Friday, June 02, 2006

A worthy Friend, a true Ally, and an Inspiration - Why Turkey belongs in the EU

The case for Turkey's entry into the EU, and for its continued role in the Western world, could be made just by ripping apart its enemies' arguments. For example, a large part of the anti-Turkish animosity is influenced and put forward by Greece and its allies, whose grievance against all things Turkish are as central to their existence as the general hatred against all things Western. I will address these concerns in due time, but I would like to begin with a synecdochical overview of Turkey and the world, with Turkey's friends and enemies, and its enviable role as the "healthy man" of the Muslim Ummah.

I happen to believe that, if one were to set up a shortlist of Muslim-majority countries in which a Western lifestyle would be possible, Turkey would be at or near the top in all cases.

Few will doubt, and fewer still will criticize, Turkey's importance in the twenty-first century. Its direction will in all likelihood make a significant contribution to the civilized world's survival - or downfall - there seems to be, in my opinion, a lack of genuine discussion of how this development can be influenced. The same goes for the eventual result of said development - where will Turkey stand, whose side will it stand by, and how will it fit into the twenty-first century's global security and economy? What, furthermore, is at stake, and what do Turkey's allies and neighbors stand to gain by pushing it in the right direction?

The premise of this article is that Turkey is a worthy member of the European Union, one of the West's best hopes in our war against Radical Islam, Israel's only reliable and strategic regional ally, and an inspiration to the entire Muslim Ummah. No other country holds the potential of being a beacon of modernity and moderation for Muslim countries from Morocco to Malaysia.

As an aside, I do not like, and shall refrain from using, the epithet "Islamic" when dealing with states such as Morocco, Jordan or Malaysia, since this definition is far more suitable for the twin pillars of Radical Islam, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I also prefer the term Radical Islam to the alternatives of Islamo-Fascism, Political Islam or even Islamism.

On the surface, the strongholds of Radical Islam, and their offshoots, tend to be concentrated around the Arab center of the Muslim World, in the direct sphere of influence of a powerful, aggressive Islamic state, which is generally looking for a way to export its fantasies. This is true for the centers of Sunni extremism of Saudi Arabia and Egypt vis-à-vis Algeria, and for Pakistan vis-à-vis the Afghanistan of the Taliban.

Turkey, however, situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, sitting astride the strategically invaluable Canakkale (the Dardanelles), has generally resisted to the temptations of these and other ills that have plagued the Muslim world in the past few decades. Admittedly, these ills - nationalism, Soviet-bankrolled communism, French-financed Pan-Arab hesperophobia, and Shia extremism - did not, generally, affect the non-Arab Muslim world as much as they did the core Arab countries, Iran being as tragic and glaring an exception as any (one which I shall dwell on in much more detail at a later point in time).

At the risk of defining the civilizational standard downwards, here is a list of what Turkey has done without since its founding:

- Violent military coups
- Wars of aggression against sovereign countries
- Killing of minorities or opposition groups
- Radical Socialism
- Fascist-inspired dictatorship
- Civil War
- War against a Western country
- Radical Islamic repression
- War against, low-intensity conflict with, or even boycott of Israel.

This may not be much. But it is not nothing, either. And, to dwell a bit further into History, it is worth noting that the Turks and the Jews never fought against each other, but both have fought against Arabs. While the precursors to today's Arab regimes - professed moderates and others - were tacitly or explicitly allied with Nazi Germany, supporting and encouraging crimes against humanity that defined the term, Turkey accepted more refugees than any other continental European nation. Quite unlike all (yes, all) of the EU nations of Continental Europe, Turkey did not undergo a change of the system of government in the past seventy-five years. Turkey also recognized Israel before a number of European states did so. In fact, it did so no less than sixteen years before the Federal Republic of Germany did so.

Think about that, for a minute: a country with a majority of Muslims recognizes Israel in 1949, right after the end of the latter's War of Independence. Germany, on the other hand, recognizes the right of the survivors of the Holocaust, the worst crime in mankind's long, dark history - a crime enabled by Austrians, Poles, Dutchmen, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovakians and others, but imagined, created and implemented by Germans - a full sixteen years after the end of said war, and no less than twenty years after these survivors had been liberated from the Death Camps.

