Thanks A,
This is an excellent article. Turkey is the linchpin state for three regions.
The Balkans, Central Asia, and the Mid East. It's no accident that Turkey and
Israel, an unlikely pair, have come
together as strong allies under the auspices of US foreign policy. If you look
at a map, you can see why this suits the US. Between them, Turkey and Israel,
but mostly Turkey, control the waters of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon.
This control, through its client states, gives the US a strangle hold on two
of the world's most important oil producing regions. Capitalism burns oil.
Having treaties with Turkey in the north, prevents a Pan Arab war against Israel
because the Arab states north of Israel would have to fight on two fronts.
Turkey in the north, and Israel in the south. This plays into the NWO's plans
for the Mid East by apparently guaranteeing a no war situation. But this is a
typical example of NWO/CFR wishful thinking. It might be true that there won't
be an outright war as long as the status remains qou, but it is highly
unlikely to remain so.
NWO policies are only functionable as long as approved elites remain in control.
Turkey's elites are trying to make Turkey a modern European state. It simply is
not. Islam is the religion of the people, not Christianity or Judaism. If push
came to shove, the Turks would not be likely to support a Jewish State at war
with their coreligionists. And, they have been at war with Christianity for over
a thousand years.
When things go bad for people, they fall back on their preferred superstition
for relief. The Turkish people are not doing so great economically that they
can bear the brunt of international capitalism for long. It is only a matter of
time before they overthrow their secular elites and reestablish some form of
Islamic theocracy. The same goes for Saudi and even more so for Egypt.
It is only US taxpayer money, in the form of military aid to Egypt and Turkey
which is keeping things under control. This is not a problem at the moment
( except for America's poor and working class ), but what will happen when the
US economy hits the down cycle, and we'll be less able to afford world empire?
The New World Order is based on wishful thinking and a fierce stupidity based
on opportunism. The more they succeed in implementing now, the worse it will be
when it falls apart.
The United States and Europe are setting up the conditions for the first world
war of the twenty first century. If history is any indicator of what will be,
we ordinary folks will pay dearly. The world wars get ever more destructive
with technological development, and it is almost certain that the next one will
go nuclear.
Have a nice day.
Joshua2
===============
Alamaine wrote:
>
> From
> http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/NewsST050400.htm
>
> }}>Begin
> IS TURKEY THE NEXT IRAN?
>
> America should prepare for the eruption of another Islamic volcano
> by Srdja Trifkovic
>
> A century ago the Ottoman Empire was moribund, the Sick Man on the Bosphorus
> whose hold on the far-flung provinces in the Balkans, North Africa and the
> Middle East was growing more tenuous by the day. Its precarious survival in the
> century following the defeat of Napoleon was due entirely to the inability of
> the Christian powers of Europe to agree on what to do with the spoils, and the
> intractable “Eastern Question” remained on the European diplomatic agenda until
> the Great War.
>
> Today’s Turkey is back as a major player in its own right, a regional power par
> excellence and the pillar of the U.S. strategy in Eastern Mediterranean, the
> Middle East, and Central Asia. Its population will exceed that of Russia thirty
> years from now if today’s demographic trends continue. Its influence is on the
> rise in its old holdings in the Balkans as well as throughout the former Soviet
> Central Asia. Turkey is aggressively pursuing its European Union candidacy,
> while resisting even feeble Western demands to make concessions on Cyprus -
> invaded in 1974 and partly occupied by 35,000 Turkish soldiers ever since - or
> to end its brutal war against the Kurds in the eastern part of the country. In
> Cyprus, Turkey has flooded the occupied northern part of the island with
> settlers from the mainland, whose numbers (about 100,000) exceed the number of
> native Turkish Cypriots.
>
> The U.S. policy in the region has been consistently Turkophile for decades. The
> war in Kurdistan has been going on for almost three decades, and has claimed
> some thirty thousand mostly civilian lives, but Turkey’s status as a bona fide
> member of NATO was never in doubt. The implicit assumption in Washington is
> that Turkey will remain “secular” and “pro-Western,” and it behooves us to
> examine the validity of those assumptions. In 1979 the entire U.S. strategy in
> the Middle East was thrown into disarray with the fall of the Shah, an event to
> which President Carter’s administration made a considerable contribution with
> its heavy-handed attempt to appease the radical Islamic movement by forcing
> concessions from Reza Pahlevi. What will happen if history repeats itself, if
> something similar happens in Turkey, cutting off America’s access to the oil-
> rich Caspian region, and bringing into its orbit America’s new clients in
> Sarajevo, Tirana, and Pristina? Is it possible, or likely, or even imminent?
> Can the U.S. afford to be caught by surprise yet again? What can it do to
> prepare for such eventuality?
>
> The lack of a coherent “Turkish” strategy in Washington was apparent in June
> 1997, when the Turkish army forced the resignation of Necmettin Erbakan, the
> country’s democratically elected Prime Minister. This was hailed by the Clinton
> administration as a welcome event, a defeat for “Islamic fundamentalists” of
> Erbakan’s Refah party and the victory for the “pro-Western” camp led by the
> army and supported by some “secular” parties. Such posture mirrored the U.S.
> reaction to the military coup in Algeria that prevented the establishment of a
> pro-Islamic government following the victory of radical Muslims at the polls.
