even God of OT would spare Gomora and Sodoma if there were a few just in them.

"...strong enough to influence Polish politics"

They represent one of the branches, pretty much oposed to the hierarchy. The leader of this branch is charismatic priest Rydzyk from Torun city.
They even do not let him use "catholic" addition to the stuff He makes. You must have permission of the church for that.
Yet, He is very popular, and his Radio Mary is, apart from being popular, pretty scary place sometimes, true.
Yet, his star seems to be declining.
Do You take opinion about French politics f.e. basing on what Le Pen would say?

Good to hear he's on decline, let's wait and see. But as you say yourself, he is popular with radical thoughts. Now, almost every people is vulnerable to populists and aggressive demagogues who know to "play the tune", like Le Pen, if you wish. I wouldn't judge overall French politics on it, but I don't have any problems saying that France has a severe problem and there's a strong tendency to xenophoby.
PS: I judge French politics according to what Chirac does, and that's scary enough.

Anyway, You did not explain what did You find so scary in behaviour of this party in EU-parliament.
They believe EU membership conditions for Poland were not good (and they were not good at all), and that the EU is anti-Christian organisation today (which is right, look at what they've done to Buttiglione),
they are just too emotional about it.

It's not about scary, I wanted to point out that there are decisively conservative catholic nationalist forces in Poland different to other European conservatives.
And yes, conditions weren't good, and no, EU is no anti-christian organization it just happens that many parlamentarians didn't want to have a person in charge of matters of equal rights who doesn't share their views - that's legitimate and we shouldn't make it bigger than it is.

Me? Oh c-mon.
I'm not nationalist and I'm not conservative catholic.

Maybe according to Polish standards.
Sorry, but that's the impression I had when you posted things like "...Slovenians are Slavs, and therefore I feel attached to them." The general impression was that the concepts of "nation" and "people" have a prominent spot in your patterns of thinking.
And as to "conservative catholic", it is because of your opinions on abortion and divorce (more because of the divorce issue, as being against abortion is a more complex issue so I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that so quickly).

I do not hold You responsible for German deeds for Poland. Why would I?
Btw, it's not 200 year ago, but during last 200 years.

OK, misunderstood you here.

I'm sorry, I've misunderstood one your earlier post. Nevermind.

Don't worry, that happens to the best of us.

I'm not sure about it, You know. It is logical to make the people inhabiting area decide.
On the other hand, this way we may finish having Marseilles an oversee departement of Algeria...

That's why I added "traditionally inhabiting". But who defines what this is? Is Marseille allowed to hold a plebiscite in 200 years? I don't know...

I don't like it. After some time, they would unite and some guy may again demand an exteritorial way through Poland.

It's irrelevant anyway today and I'm happy I don't have to make such decisions to either expel millions of people or risk near future conflicts...

The church should take part in politics where ethical questions appear.

Absolutely. I was answering to your argument that as an atheist I am not entitled to discuss catholic beliefs and I stated that I am because when it comes to politics they affect me.

Do You think there are just laicistic politicians in Europe, huh? Especially that, if I may remind You, the founders of it were devouted catholics.

I never claimed that. I just said THOSE WHO ARE laicistic "might object to a country that, in their opinion, is not in accordance with that ideal".

And in this case, the difference between not letting in and throwing out is slight. It is European Union, which is bound by its name to be able to contain all the European states. If it's not able to, let it change its name to "some of Europe's Union"

The United States of America don't feel obligued to offer membership to all American countries either. And also, the EU also always defines and defined patterns and requirements to join, namely economic goals, social standards (human rights, democracy etc.) and many others. Of course it does and it'd be stupid otherwise, even if the long-time strategy is to incoporate all European nations.

Look here: if catholics would like to BAN condons, that would be too big interferance of religion into politics.

Not at all. It is legitimate if a majority wants it in a democracy, I just wouldn't like it at all and oppose it at all costs. What I wanted to say is that if they did so, it'd affect me personally thus I'm entitled to voice against it and not interfering in something I shouldn't care about because of being atheist.

