Turkey offically in the process

[attachmentid=3997]

BBC NEWS

Deal struck over Turkey-EU talks

The EU and Turkey have struck a deal over an EU demand that Turkey recognise Cyprus before membership talks begin.

The compromise agreement clears the way for Turkey to start negotiations in October next year to enter the EU.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who currently holds the EU presidency, said Ankara had "accepted the hand we offered them".

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted signing the protocol was not a formal recognition of Cyprus.

He said Turkey had worked hard to meet the criteria set out by the EU and that future negotiation would help to resolve many disputes.

Mr Balkenende welcomed the deal as "writing history".

This is not the end of the process. This is the beginning

Jose Manuel Barroso

European Commission president

He said Turkey's agreement to the accord was "not a formal legal recognition" of the Greek Cypriot-led government "but it is a step that can lead to progress in this field".

Jose Manuel Barroso, head of the European Commission, said: "Today is also a new beginning for Europe and for Turkey.

He said the European Union had "opened its door to Turkey" and taken a decision "which is good for Turkey and good for the European Union".

He added: "This is not the end of the process. This is the beginning."

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed the agreement as "a good day for Europe, for Turkey and the wider world".

He said it would mean increased security and prosperity for Europe and Turkey.

"We are stating a fundamental principle that the fact Turkey is a Muslim country does not mean it should be barred from Europe," Mr Blair said.

"On the contrary, if it fulfils the same principles of human rights, then Muslim and Christian can work together."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "There was a deal and everybody is happy with it."

TURKEY'S DRAFT EU ENTRY TERMS

Turkey must sign a customs accord extending to all EU members, including Cyprus

The accord must be signed by the start of entry talks, proposed for October 2005

Membership talks will be open-ended

There is no guarantee of full membership if conditions are not met

If negotiations do fail, Europe will not turn its back on Turkey

Turkey must continue with political and economic reforms

Some safeguards may remain over migration of workers from Turkey

Under the agreement, Turkey must issue a written statement promising to sign an accord extending its customs union to the 10 new EU members, including Cyprus.

This must be done before the proposed start date for talks of 3 October next year, EU diplomats said.

It will mean granting effective recognition to the Greek Cypriot government, but gives Turkey more time to sell the idea to its people.

The internationally recognised southern part of Cyprus is an EU member, but Turkey, which occupies northern Cyprus, had previously insisted it would not bow to demands to recognise the country, calling the issue a "red line".

Croatia talks

The EU has said it could take up to 15 years before Turkey is able to join, and entry cannot be guaranteed.

EU leaders had warned Turkey before the two-day summit started that it would have to take steps to recognise Cyprus.

HAVE YOUR SAY

A Turkish entry to the EU will be disastrous for the European dream of integration and for Turkey itself

Matt Koffer, USA

The EU has also announced that it will start accession talks with Croatia in April 2005.

However, talks will begin only if the country co-operates fully with the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said the 3 October date for Turkey would give enough time to allow its parliament to ratify the move.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spent hours on Friday locked in talks with the Dutch, British, German and French leaders.

He also held talks overnight with the Dutch prime minister, who currently holds the EU presidency.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ope/4103931.stm

Published: 2004/12/17 17:32:50 GMT

© BBC MMIV

I agree with Mr.Koffer...

Its funny how the biggest suporters of Turkey to become 'europe' were Tony blair and the european countries that supported Bush in the war against terror.

Furthermore, Europe doesnt seem able to hold a guideline of its own so this whole union thing represents for the most part an economic value rather than a pollitical entity.

congratulations is seeing that the whole world is practically run by Bush...

so it's like a second class membership with no guarantees?

what's the greek perspective on it?

The official guideline for national reasons is that we want them to join mostly because that would mean the recognition of cyprus and the removal of their army there and most importantly the end of their claims over the aegean sea that is a cassus beli lingering over our heads for decades. As far as the whole idea of the european union its being viewed in a negative way by almost everyone in europe as well as most greeks. The idea is that Turkey will most likely be US's trojan horse in the EU (while England remains the Brutus..)

Originally posted by <KEY3>@Dec 17 2004, 02:40 PM

so it's like a second class membership with no guarantees?