This, to me, should be enough to exclude Germany from any discussions about Turkey's accession to the European Union for reasons of "civilization" or "modernity".

I can accept the opinion of France on Turkey. And that of the United Kingdom. Obviously. Holland, certainly. Italy, definitely. Even Spain, possibly. Maybe, in a stretch, even Greece (with the aforementioned caveats).

But Germany? Never.

Not being in thrall to Arab and Radical Islamic impulses, Turkey's part, geostrategically speaking, has been that of securing NATO's southeastern flank - a task it has fulfilled to an admirable extent, well worthy of a founding member of this august organization. Turkey has also consistently scored as one of the most free of all Muslim states - faint praise, maybe, but praise nonetheless. And beyond Turkey's instrumental role in the Cold War, the war for Kuwait, and the ensuing patrolling of the No-Fly Zones from 1991 to 2003, would simply not have been possible without Turkey, and the ideally positioned Incirlik Air Base.

Among the opponents of Turkey's entry to the European Union, much has been said about the "backward" character of Turkey. Yet when confronted with the fact that, apart from Mustafa Kemal's Atatuerk's oeuvre, George Washington was the only other General who founded a democracy, a worrying number of critics question Turkey's democratic bona fides. Some of these critics point to the Islamic Party's election victory in 2002. Yet I fail to see why this victory, in the framework of a republic that respects Human Rights, the rule of Law and Property Rights, needs to be a bad thing. In fact, the Islamists' victory - occurring, as it did, against the explicit wishes of the Turkish Army, the guardian of Republican values and secularism - proved that Turkish democracy is working, and I remain confident that the Islamists will not have the answers to the problems of a complex and modern government, leading me to anticipate their loss in the next elections.

Of course, some will say that power still rests not with the government, but with the army. Hilmel Özkok, the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Army, Navy and Air Force, might be surprised to learn that he is supposed the be the most powerful man in the country, but it is without a doubt true that the Armed Forces will have to compromise with the Islamists' government, just as the government will have to strive for compromise with the Armed Forces. Why this should be a bad thing is beyond me.

The role of the Armed Forces, it has been said, is too important for Turkey ever to be a true member of Europe. There may be a modicum of truth in this assertion, and yet, this power, constitutionally protected as it is, has also ensured Turkey's secularity - one of the most remarkable success stories of the past several decades. The only other country in Europe with as strict a separation of church/mosque and state is Turkey. The remainder of the EU need not complain - not, that is, until mandatory tax withholdings on citizens' income is outlawed in Germany, Austria, and several other states.

One key element that no anti-Turkey crusader has addressed - certainly not to my intellectual satisfaction - is the issue of the alternatives that would remain for Turkey. Turkey might look eastwards, or southwards (how do you say Muslim Brotherhood or "Itbach al-yahud" in Turkish?). And that might be it.

But more is at stake here than one country, however important. How, after all, is the West to claim, with a straight face, that efforts to move towards the Western civilizational ideal will be encouraged and rewarded, if the most Western and most civilized country in the Muslim world, a country that has been part of the West pre-eminent security alliance for almost sixty years, and a trustworthy ally of Israel and America, were to be rejected and shown to be an outcast?

How could one possibly convince Iraq, or Malaysia, or Morocco, not to mention Iran or Sudan, to embrace the West?

How, indeed?

Now, these critics will argue, Turkey may not be an Islamic country, but it would be the first EU member with a majority of Muslims. And the same critics will argue that Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive, that no Muslim country has a "right" to be a part of the European Union.

So be it.

But what, I wonder, do these critics make of the following points:

1. The EU's growing, if not total, atheist outlook and essence
2. The growing Muslim majorities in most, if not all, EU member countries.

Let us presume, just for the sake of the argument, that these critics are right.

Why, then, is a non-Christian entity - or, more to the point, what I would call a post-Christian, or post-religious - entity like the EU worried about Turkish Muslims in a prospective member - but not, apparently, about its own disenfranchised, radicalized, and oftentimes anti-Western Muslim immigrant communities?

Does anyone believe that the Turks of Istanbul, Ankara or Izmir are, for some reason, less inclined to adapt to the Twenty-First Century than the Arabs of Lyon, Madrid or Copenhagen are?

If so, why exactly?

And, on the same level - what to make of said conclusion?