But why should the catholics financially support something that's against their religious views?
Here You do not defend ideological neutrality of the state, here You want to force your ideology on someone else.

I don't want to force catholics to promote condoms in Vatican newspaper, only indirectly through normal taxes, as the church is part of the overall society and if the government funds promoting condoms the church has to live with it or help change the majorities. It's an ordinary political problem and for what I can see in most of Europe it won't happen that a majority takes up the catholic view and I am glad about it. The catholic church may campaign against that any cry Sodom and Gomorrha while I can go and defend the status quo and call that position backwards. That's how it's supposed to be.

You think using condoms is good? OK for You. But do not force others to financially support using them.
You'll say it's about fighting the diseases...
But so would, even more, sexual abstinency do the trick.
Yet, the church does not demand from the state to promote sexual abstinency, does it?

Other, even more backwards, christian groups in the US do.
We won't discuss every issue out, but for the sake of it, I'll use this issue as example in my next paragraph.

Define "backward"

Basically, sticking to positions that are in conflict with modern realities and requirements. Take the example above: The catholic church doesn't want the promotion of condoms. Now, one catholic position could be to keep out of the discussion as you say, leaving the state with it. Of course, that does nothing because no sexual abstinency AND no condoms surely won't help. The other position, promoting sexual abstinency instead of condoms would statistically fail badly. A more "modern" catholic approach could be "better be abstinent but at any rate, never unprotected".
Backwards to me also covers sticking to dogmata that clash with the ideals of enlightenment, to develop an own opinion through reasoning and not by "accepting what the church says".

If I considered myself Zulu, would I became one?
If the Bavarians decided they want to be a separate nation, would they became one despite all their language, history and earlier German identity?

Let me first answer the 2nd part: Absolutely. Although, of course, it's not possible to decree such a change by a treaty. But if in history something happens that most Bavarians deeply inside feel there's something that divides them from Germans, then sure.
Like the Swiss. There are Swiss who speak French, German, Italian and rhaetoromanic but they all are of swiss nationality as they share an identity based on common historical experiences.
Now the first: I agree, I've been over-simplistic. Of course, it's not only self-ascription but also foreign ascription that work on identity in a never ending dialectical process. But if you want to be a Zulu and go to them and they accept you as one of them, then you are a Zulu. And then, there are multuple identities because if only part of your environment accepts you as Zulu, while the other doesn't you'd soon find yourself in an identity crises.
That's a common procedure, the most prominent examples are white captives in American Indian societies who sometimes became full members of the tribe, while the white society wouldn't see them as such and they were in doubt themselves.

Also, You say You generally supported Polish membership, while earlier, You've said You were not pleased about it?

I meant rather the candidate I had/have most concerns and doubts about (together with Latvia and Lithuania, though I'm not really informed about those countries so my stance is pure gut-feeling, no backed up position). But you're right, my first statement was too harsh and actually doesn't represent my position.
What I believe is that it would have been unfair to close the doors before Poland after tough negotiations which weren't really favorable towards Poland and Poles still voted "Yes". But I also believe it would have been better for both sides if Poland had opted otherwise. The membership was unfair especially towards Polish peasants, there's a large economic dimension to it and finally my ideological concerns we've talked at length. But all this doesn't mean I'd have said: "Stay out."

[VetLegion]

What an awsome threadjack, I don't read the posts (no pictures ), but the sheer amount of letters in them impresses me

[RGBVideo]

On the other hand much of Turkey is very backwards, corrupt, and grindingly poor.

There are already some states in the Eurozone that are more corrupt than Turkey.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Because the boarder was unfair? Because it wanted to protect local Armenians from being persecuted?
The same, Turkey is responsible for Cypriote problem.
Anyway, from what I know, it's rather Karabakh running Armenia now than other way round.

...

There's nothing wrong in changing the boarders.
Karabach several times, under USSR, asked the authorities to transpher itself into Armenia, but uh "Azerbeycanees" did not agree.
If they want to be independant or belong to Armenia, it's OK for me, just like independance of Tchechenia.

