Erdogan in China

[lem34]

Maybe i can be more tolerant but think twice before talking. If i will talk about Kashmir Issue and find Indians right, i'm sure that Pakistanis will do what i do too.

This in no way mitigates what you have stated earlier. I did not attack you personally. You are entitled to your opinion if you believe that Indian position is correct on Kashmir. After all American's want India to be a proxy in our neighbourhood and they choose to ignore the injustices to Kashmiris

 

[King Solomon]

A Russianized, Chinesed Kazakh. You represent here Russia's interests.

Lost the argument, that is why attacking me personally?

 

[lem34]

Guys can we discuss this rationally. I have come across an interesting article that I would like to share with you. It is an old article but relevant I think. basically it says that we live in interesting times and may expect changes in the future it also points to the delicate position that turkey is in :

Turkey and NATO: Is Non-Alliance an Option?
İbrahim Kalın

Yorum&Haber, 04 Eylül 2008

Speaking to Milliyet columnist Fikret Bila, Prime Minister Erdoğan stated that Turkey is being forced to take sides in the Georgian conflict.

"Some are trying to push us toward the US and some toward Russia," said the prime minister. Underlining Turkey's strong alliance with the US but also acknowledging Turkey's expanding relations with Russia, Erdoğan said he "will not allow Turkey to be pushed to one side or the other. We will act in accordance with Turkey's national interests." Given Turkey's increasing trade volume with Russia and its energy dependency, Erdoğan added: "Turkey will observe a balance in tandem with its interests. It is not right to force Turkey to stand by only one side."

Policy Brief, 01.07.2009

Is this a declaration of tacit non-alliance? Some observers think the Caucasus crisis has brought Turkey to the brink of a final choice between its traditional alliance with the Western bloc under the beret of NATO and its proximate region of Russia, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Some claim that it is time for Turkey to reconsider its NATO membership. The ultranationalists argue that Turkey should abandon NATO and join the non-alliance movement. The anti-NATO camp has a different agenda; they want to see Turkey move away from democracy and transparency, both of which are a condition and result of Turkey's strategic alliance with NATO as well as its EU goal. The hard choices brought before Turkey, however, do point to an essential problem in the current configuration of the Western bloc represented by NATO.

As the events of the last few years have shown, NATO is still thinking and acting within the parameters of the Cold War period. Some had hailed the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union as the death knell of the old regime but also of NATO. If there wasn't a communist threat, then there would be no need for such a military structure as NATO. Some had feared that this would also mean the diminishing of Turkey's strategic significance for the West. This did not happen. Turkey remains a key player in the region, a player that everybody wants to see on his side.

Why? This is something imposed by Turkey's geopolitical position. As history returns to Asia, that huge landmass of which Europe is only the Western front, countries in the region reach out for new opportunities. In this sense, the geopolitics of Turkey cannot be ignored in its NATO role. A national foreign policy must also be a regional foreign policy. Turkey cannot pretend to belong to a different geopolitical map. It does not have the luxury to think a mere alliance with the West will be sufficient for its national and regional goals.

Turkey is bound to tread a fine line between belonging to the Western bloc and its immediate environment. This does not mean abandoning NATO. What it does suggest, however, is that countries like Turkey can and should be part of a larger debate about NATO's priorities and modus operandi in the 21st century.

Turning globalization into an opportunity involves a dynamic foreign policy based on a non-isolationist regionalism. A "globalist foreign policy" that does not take into account Turkey's geo-political and regional priorities and concerns may have worked within a Cold War context. But it won't work now. The reason is that international politics are no longer dictated solely by clear-cut alliances and blocs vying for power and influence. There are intermediate categories that range from full alliance and cooperation to non-interference and restraint. We have seen these modalities in Turkey's policies in Iraq, the EU, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Kosovo, Cyprus and the Black Sea. The Caucasus crisis presents yet another case in which Turkey will have to reject either/or propositions.