 

Quoted post

Yeah, but you have to understand that Turkey is FAR from complying with the EU social and economic standards..poverty is hitting defcon5 there and the violations of human rights reports keep flowing in every minute that passes. Besides that, Turkey has no european background whatsoever, not to mention actual ground...

If turkey enters the EU fully it will be in 15 years and only if they progress day by day. Thats the official timeline.

Trojan Horse........ way to slip that one in.

Originally posted by <KEY3>@Dec 17 2004, 03:05 PM

way to slip that one in.

Quoted post

WAY to slip that one in!

does the rest of the world realize that we eat 'turkey' every thanksgiving?

cause i realize it (and i giggle like a fucking school girl about it)

oh man why the fuck would the EU want turkey?

if i was the EU i said thanks, but no thanks...

if i was the EU i'd say 'luois vatton bags! louis vatton purses! gucci sunglasses and accessories! you look, you like, you buy! great deal! come quick! you like? try this one! great deal, great deal!'

of course i'd be saying it while being a nigerian immigrant standing outside the vatican, but i mean, whatever.

Originally posted by mental invalid@Dec 17 2004, 04:11 PM

oh man why the fuck would the EU want turkey?

 

 

if i was the EU i said thanks, but no thanks...

Quoted post

I hate to say it but if you were the EU you'd have Bush breathing down your neck over this...its really sad actually. Theres nothing in pollitics that pisses me off more than superpowers playing favorites with trememndous consequences.

plllllleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaasssssssseeeeeeeee......

its time for the EU to fucking start acting like the global powerhouse it is....

stop being a bunch of euro fags....

bush cant do shit, not without congress, the UN, and the WTC, for the love of god its not like he is louis the 14th...

Hahahaha, europe aint a global powerhouse at all...as i stated before its mostly conceived as an economical power and it goes pretty well at that but thats about it.

So who stopped bush from getting into the most ridiculous war ever? the congress? the UN? or the WTC?...yup

now if you america fags wouldnt reelect him the world would be a better place;)

Americas dollar is only backed by oil these days. Since we essentially control OPEC, what I want to know is why the EU is not doing more to advance alternative energies? Are Total and BP really that powerful there as to castrate alternative energy so much there? Doesn't france use something like 80% nuclear power anyways? I would like to see Japan come out with a car that can produce it's own energy from perpetual motion, recharge power cells in your home and run on it's own energy, and transform into voltron if i'm having a bad day.

Originally posted by villain@Dec 18 2004, 09:28 PM

Americas dollar is only backed by oil these days. Since we essentially control OPEC, what I want to know is why the EU is not doing more to advance alternative energies? Are Total and BP really that powerful there as to castrate alternative energy so much there? Doesn't france use something like 80% nuclear power anyways? I would like to see Japan come out with a car that can produce it's own energy from perpetual motion, recharge power cells in your home and run on it's own energy, and transform into voltron if i'm having a bad day.

Quoted post

YOU ARE CORRECT! PETRO-DOLLAR-RECYLCING-CIRCLE.

THE BIGGEST LARGEST OPEN SECRET IN MACROECONOMICS.

AND IN COLLEGE THEY TELL US THE DOLLAR IS NOT BACK BY ANYTHING ., TAKEN OFF THE BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE..GOOD THING THE INTERNET EXISTS OR ELSE I MIGHT EXIST IN PROPAGANDA-MATRIX-IGNORANCE AS WELL.

and perpetual motion is impossible. I believe Germany leads the field in Hydrogen development?

Originally posted by metallix@Dec 18 2004, 10:55 PM

YOU ARE CORRECT! PETRO-DOLLAR-RECYLCING-CIRCLE.

 

THE BIGGEST LARGEST OPEN SECRET IN MACROECONOMICS.

 

AND IN COLLEGE THEY TELL US THE DOLLAR IS NOT BACK BY ANYTHING ., TAKEN OFF THE BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE..GOOD THING THE INTERNET EXISTS OR ELSE I MIGHT EXIST IN PROPAGANDA-MATRIX-IGNORANCE AS WELL.