There are a number of other arguments that would seem to point in favor of Turkish membership, from a higher level of economic competition to the obvious military benefits (apart from the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, no European Armed Forces are a match for Turkey - decades of joint training with the world's best Armies, Navies and Air Force do not go without results), but these will be the subject of a later piece.

In closing, I should add that, in the past few years, Turkey has also come to play a more decisive diplomatic role, and its willingness and ability to support Western interests and to enhance Israel's standing in the world.

The EU's standing in the world could hardly be worse - a sclerotic union of dying first-world has-beens and ragtag geographical accidents, it has far outlived its raison d'être, and the "shared values" are none that Turkey, or any other forward-looking country, would do well to emulate.

One could make the case that Turkey's membership could break up the EU and force it to become leaner, looser and more focused - on the single market, on economic reforms, and the like. The competition of Turkey's far lower labor costs, combined with a young and growing population, would certainly make for an interesting amount of internal tension. Turkey is, in this view, the anti-EUrocracy - a justification in itself.

Thus, the road to a twenty-first century Brussels runs through Ankara.

Also, NATO membership is, if not more important, certainly more select - and arguably more costly and more risky - than EU membership. Turkey has stood its ground, on the frontlines of the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and the War on Terror, for more than half a century. It would appear to be time for a payback.

Finally, the European Union, if it is to be a civilizational and forward-looking institution, will simply not be complete without Turkey, the bridge to Asia, the Muslim Ummah, and the Black Sea.

But let us also look at the other side. Turkey can continue its development towards the west, and turn towards Europe and the West, or it can reject the West, and turn eastwards, towards Radical Islam, Turkic Nationalism, or worse.

As geopolitical platforms go, this is one that all Democrats, Hesperophiles, Philosemites, and Moderate Muslims can endorse.

And so we should.

With thanks to Spirit of Entebbe, Statler & Waldorf, Lizas Welt, No Blood for Sauerkraut, the Turkish Air Force, the reactionary Turkophobes of Europe, and all the sailors, airmen and soldiers behind Operation Reliant Mermaid.

From a common history, on to a shared destiny


Blogger Axel Bavaria said...

However Turkey is a key ally in the NATO, granting her EU-membership would actually be a disservice to the country, far from being a "reward:" As you correctly note, the military's strong role as preserver of the democratic system is crucial to the survival of democracy in Turkey. As an EU-member state, Turkey would have to change its constitution, since the EU prohibits such a strong role for the military in any of her member states. It would not take long for the islamists to take over the country, and they would be able to do so democratically. They would introduce sharia law, and noone would be able or willing to stop them: Not the Turkish military, and certainly not the any of the panty-pissing EU states. Turkish NATO-membership is based on the fact that the military serves as a reliable counterweight to the inherent islamic extremism within the Turkish people. An EU-membership would not reward the pro-Western military of Turkey, it would punish it ... and any Turkish government would be able to reshape it according to its will: Islamic generals would soon replace the pro-Westerners, who have watched over the republic since the days of Atatürk. The EU would not lift a finger ... compare the democratic election of the Hamas in the PA - do you really think they would say a peep if Turkey became an islamist state ? The Turkish islamists do not even have a terror record, contrary to both Fatah and Hamas.

8:59 AM  
Blogger Axel Bavaria said...

An issue of minor importance ( compared to the risk of Turkey becoming an islamist state ) is the question of the Kurds - their treatment in past and present by the Turkish gov., and also the military ... a dark chapter of Turkish politics and military history, which you didn't address in your article ( OK, at least you mentioned it as one point among others ). I think this problematic deserves more attention, and it alone would be a sufficient reason to deny Turkey the EU-membership, as it highlights the racist Turkish nationalism, that actually is mainstream in Turkey - it is just as prominent among the secular military as it is among the deeply islamic population of Anatolia. Another such tale-telling indicator of the Turkish racism become state doctrine is the systematic denial of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, which continues to the present-day. I rather don't want to have such a state in the EU.

9:09 AM  
Blogger Axel Bavaria said...

Before we should even think about allowing an islamic state on the fringe of Europe ( well, 95% of its land-mass do not even belong to the continent ) to become a member of the EU, we should have united the truly EUropean states under the roof of the EU.