And this means Turkey will remain a NATO member but with a different and perhaps tacit non-alliance posturing until NATO and the Western bloc revise their priorities and move toward a new configuration of power in the Euro-Asian context.

So I take this to mean we live in interesting times

 

[airmarshal]

Dont know why why this line argument taken up that since Turkey is a member of NATO, its a US puppet and NATO is controlled by AIPAC. Cant get anymore stupid than this!!

The fact is Turkey is a great country. It has reached greater heights of influence and economic prosperity under Erdogan. Those countries in Europe which wanted to keep distance from Turkey, are now envious of Turkey's great economic miracle. Look at where Portugal, Greece, Italy, France or even Britain stand and where Turkey is. Turkish economy is expanding at 8 or 9% while Europe's has either stagnated or in decline.

Turkey was one country which publicly turned down US to provide land access to Iraq when Iraq was illegally invaded and occupied. I dont think Pakistan had such spine to say "NO' to US when it was invading Afghanistan!!

So please keep on the topic.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Lost the argument, that is why attacking me personally?

We are on internet. I trust noone in real life, why would I trust you on internet?

You talk like Muslim, you talk like Kazakh. But you call Uighurs RAT! You wave Russian flag in another topic you opened.

So dont expect us Turks to accept your delusional thought. No I am not attacking you.

You started by calling some Turkic people RAT

 

[ovarel]

We are on internet. I trust noone in real life, why would I trust you on internet?

You talk like Muslim, you talk like Kazakh. But you call Uighurs RAT! You wave Russian flag in another topic you opened.

So dont expect us Turks to accept your delusional thought. No I am not attacking you.

You started by calling some Turkic people RAT

He used a metaphore.I think you guys cant get along well.Maybe you should ignore each other?

 

[silko]

They are Muslim Communists

there isn't such thing as Muslim communist or Christian communist or Jewish communist.

communism forbids religion as seen in former soviet where religious places was shut down.


and before commenting and saying pkk is muslim you should look at their agenda, saying that their leader øcalan is a prophet for them and praise him instead of Allah. they force children to become pkk members and even force them to have either lesbian or gay sex with the adults in the terrorist group.

hunt and eat pigs... make fun of prayers. this can all be found in easy places like youtube.

we don't hunt them down like rats and shoot everyone that is a pkk member, when they with their own will come out and give up to our forces we don't shoot them in the head as some others do. we take them to the hospital treat them and reunite them with their family (since in most cases they are brainwashed as a child to join the terrorist group)

 

[King Solomon]

He used a metaphore.I think you guys cant get along well.Maybe you should ignore each other?

He is in my friend list. We had good conversations by visitor messages. Cant see why he misunderstood my simple analogy between Turkey and China.

Anyway, I hope everything is clear Alleionz_TR?

 

[ovarel]

He is in my friedn list. We had good conversations by visitor messages. Cant see why he misunderstood my simple analogy between Turkey and China.

Then,leave the discussion for now.You may continue some other time?

 

[silko]

You even invade sovereign Iraq just to exterminate more of them

just so you know, since the Iraqi or KRG doesn't clean up it's own backyard we have to do it. in most cases we go after supply depots known high ranking terrorist caves etc. not random people in Iraq that we drop bomb on you know.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

He used a metaphore.I think you guys cant get along well.Maybe you should ignore each other?

1) No, i get along with him well.

2) RAT means more to me. It explains that s-19 is not sympathetic to Turkic cause. But sides himself(?) with Russians and Chinese.

 

[Cem_]

Support from Istanbul

 

[lem34]

1) No, i get along with him well.

2) RAT means more to me. It explains that s-19 is not sympathetic to Turkic cause. But sides himself(?) with Russians and Chinese.

Come on guys its an internet forum and more often not we are on the same side lets forget these misunderstandings

 

[King Solomon]

1) No, i get along with him well.