...

ethnical one as well. And I think it can be allowed. Who's said that boarders can't be changed?
They should be, if there are enough reasons.
Haven't we allowed independant Eritrea some years ago?
And, if we are so afraid about that changing the boarders in this part of the world may cause domino effect, just give Karabakh with a few additions a status of practically independant, yet nominally autonomic state. Perhaps this would make local Armenians happy enough to agree to remain officially in Azerbeycan

There are so many countries in the world which think their borders are unfair. Therefore, the Armenian approach to unfair borders can not be accepted as a valid one for conduct. In this day and age, you can't just invade your neighbour because your history demands you to unite with your brethren accross the border.

Actually this was my whole point, Armenia decides to compansate for the unfair record of history, goes ahead to invade a quarter of its neighbour. So then, when it declares it doesn't recognise its border border with Turkey, what is that a sign of? Why should Turkey treat it as a friend?

I think Turks control more than that of Cyprus.
Also, Armenians lived not only in Karabakh, and Karabakh has no direct boarder with Armenia, so it was pretty hard to control just it, if You wanted to receive help from Armenia and wanted to unite with it.

Firstly, Turkey had a legal basis upon the provisions of which to act in 1974, whether one agrees with the Turkish action or not. The guarantee clauses that established the right of intervention to Greece, Turkey and the UK in case of the island uniting with any other country. The Greek Cypriot fascists who agitated for decades for a union with Greece staged a succesful coup in 1974, fully supported by the Greek Junta in the motherland Greece. That triggered the intervention clauses.

Secondly, after the intervention, Turkey's military presence and the new status quo was condemned internationally, but then in the end Turkey Turkey did its best to contribute to a solution that was supported by the whole international community, a solution that was rejected due to the nationalistic perspective of the Greek Cypriots.

How does that compare with Armenia? It invaded a neighbour of similar size with the explicit intent to occupy land, based only on historical considerations with no legal basis whatsoever except that borders were unfair. Furthermore, Armenia so far is impervious to international mediation, and remains cold to even the broadest form of autonomy for Nagorno-Karabagh.

Are You attempting to say that Turkey is objective in this matter?

All I'm saying is that Turkey has valid reasons not to initiate full relations with Armenia.

Could You remind me all the conditions of it?
I recall there was a division between Turkish and Greek parts, that's to stay, though the Turks would hand out some of the territory back to Greeks. It's making a new boarder as well.
How was the case of emmigrants from Turkish territory (and the other way round) solved?

With the UN Plan, Turkish Cypriots agreed to relinquish their de facto independence for a confederate structure in which they would further give up land (upto 20 percent of what they have now), be partners with Greeks in a shared, unified state. As a result of the would-be border changes, upto half the existing population in the Turkish north would have to move further north. Around half the immigrants from Turkey were to be allowed to stay, and those are mostly ones who, for example, had married Turkish Cypriots etc.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by klinastrom
About Cyprus, the audacity of Turkey knows no bounds. After having their army murder and rape thousands of Greek cypriotes and capturing half of the island they now still refuse to recognise Cyprus as an independent country. All UN declarations call for the redrewal of the turkish occupation forces but as long as Turkey has US and UK backing they simply refuse. The only way Turkey can enter to Europe is with its US funded army. But thankfully that has weakened too and is no longer the case.
What Turkey basically says is accept us or we'll turn up even worse than we are now (tortures, genocides of Kurds, fights with Greece, occupation of Cyprus).

That is not a very compelling argument anyway. It is the classic turkish bully mentality, something that is a far cry from European reality.

Let's go through your audacious allegations:

- Murder and rape: Well, it had been going on for a decade when the Turkish army arrived on Cyprus. Committed by Greek Cypriot fascists in the name of a reunion with Greece. Turks were physically confined to 3% of the island, under siege by the Gr Cypriot fascists. Surely, it must be the first time you read about this.