I mean nations like the Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, Hungary, or Slovenia and Serbia. That should be enough work to keep us busy for the next couple of decades ... ;)

9:13 AM  
Blogger Axel Bavaria said...

My counter-proposal to the destructive EU-membership would be a priviledged partnership between Turkey and the EU - offering this "moderate" islamic nation ( moderate - harhar ! By force of their own military the Turkish moslems are being kept "moderate" at gunpoint ! ) economic and social rewards which would not endanger the Turkish democratic role-model: A free-trade agreement, visa-free travel into the EU, a currency bound to the Euro, or things like that.

To keep all that is good about Turkey ( and there are many things, as your essay points out ), Turkey needs to keep her independence.

EUrope wouldn't profit from a Turkish EU-membership in any way, either. The rampant nihilism in our post-Christian nations cannot be countered in a positive way by a sped-up introduction of islam into EUrope - to the contrary. Islam will make things worse. I rather live in a nihilist society than in an islamic one.

9:20 AM  
Blogger Axel Bavaria said...

The argument that we had only two choices - Turkey remaining a secular democracy by granting her EU-membership, or Turkey becoming an islamist hell-hole by denying her that privilege - does not make sense at all. The opposite is rather the truth, as I explained above.

This argument is a repressive knock-out argument often employed by the islamists themselves - like the current Turkish gov., who seek to eliminate rational discussion about the issue.

There is not a single reason, why the worst-case scenario drawn in this pseudo-argument should become true: If EU-membership is denied to Turkey, nothing will change. The Turks themselves will remain largely islamic, as they have always been. There will be attempts to seize the power by islamist forces ( as has always been the case ), and the military will step in and restore democracy - as they repeatedly have done in the past.

If Turkey would become an EU-member, her military would be transformed in way that would not permit it anymore to guard the Turkish democracy.

Apart from that, it is in the best self-interest of the Turks to leave things as they are ... and I guess most Turks know this. They will not reduce their country to islamically correct rubble just to show the EU, how pissed of they are that their membership application was declined. LOL. That scenario is ridiculous.
They know very well that that would reduce their standard of living, their security, foreign investment etc. significantly. They are not spoiled children, who are happy if they get what they want, but rage and fume at the mouth if they don't.

9:33 AM  
Blogger Claudio Casula said...

You might not like this:

Blame it on me! ;-)
Astuga from Philippika-Blog!

12:13 PM  
Blogger Voyager said...

If Turkey is suited to the European Union I can see no reason not to extend US Citizenship to all Brazilians and Mexicans.

It has the same logic.

10:03 AM  
Blogger Voyager said...

10:05 AM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

If Turkey is suited to the European Union I can see no reason not to extend US Citizenship to all Brazilians and Mexicans.

First of all, you know just as well as I do that there are various levels of EU membership, and even know, citizens of the ten EU countries that joined on May 1st, 2004 need to apply for a working permit (!) before they can move to or work in one of the EU-15 countries, with the sole exception of the British Isles. EU membership is thus quite a bit different from free movement, and a far cry from automatic citizenship.

Second, I do not see anything wrong with Mexico and Brazil, and I am at loss to see the relevance of that comparison here.

Third and foremost, this is precisely the level of discourse that my piece was designed to surmount.

2:43 PM  
Blogger Urobolos said...

So Turkey's a reliable ally of Israel? It's rather odd then that such a good "ally" would refer to the event that happened in Jenin in Spring 2002 as "genocide." And this digusting little quip was not even made by the Islamist Recep Erdogan, but was instead uttered by that walking half-decayed carcass - the "good pro-Western secularist" Bulent Ecevit. It's also interesting that such a "solid ally" would be the first foreign government to meet with Hamas, even over sharp European Union objections.

Secondly, your "civilizational" list is almost entirely wrong:

- Violent military coups

1960, 1970, 1980, 1997.

- Wars of aggression against sovereign countries

Cyprus, which it still occupies.

- Killing of minorities or opposition groups

40000 Kurds from 1984-1999.

- Fascist-inspired dictatorship

Again, those 40000 Kurdish corspes suggest otherwise.

- War against a Western country

Again, Cyprus is still occupied.

- Radical Islamic repression

The Turkish intelligence service funded Islamist mujahadeen to fight Kurdish freedom fighters during the War for Kurdish Liberation.