 

and perpetual motion is impossible. I believe Germany leads the field in Hydrogen development?

Quoted post

Ahhhhhh....

Well it's good to know that Germany is moving in the right direction. I can't really think of any german energy companies off hand. Not exxon mobil, royal dutch(?), unocal, total ..... hmm... Perhaps this would give them incentive to advance alternative energy.

Hydrogen would be a good way to go. It's just a wonder how much of a stranglehold these energy companies have over their respective markets. I mean there are already fully functional hydrogen cars in existence as prototypes. They keep saying that they are trying to perfect it, but I believe the real problem is that there is no support infrastructure. I mean where can you go to recharge a hydrogen fuel cell? Hardly anywheres. But I think the entire EU eventually will push more for alternative energy the way things are going. What with the US securing even MORE of the worlds known oil reserves.... and Russia exercising a hegemony over their own.... people are tightening up. I have reason to believe that Sudan is not being addressed properly as far as human rights go because China has some lucrative oil prospects there. Speaking of China they will have to go the way of alternative energy very soon anyways so I wish they would lay off Sudan. India too... and Singapore. All yous guys... you must go the way of alternative energy or risk resource wars, environmental degradation, and US/OPEC price gouging. I wouldn't put all my eggs into the basket of the Spratleys and Sudan and perhaps some of those central asian former republics of the soviet union.... they will get flexed on soon... and probably venezuela as well, Iran?. Major players will be butting heads. Forget about trying to secure this for yourself. There is a better way. I'm sure Socialist, Communists, and that cute little meritocracy in Singapore could be far more flexible and vest interests into alternative energy rather smoothly, more so than our own western military/industrial/prison complex, this hydra born of unchecked private power.

I thought that Michael Scheuer brought up a good point in this interview...

"The huge windfall in profits from the increase in oil prices from $30 to $50 a barrel roughly coincided — and I am not suggesting a conspiracy, just serendipity — with the Ramadan and Eid holidays. That meant more money for the jihads in Afghanistan and Iraq."

This is like funding our own enemy. What a dead end cycle of violence we are immersed in.

Hmm... seems we went a bit off topic... but these days it seems everything is interconnected in this tangled web of intrigue.

there was a show on PBS about some country using their geothermal energy sources to go full fossil fuel free by a certain year. and some other country is doing that as well i believe. the PBS show demonstrated people filling up with hydrogen just like regular gasoline. it even showed solid bricks of hydrogen you can insert into a box in your caR AND when its used up you buy a new solid brick of energy. the tech is definately there..its either being suppressed or there isnt a mass market for it yet because fossil fuels are still relatively cheap (and extremely profitable ) for developed countries. theorically speaking non developed countries would be the first to adopt non petrol based energy souces because as the price of barrel increases more and more (which it will based on most projections of peak oil and even without factoring in peak oil, demand will increase no matter what) then they would be able to less aford that energy which would increase the cost feasbility of having a industrial retooling to another form of energy utilization. the only problem is who is going to develop that tech if the non developed countries do not have research money while developed countries do have research money but can still afford petrol.

That is awesome. I wish I would have seen that PBS show. Hopefully those countries who have implemented alternative energy programs will sell their tech to other countries.

But I definately agree that there is a lack of funding for research in this area by developed countries. Then again, you would think that companies within developed nations, who are oil dependent, would be very interested in alternative energies. Perhaps this is why the automobile industry is breaking away now and building hybrids. While more could be done... this could be a sign of things to come. Because who the fuck is going to buy a car if they can't afford to drive it?

double post

^ nobody. What if everyone in china wants a car? one billion new cars using gasoline?

so maybe like you said china will be the lead developer of new energy technology.

I dont understand how this thread turned from discussion about Turkey in the EU to talk about energy. weird!!

How does the USA control OPEC? Can you elaborate? Is it because we own Iraq which can subvert OPEC? Or do we excercise some sort of direct control over OPEC ?

Here's a map of europe which may help us.

Turkey is directly parallel to Spain from the West to East. So to me it should be in the EU. When it comes down to it i think that to the EU the only thing that matters is adding another 69,000,000 (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/info.htm) new consumers to the EU. Which would definately enhance EU economic power as well as give it nice access border access to Asia.