2) RAT means more to me. It explains that s-19 is not sympathetic to Turkic cause. But sides himself(?) with Russians and Chinese.

I do not side with anyone. I just try to view any situation neutrally, more like a 3rd party.

Anyway lets drop the discussion and be friends again.

 

[lem34]

Guys do you want to comment on the article below or have we had our fill with this thread??

Guys can we discuss this rationally. I have come across an interesting article that I would like to share with you. It is an old article but relevant I think. basically it says that we live in interesting times and may expect changes in the future it also points to the delicate position that turkey is in :

Turkey and NATO: Is Non-Alliance an Option?
İbrahim Kalın

Yorum&Haber, 04 Eylül 2008

Speaking to Milliyet columnist Fikret Bila, Prime Minister Erdoğan stated that Turkey is being forced to take sides in the Georgian conflict.

"Some are trying to push us toward the US and some toward Russia," said the prime minister. Underlining Turkey's strong alliance with the US but also acknowledging Turkey's expanding relations with Russia, Erdoğan said he "will not allow Turkey to be pushed to one side or the other. We will act in accordance with Turkey's national interests." Given Turkey's increasing trade volume with Russia and its energy dependency, Erdoğan added: "Turkey will observe a balance in tandem with its interests. It is not right to force Turkey to stand by only one side."

Policy Brief, 01.07.2009

Is this a declaration of tacit non-alliance? Some observers think the Caucasus crisis has brought Turkey to the brink of a final choice between its traditional alliance with the Western bloc under the beret of NATO and its proximate region of Russia, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Some claim that it is time for Turkey to reconsider its NATO membership. The ultranationalists argue that Turkey should abandon NATO and join the non-alliance movement. The anti-NATO camp has a different agenda; they want to see Turkey move away from democracy and transparency, both of which are a condition and result of Turkey's strategic alliance with NATO as well as its EU goal. The hard choices brought before Turkey, however, do point to an essential problem in the current configuration of the Western bloc represented by NATO.

As the events of the last few years have shown, NATO is still thinking and acting within the parameters of the Cold War period. Some had hailed the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union as the death knell of the old regime but also of NATO. If there wasn't a communist threat, then there would be no need for such a military structure as NATO. Some had feared that this would also mean the diminishing of Turkey's strategic significance for the West. This did not happen. Turkey remains a key player in the region, a player that everybody wants to see on his side.

Why? This is something imposed by Turkey's geopolitical position. As history returns to Asia, that huge landmass of which Europe is only the Western front, countries in the region reach out for new opportunities. In this sense, the geopolitics of Turkey cannot be ignored in its NATO role. A national foreign policy must also be a regional foreign policy. Turkey cannot pretend to belong to a different geopolitical map. It does not have the luxury to think a mere alliance with the West will be sufficient for its national and regional goals.

Turkey is bound to tread a fine line between belonging to the Western bloc and its immediate environment. This does not mean abandoning NATO. What it does suggest, however, is that countries like Turkey can and should be part of a larger debate about NATO's priorities and modus operandi in the 21st century.

Turning globalization into an opportunity involves a dynamic foreign policy based on a non-isolationist regionalism. A "globalist foreign policy" that does not take into account Turkey's geo-political and regional priorities and concerns may have worked within a Cold War context. But it won't work now. The reason is that international politics are no longer dictated solely by clear-cut alliances and blocs vying for power and influence. There are intermediate categories that range from full alliance and cooperation to non-interference and restraint. We have seen these modalities in Turkey's policies in Iraq, the EU, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Kosovo, Cyprus and the Black Sea. The Caucasus crisis presents yet another case in which Turkey will have to reject either/or propositions.

And this means Turkey will remain a NATO member but with a different and perhaps tacit non-alliance posturing until NATO and the Western bloc revise their priorities and move toward a new configuration of power in the Euro-Asian context.

So I take this to mean we live in interesting times