- Turkish recognition of the Republic of Cyprus: The Republic of Cyprus, the entity that was based on the institutional partnership of Turks and Greeks, came to a de facto end in 1963, with the expulsion of Turks from their constitutionally assigned state positions and the following campaign to physically drive them into a corner and out of Cyprus. Since 1963, the Greek Cypriots that now pretend to be the Republic of Cyprus, have no right to speak for the Turkish Cypriots.

- UN declarations for Turkish withdrawal: If the UN plan was not rejected by Greek Cypriots, the 40.000 strong Turkish Army Corps in Cyprus was to leave the new republic in phases, effective immediately.

- Kurds, torture, fights with Greece, etc: If the EU Commission is an objective judge of Turkey's progress on Kurds, Turkey is meeting the EU political criteria to start negotiations with the EU. There is an ongoing dialogue with Greece about all problems, which is making good headway, as a result of which Greece itself is an enthusiastic supporter of Turkey.

What else? Ah, yes:

- The Turkish bully mentality and European reality: The European reality is that it lives in a dream world of perceptions about Turkey, particularly the public. The European reality is that subliminal despise and racism is a fact of life. The European reality is at conflict with the reality that Turkey now meets the pronounced criteria for EU membership and now nobody has the guts enough in Europe to say this was meant to stay a "Christian club" based on Christian culture if not religion ("but they are not like us!!1!1"). And surely you don't mean Europe never bullied anyone, or do you?

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by VetLegion


What an awsome threadjack, I don't read the posts (no pictures ), but the sheer amount of letters in them impresses me

Well, you definitely have a point there.

Is there any development about the Austrian stance of linkage between the memberships of Turkey and Croatia?

The Turkish press gave it a brief mention that Austria is insisting on making a connection etc. But there doesn't seem to be any alarm about this in Turkey (no official comment by EU or Turkish officials, for example), so would that be a sign that the Austrians are not adamant on this?

[Atahualpa]

Is there any development about the Austrian stance of linkage between the memberships of Turkey and Croatia?

I still haven't heard of it.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by VetLegion


What an awsome threadjack, I don't read the posts (no pictures ), but the sheer amount of letters in them impresses me

You should have seen the Armenian genocide discussion between me and Ancyrean. It seems that it's always the same posters who have a weakness for monster quote'n'answer discussions.

[Wernazuma III]

And the Austria-Croatia-Turkey connection seems to be a hoax.
One day after the start of the thread, anyway, there was an item in the late news where there was an interview with Croatian president, who was in Austria for some reason, advertised for Croatia joining the EU and someone said: "It'd be unfair not to start talks with Croatia only based on the critique of The Hague and at the same time to accept talks with Turkey". That's it, no veto menaces and it was only about promoting to start talks with Croatia.

[VetLegion]

I've read that one in its entirety, it was informative . And it does seem you, Heresson and Ancyrean have great stamina for prolonged discussion, which I mock but also respect

Ancyrean,

is there any development about the Austrian stance of linkage between the memberships of Turkey and Croatia?

No, haven't heard anything more about it. The recent news is that Croatia is about to start full negotiations in april 2005., but with a condition that general Gotovina sought by Hague tribunal is found and extradicted.

[Heresson]

"...strong enough to influence Polish politics"

They've never influenced it pretty much. This party emerged in last elections and yet didn't rule.

Good to hear he's on decline, let's wait and see. But as you say yourself, he is popular with radical thoughts.

I think it's not (only) about these conceptions. I think it's because it's one of few really religious radios. Ones You pray in and stuff.

EU is no anti-christian organization it just happens that many parlamentarians didn't want to have a person in charge of matters of equal rights who doesn't share their views - that's legitimate and we shouldn't make it bigger than it is.

It is a serious problems, because all this case was shown in a histerical and false light.
Butti compared Europe and America to a pair that should marry and raise their children together -
"He is against single mothers" they started shouting"
He's said that though he may consider homosexualism a sin, there's a difference between sin and crime, and He will protect them from discrimination
And I've read post at Apolyton claiming that He's stated He's not going to do that...
Imagine that conservative Christian EU parliamentarist force out of some candidate that he's an atheist,
pronounce him Antichrist and force to resign.
Would that be fair?