Furthmore if Russia is to be considered part of Europe then, Turkey geographically speaking would have to be considered part of Europe as well.

Turkey is extremely close to Greece which is definately part of Europe. So it is silly to say Turkey could not be part of europe. It just so happens to be between Asia and Europe. So I wonder if turkey could belong to an Asian economic union as well as a European one?

Turkey: Location: 39 00 N, 35 00 E - Southwestern Asia (that part west of the Bosphorus is sometimes included with Europe and called as Thrace), bordering the Black Sea, between Bulgaria and Georgia, and bordering the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, between Greece and Syria. (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/info.htm)

woah, you see how close morocco and algeria is to spain? lets make africa europe! And lets face it japan is on the parallel line with the states so why the fuck dont we add another star on the flag and call it even?

And yeah, if Turkey enters the EU and they share borders with syria and iraq who's stopping us from adding them aswell? Now that we got africa and some of the middleast on lock lets be honest, america was found by spaniards and after eliminating all the natives it got populated by all kinds of europeans and their slaves (the proper term is african europeans after this unification) so you know..the states are practically europe too..umm add all the other grench/dutch/english colonies and you got 70% of the world minus the poles (polar bears regulate that shit) dancing around under the same name... i never knew europe was so big after all

Are you serious? Europe, as an idea and as a borderline is defined mostly on the criteria of culture which clearly turkey has nothing to do with. Just imagine that during the ottoman empire greece was occupied by the turks for 400 years and still no cultural allignment ever took place. When Greece got them out their churches where no longer used by anyone and all their traces got erased by time. Geographically speaking the only european parts Turkey holds are Instabul and the seacost of turkey that were greek up to recently. We're talking about a whole different culture and mindset here.

Also, keep in mind that along with the 69,000,000 consumers that live under extreme and asymmetrical poverty, inside the EU parliament that population gives turkey the biggest number of pollitical representatives any european country has. Since it all works under democracy rules that fact alone gives Turkey an enormous power over european pollitics fact which combined with Turkish-US friendship, collaboration and economic dependance makes turkey the perfect trojan horse.

Get your shit straight

Segregating people based on culture will not lead you to economic power.

TURKEY>

GDP:

purchasing power parity - $458.2 billion (2004 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:

5.8% (2004 est.)

GDP - per capita:

purchasing power parity - $6,700 (2004 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 11.7%

industry: 29.8%

services: 58.5% (2003 est.)

Investment (gross fixed):

15.5% of GDP (2004 est.)

Population below poverty line:

18% (2001)

Agriculture - products:

tobacco, cotton, grain, olives, sugar beets, pulse, citrus; livestock

Industries:

textiles, food processing, autos, mining (coal, chromite, copper, boron), steel, petroleum, construction, lumber, paper

Industrial production growth rate:

8.5% (2004 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html

"The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity."

Is Turkey a Democracy?

I totally reject your culture argument. Adding another culture to the EU will strengthen your economic block.

"Unity in diversity: Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values. The EU defends these values. It fosters co-operation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the citizens.

In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it will be even more necessary for every European citizen to co-operate with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, tolerance and solidarity."

http://europa.eu.int/abc/index_en.htm

"The criteria for membership were fixed by the European Council in Copenhagen:

democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for minorities;

a functioning market economy, and the capacity to cope with competitive pressures;

the ability to take on the obligations of membership (in other words, to apply effectively the EU’s rules and policies). "

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/argu...ex.htm#Benefits

Does Turkey have those criteria?

" recent study of the Commission estimates that enlargement could increase the growth of GDP of the acceding countries by between 1.3 and 2.1 percentage points annually, and for the existing members it could increase the level of GDP by 0.7 percentage point on a cumulative basis.

"The Economic Impact of Enlargement", a study by the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, May 2001 "

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/argu...ex.htm#Benefits

"Non-enlargement, or a delay in enlargement, would have costs both for the Union and for the applicant countries:

Delay in enlarging the single market, and lower economic growth in the applicant countries, would deprive member states of economic benefits.

For the applicant countries failure to join the Union would weaken the incentive for economic reform, discourage foreign investment and reduce economic growth.