"Does anyone believe that the Turks of Istanbul, Ankara or Izmir are, for some reason, less inclined to adapt to the Twenty-First Century than the Arabs of Lyon, Madrid or Copenhagen are?"

You might want to go to Germany and see how what the Turks are doing there. It can be called many things, but "assimilation" probably isn't one of them...

I could point out a hundred more errors, but it's late and work has me traveling across half of Texas tommorrow.


2:06 AM  
Blogger Voyager said...

NOt so there is only one European Citizenship under the Treaties of Nice.

There is one European Passport, one European Citizenship, one European Jurisprudence System and one European Police - EuroPol.

There are no different levels of EU Membership. In fact the free movement of people is guaranteed by Treaty and Germany is full of Poles and Lithuanians...............the so-called limitations on free movement which applied when Spain and Portugal joined are meaningless.

there are 25 EU countries not 15.

You clearly do not understand the European Union. It is exactly as if Brasil and Mexico had the same full rights as US nationals within the United States.

In fact under EU Law which is supreme and overrides all national law, governments cannot impede EU Directives and are subordinate to The European Commission.

Such rights granted to EU citizens include:

* the right of free movement and residence throughout the Union and the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services with the exception of sensitive positions such as defence) (Article 18 [3]),
* the right to vote and the right to stand in local and European elections in any Member State, other than the citizen's own, under the same conditions as the nationals of that state (Article 19 [4]),
* the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of other Member States when in a non-EU Member State, if there are no diplomatic or consular authorities from the citizen's own state (Article 20 [5]).

EU member states also use a common passport design, burgundy coloured with the name of the member state, national seal and the title "European Union" (or its translation).

Union citizenship continues to gain in status and the European Court of Justice has stated that Union citizenship will be the "fundamental status of nationals of Member States" (see Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignes-Louvain-la-Neuve Case C-184/99 [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31) [6]. The European Commission has affirmed that Union citizenship should be the fundamental status of EU nationals.

5:07 AM  
Blogger Voyager said...

but "assimilation" probably isn't one of them...

Try Neu-Koelln in Berlin or cities like Dortmund, Essen, Hamm, or even parts of Frankfurt...........all the charm of Anatolia

They have their new movie "Valley of the Wolves"

5:14 AM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

@ Voyager

"NOt so there is only one European Citizenship under the Treaties of Nice."

Sure. Somehow no one noticed, but maybe everyone else is crazy?

"there are 25 EU countries not 15."

You're one bright fellow! Now if you could point out any part of my post in which I said the opposite...

In fact, if you read it closely, you'll notice that I mention May 1st, 2004, at which date ten new countries joined the EU. The citizens of these countries, however, need a work permit to work in any of the EU-15 countries, with the notable exception of the UK and Ireland, and nothing you will say or claim here will change anything about that.

"There is one European Passport, one European Citizenship, one European Jurisprudence System and one European Police - EuroPol."

Right. And 9/11 was the work of Israeli spies. And of George W. Bush.

In other words: more facts, less drivel, please.

6:48 AM  
Blogger Claudio Casula said...

Voyager is right in all points!
The so called "limitation" istself is limited on a few years and it doesn`t
even include all of the old EU-members.

Franklin, like so many in the US you don`t understand the concept of the EU, and you should get more background infos before making your statements about it.
I did get you on greece, didn`t I?

Sincerly, Astuga von Philippika!

11:46 AM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

Dear Astuga,

first of all, thank you for no longer using my friend Claudio's ID. Now to your issues.

A. You did get me with your joke on Greece. Since you did not supply even one source, although I asked for it, we can only presume that it was a joke. And not even an especially good one.

B. "Voyager is right on all points"

Sure, yeah, there's only one EU citizenship, there are no limitations for the mythical "Polish plumber" who can "take away" the poor Euros' jobs, and I stated that the EU has only 15 members. Sure.

Maybe you should get a bit more info on your beloved EU first, would you not think?

11:51 AM  
Blogger Marek Möhling said...

Franklin, I too feel that key assumptions of yours are flawed: I'd like to handle this piecemeal to avoid an exchange of lengthy essays.