>
> In established democracies the army does not replace elected governments, of
> course, but the propriety of political acts is judged in Washington on the
> basis of the desirability of their outcome, not on any lofty principle. To this
> day the Turkish army is regarded by the U.S. foreign policy establishment as
> the reliable guarantor of Ankara’s permanently “pro-Western,” secular
> orientation. But in the Middle East “secularism” does not coincide with
> “democracy” - the regimes in Iraq and Syria provide a vivid example.
>
> If we are to have a serious debate on America’s long-term interests in eastern
> Mediterranean, the Middle East experts in Washington should stop pretending
> that Turkey is democratic. At present it is, at best, a “guided democracy” in
> which no institution, judicial or civil, is independent of the State. Its
> abysmal human rights record is well documented and beyond dispute.
> It is also time to admit that any real “democratization” of Turkey will mean
> its irreversible Islamization. This is because Turkey is a polity based on an
> Islamic ethos, regardless of its political superstructure. Turkey inherited
> this Islamic legacy from the Ottoman Empire. With the establishment of the
> Turkish nation state in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal “Ataturk” (the Father of the
> Nation), the Kemalist project introduced a secular concept of nationhood, but
> the establishment of the multi-party political system in 1945 gave political
> Islam an opportunity to reassert itself. Popular Islamic political movements of
> the past three decades have produced a “Turkish-Islamic synthesis” - an Islamic
> concept of nationhood that has Ottoman roots and seeks to re-establish an
> Ottoman-Islamic concept of Turkish nationhood. They are explicit in their
> rejection of the contemporary Western way of life, values, and ideology. Their
> success is due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of Turks are Muslims,
> in their beliefs, values, and world outlook.
>
> The narrow stratum of the Kemalist ruling class rules Turkey by the grace of
> the West and the will of the Army, period. The same dynamics that have swept it
> away in Teheran may apply in Ankara in the next decade. The parallel with Iran
> is alarming. Backed by the United States, both the Shah and the Turkish
> generals have pursued a policy of militarization as a means of solving the
> tension between modernization dictated from above and religiously expressed
> resistance from below. Repression and militarism have provided fertile ground
> for Islam as a viable alternative to largely-defunct revolutionary Marxism,
> which was rampant in Turkey in the 1970s but had never succeeded in extending
> its appeal beyond the urban middle classes and students.
> Inseparable from internal repression is Ankara’s external expansionism as a
> means of lessening political tensions. Its policy towards Greece has entailed
> military threats in pursuit of territorial revisionism. The status of the
> Aegean Sea was supposedly settled decades ago. Since 1974, however, and
> especially over the last eight years, Turkey has demanding that this status quo
> be revised. In January 1996 Greece and Turkey came close to war when Ankara
> disputed Greek sovereign rights over the Greek islet of Imia. Six months later
> Turkey disputed the sovereignty of the Greek Island of Gavdos near Crete - 240
> miles from the Turkish shore.
>
> While Turkey is following a policy of repression internally and expansionism
> externally, it nevertheless demands membership in the European Union. This is
> most unlikely to be granted, however, less because of its violations of
> democracy and international law and more because the resulting migratory deluge
> would bolster the already five-million-strong Turkish colony in Western Europe
> to new heights. But with or without EU membership, Turkish society will soon
> face a profound crisis. The Europeans are increasingly aware of this. Eric
> Rouleau, the former French Ambassador to Turkey who is recognized as one of the
> most authoritative analyst of Middle Eastern affairs in Europe, wrote an
> article in 1995 entitled Turkey: Beyond Ataturk. Rouleau, who is personally
> deeply sympathetic to Turkey, says that “sickness is eating away the (Turkish)
> republic. More than seventy years after its establishment by Kemal Ataturk, the
> republic is in desperate need of an overhaul.” He sees the Kurdish conflict as
> a key factor contributing to the remarkable revival of Islam in Turkey.
> The academic and foreign policy establishment in the United States has not
> faced these issues fairly and squarely so far. And yet, with each passing year
> it is becoming more urgent for the U.S. government to break away from its
> unthinking Turkophilia that is detrimental to American interests and
> reputation. In our view the new Turkish policy in Washington should have the
> following objectives:
>
> Making it clear to Ankara that it can no longer take the U.S. for granted, and
> that American interests demand flexibility, creativity, and diversification of
> foreign policy options;
>
> Even-handedness in Greco-Turkish disputes, based on the understanding that U.S.
> interests are served by stability in the Aegean and fairness to all parties;
>
> Demand for evacuation of Turkish troops from northern Cyprus, as a prerequisite
> for a permanent political solution that may entail the island’s partition on
> the basis of its ethnic map prior to 1974;
>
> Encouragement of a comprehensive settlement of the Kurdish problem by political
> means, coupled with a clear determination that Turkey will no longer be
> supplied by U.S. armaments that are used in a never-ending war against Kurdish
> civilians;
>
> Re-examination of the policy in the Balkans, specifically with reference to the
> establishment of proto-Islamic polities in Bosnia and Kosovo under U.S. aegis,
> and a broad assessment of the likely impact on those U.S. “assets” of the
> emergence of an explicitly Islamic Turkey;
>
> Genuine long-term rapprochement with Russia, which is desirable in itself, but
> may also provide an alternative access route to the Caspian oil fields if and
> when Turkey “goes Iranian.”
>
> None of this is likely either under Gore or under Bush Jr., whose foreign
> policy team includes known lobbyists for the Turks. Without debate on this
> issue, however, America will be doomed to repeat its Iranian experience.
>
> End<{{
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