It could thus create political instability in Europe, and even undermine the process of democratisation, with potential repercussions for the Union.

Without enlargement, the Union would be less able to combat the problems of organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.

Disillusion with the Union in the applicant countries would feed Euroscepticism in the member states. "

there are plenty of facts to invalidate your argument. from official government sources of your own european union.

you may find them here:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/turkey/

it appears the EU does not officially care about any "cultural" differences. At least from the writing on the webpages.

"The Luxembourg European Council of December 1997 "confirmed Turkey's eligibility for

accession to the European Union. Turkey will be judged on the basis of the same criteria as the

other applicant States. While the political and economic conditions allowing accession

negotiations to be envisaged are not satisfied, the European Council considers that it is

nevertheless important for a strategy to be drawn up to prepare Turkey for accession by bringing

it closer to the European Union in every field"."

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/turk...n_councils_.pdf

"3. The Helsinki European Council of December 1999 stated that "Turkey, like other candidates,

will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This will include

enhanced political dialogue, with emphasis on progressing towards fulfilling the political

criteria for accession with particular reference to human rights, as well as the issues referred to

in paragraphs 4 and 9(a). Turkey will also have the opportunity to participate in Community

programmes and agencies and in meetings between candidate States and the Union in the

context of the accession process."

"10. The Copenhagen European Council of 12 and 13 December 2002, recalls its decision in 1999

in Helsinki that Turkey is a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of the same

criteria as applied to the other candidate states. It strongly welcomes the important steps taken

by Turkey towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria, in particular through the recent legislative

packages and the subsequent implementation measures which cover a large number of key

priorities specified in the Accession Partnership. The Union acknowledges the determination of

the new Turkish government to take further steps on the path of reform and urges in particular

the government to address swiftly all remaining shortcomings in the field of the political

criteria, not only with regard to legislation but also in particular with regard to implementation.

The Union recalls that, according to the political criteria decided in Copenhagen in 1993,

membership requires that a candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing

democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The

Union encourages Turkey to pursue energetically its reform process. If the European Council in

December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides

that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the European Union will open accession

negotiations with Turkey without delay. In order to assist Turkey towards EU membership, the

accession strategy for Turkey shall be strengthened. The Commission is invited to submit a

proposal for a revised Accession Partnership and to intensify the process of legislative scrutiny.

In parallel, the EC-Turkey Customs Union should be extended and deepened. The Union will

significantly increase its pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey. This assistance will from

2004 be financed under the budget heading "pre-accession expenditure".

11. The Thessaloniki European Council of 19 and 20 June 2003, welcomes the commitment of the

Turkish government to carry forward the reform process, in particular the remaining legislative

work by the end of 2003, and supports its on-going efforts to fulfil the Copenhagen political

criteria for opening accession negotiations with the Union. Taking into account progress

achieved, significant further efforts to this end are still required. With a view to helping Turkey

achieve this objective, the Council adopted recently a revised Accession Partnership, which sets

out the priorities that Turkey should pursue, supported by substantially increased pre-accession

financial assistance. In accordance with the Helsinki conclusions fulfilment of these priorities

will assist Turkey towards EU membership. The Accession Partnership constitutes the

cornerstone of EU-Turkey relations, in particular in view of the decision to be taken by the

European Council of December 2004."

"12. The Brussels European Council of 12 December 2003, welcomes the considerable and

determined efforts by the Turkish government to accelerate the pace of reforms, many of which

are significant in political and legal terms. The legislative packages so far adopted, the first

important steps taken to ensure effective implementation, as well as the progress in addressing

many priorities under the Copenhagen political criteria and in the revised Accession Partnership

have brought Turkey closer to the Union. Turkey has also made significant progress in meeting

the Copenhagen economic criteria. However, further sustained efforts are needed, in particular

as regards strengthening the independence and functioning of the judiciary the overall

framework for the exercise of fundamental freedoms (association, expression and religion) the

further alignment of civil-military relations with European practice, the situation in the

Southeast of the country and cultural rights. Turkey also has to overcome macro-economic

imbalances and structural shortcomings. The European Council underlines the importance of

Turkey’s expression of political will to settle the Cyprus problem. In this respect a settlement of

the Cyprus problem, based on the principles set out in section IV. below, would greatly facilitate

Turkey’s membership aspirations. The European Council encourages Turkey to build on the

substantial progress achieved so far in its preparations for launching accession negotiations and

underlines its commitment to working towards full implementation of the pre-accession strategy

with Turkey, including the revised Accession Partnership, in view of the decision to be taken by

the European Council in December 2004 on the basis of the report and recommendations of the

Commission."