"there are various levels of EU membership [...] there are no limitations for the mythical 'Polish plumber'"

Old EU members can impose at the most a "2+3+2" transitional period on new members, cf. freedom of movement for workers. The article points to Treaty of Accession 2003 where you find the corresponding EU documents linked.

All Turkish administrations so far had made it clear that they won't accept anything less then full membership, whereas EU politicians favour what they call a "privileged partnership" (Weaselese? Instigated by my fellow, once turkophile, now turkophobe Krauts? Yes). Incidentally, this partnership would incur what you suggest to be feasible within EU regulations nowadays: permanent restrictions on freedom of movement for some -i.e. Turkish- citizens.

8:36 PM  
Blogger Marek Möhling said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:41 PM  
Blogger Claudio Casula said...

Dear Mr Franklin!

I didn`t use our friends identitiy, we have a common blog named Philippika (you`re welcome to read the header there)!
Sometimes there is a "bug" because he also writes in another blog with the same password - as I presume.
In case of complaints, you may turn to him!

I did supply a source(!) it`s linked in my text, plus other sources are easy to find if you care to google for it.
I suppose you mistook Cyprus for Greece in this question.

But you my friend are just plain and simple uninformed and even worse "uber-proud" of it.
May I presume you get some information before making dumb statements from the distance.

EU-Citizen Astuga!

8:53 AM  
Blogger Claudio Casula said...

Btw. Even Liza, who translated your article and linked on it, edited your flaws!

Yours truly Astuga!

8:57 AM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

My dear Astuga,

first of all, I translated this piece myself, and we made some common adjustments afterwards. These adjustments, as you will note, do not in any way address your so-called concerns. Your pride in this wonderfully meaningless EU is quite remarkable, but given your limited knowledge of it - as evidenced by your agreement with "Voyager"'s fact-free blather - it might be understandable.

As for your "points"

1. You linked to a Google search, the first result of which is closer to my thesis than yours (whatever your thesis may be, except for "Turkey sucks, the EU rocks").

2. As for mistaking Cyprus for Greece: man sollte nicht immer von sich auf andere schliessen (I'm giving you a chance to understand).

3. Being uninformed, or mislead, and proud of it, well, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Or, in your beautiful EU language, Bewtroffene Hunde bellen!

Best regards,

Franklin D. Rosenfeld

9:03 AM  
Blogger Claudio Casula said...

Anyway, in the german translation you don`t mention Grece any more - and it was so important that you did here - and made such a big fuzz about it afterwards.

Plus, if you made the edits and the translation yourself, it should say so in Lizas blog, I don`t doubt that you did it, but it dont say so.

And finally, everybody can make a picture for himself: who has the better arguments and who delivers facts not fiction.

Best regards Astuga!

9:25 AM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

My funny little clown,

I never made a fuss about Greece, the opposition of which was never central to my piece. One shouldn't be defined by what one opposes - see any parallels to the EU?

Regarding Liza, while "it dont say" that, it says "Gastbeitrag", which might be enough.

As for who delivers facts not fiction, I'll leave all your irreplaceable previous comments and standing here, for everyone to judge. It's good to know that you finally accepted what matters.

All best,


9:41 AM  
Blogger Claudio Casula said...

My dear Franklin!

It says "Gastbeitrag", it also says it was edited but not by whom.
But now comes the funny part: You then have edited the content which I told you to be wrong in the first place.
But you still tell me that it was right, I better not ask you which one of us behaves more clownish.

I`m ready to accept you beeing one of the Marx brothers then.

9:09 AM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

Q: What's worse than a regular troll?

A: A humorless, self-righteous Austrian troll, who boasts of his citizenship in a fictional entity, in which the citizens of ten members cannot even legally work in the troll's home country. A troll who, moreover, thinks the Founding Fathers should have followed the EU "ideals" from day one. A troll who may lack eloquence, but more than makes up for it in sheer stupidity.

And a troll, it should be noted, who violates one of the Internet's first rules and posts under several identities, but becomes stingy and evasive when called up on it.

(Astuga, if you still didn't get - go mess up somebody else's blog, or focus on your EU fan club)

1:14 PM  
Blogger No Hassle Loans said...

Hey nice blog. Although it�s not what I was looking for. I am looking for info on Payday Loans or a Cash Advance so I can buy some Phentramine diet pills.. I found your blog very interesting

3:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home