And as to "conservative catholic", it is because of your opinions on abortion and divorce (more because of the divorce issue, as being against abortion is a more complex issue so I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that so quickly).

I have nothing against divorces themselves, but Christ's said: "It was said: who divorces his wife, ought to give her divorce papers, and I say that every man that divorces a wife - except for adultery cause - makes uh a women practicing adultery out of her, and whoever marries her, practices adultery"
I think modern Church's approach is more strict than Christ's himself, and I do not support it, but I think many people treat this sacrament (it is a sacrament in catholicism) not seriously enough and they should know that if they marry, they should at least try to make it last.

I never claimed that. I just said THOSE WHO ARE laicistic "might object to a country that, in their opinion, is not in accordance with that ideal".

I think it is dangerous.
"Lets build an atheistic club" it says.
EU parliament spends too much time supporting ultraliberal ideological sollutions, like when it issued statesment encouraging the parliament of states applying to EU to relax abortion laws.
They are majority, they allow such laws - OK.
But they should not promote it for the money of all the citizens.
Imagine EU dominated by Christian conservatives that issue an appeal to Turkey to christianise in order to become a member...

The United States of America don't feel obligued to offer membership to all American countries either.

It never wanted too, it didn't have such ambitions.

I don't want to force catholics to promote condoms in Vatican newspaper, only indirectly through normal taxes, as the church is part of the overall society and if the government funds promoting condoms the church has to live with it or help change the majorities. It's an ordinary political problem and for what I can see in most of Europe it won't happen that a majority takes up the catholic view and I am glad about it. The catholic church may campaign against that any cry Sodom and Gomorrha while I can go and defend the status quo and call that position backwards. That's how it's supposed to be.

No. That's overuse of your majority. Again, imagine catholics who take the rule and state-promote the catholic faith. Wouldn't You mind it?
Democracy is not a simple dictature of a majority.

Basically, sticking to positions that are in conflict with modern realities and requirements. Take the example above: The catholic church doesn't want the promotion of condoms. Now, one catholic position could be to keep out of the discussion as you say, leaving the state with it. Of course, that does nothing because no sexual abstinency AND no condoms surely won't help.

Of course it will, if people will obey.

The other position, promoting sexual abstinency instead of condoms would statistically fail badly.

We should try to find out
And promoting the use of condoms is like promoting the use of airbag instead of telling people to reduce their speed.
People will feel safe, so they will speed up even more, and no airbag will help them.

Like the Swiss. There are Swiss who speak French, German, Italian and rhaetoromanic but they all are of swiss nationality as they share an identity based on common historical experiences.

But it is several centuries long, and Switzerland as a state emerged when modern nationalism yet didn't exist. Austria, however, is a very different thing.

But if you want to be a Zulu and go to them and they accept you as one of them, then you are a Zulu. And then, there are multuple identities because if only part of your environment accepts you as Zulu, while the other doesn't you'd soon find yourself in an identity crises.
That's a common procedure, the most prominent examples are white captives in American Indian societies who sometimes became full members of the tribe, while the white society wouldn't see them as such and they were in doubt themselves.

For me, it is not as simple as your own identification
to START a nation.
Poles, as a nation, started as a tribe of one language, of one ethnical, linguistical, race groups.
Later on we dominated on large eastern territories and many of the local gentry and citizens became Polish without having direct Polish roots, without living on the originally Polish territory, being of different religion or race sometimes. Take Polish Tatars, being Muslim and Asian of origin, yet being definitely Poles in their own and in Polish perceivement, as they live in Poland for a couple of centuries. The same with Armenians. They were just added to something that's already existed. That's one of the ways. They associated with the state,
and linguistic polonisation came later.
In the case of Switzerland, it was an association with
the state again that made it possible for different groups
to become one nation.
But it all took centuries!
The case of America, Australia etc is different, but what helped them was a geographical and also historical distinction from Britain, which Austria does not have.
Analogical to Austria may be the case of Moldavia perhaps.
For me, Austrian nationality is something artifictial today, sorry,
but with time, it may indeed became a true one.