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/turk...n_councils_.pdf

While i respect that you believe turkey should not join. Unfortunately it appears for your case that the EU has already from 1997 considered Turkey into possible entry. So perhaps you and people who have similiar viewpoints should lobby more effectively to prevent Turkey from entering if you believe your position to be a good one to take. Perhaps maybe the cultural differences you speak of would be reformed once Turkey enters Europe and democracy and progressive reforms could occur? Or maybe not. Who knows. But either way it appears that Turkey will eventually enter if it does what the EU wants.

I think you totally went over my whole point (besides the clearance over your geographical mayhem) You cannot concive the EU simply as an economic force. I admitted some posts up that the EU is operating for the most part solely as an economic power and thats whats wrong. Europe is suposed to have a pollitical say that can change stuff and of course come with consequences. Thats what pollitics are about. Operating in order to give more strenght to your economy and keep everyone happy aswell is not something that will last forever. Just see how torn Europe appeared over the war in Iraq, with France being totally against, UK being totally in favor and the rest teaming up with one or other side. Everybody for their agenda, for their benefit and for their understanding of 'europe' as one power. It was crazy even before the Copenhagen enlargment and it will get worse and worse. I'm not talking about segregation and i'm not racist by any means. Speaking poliitically i see that Turkey doesnt belong in the EU for an assload of different reasons i explained. besides economics (that arent bad at all) Europe in my opinion should form an independent powerfull pollitical voice and all these choices dont seem to lead there.

And no, Turkey doesnt fulfill the criteria for entrance, official estimations place them there in about 15-20 years of the fastest possible development

* EDIT for the 3 posts i missed

I'm just speaking my mind here, i know turkey will eventually join and i still think its a bad idea, Heres an example. Cyprus entered the EU last year and Turkey isnt willing to recognise a nation of a union they wanna be part of because they illegaly invaded Cyprus and they still hold a piece(the piece thats not in the EU) Do you see just how absurd that is? do you see just how torn and ununifying this seems?

^ ok good read thank you,. :)

"Do you see just how absurd that is? do you see just how torn and ununifying this seems?"

Yes.

Hmm....

well good stuff here.

I'm not a big fan of this cultural differences argument either but coming from Tesseract a person of reason that I admire I will accept it.

It's a strange thing border areas.... Where cultures, and even people themselves seem to blur the lines.... It is not surprising that with the rise of nationalism following the industrial revolution there would be many border disputes. Often these people are just torn between two completely different worlds sadly enough.

I honestly think that Turkey becoming part of the EU would help assuage these differences.... seeing as how all can be united... rather than divided.

And back to the cultural issues, I think it's important to have a bridge between the east and west. I'm talking about a true partnership... not just economic and strategic alliances. Turkey very well could be this bridge through the EU.... because it sure as hell won't be the US and anybody any time soon.

And for metallix, the US is contolling OPEC via Saudi Arabia because they are the largest oil exporter and exert tremendous influence over the organization... And the aquisition of Iraq by the US is also exacerbating these tensions.

But I cannot speak with authority on these issues... They were brought up briefly in another thread that I started...

http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60285

Remember that one? Well we were going off in that direction a bit there. Basically since Saudi Arabia is the largest producer in OPEC they can outdo anyone who tries to outdo them.... not only that but they have the US to back them up. So yeah we got OPEC by the balls. Except for Venezuela which has been a sort of thorn in the side of the US monopoly.

~rootless~ but weaving disparate threads into the web.

Turkey joining the E.U?

Johnny Logan will be delighted

this will fix your intelligent discussion once and for all!

EU THIS!