Joke on Turkey in the EU

John Uskglass

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
[rough translation from Turkish]

After the accession of 10 new countries to the EU, the European Parliament empowers Gunter Verheugen and his team to make the final decision on the membersip of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

They in turn decide to ask a single question to the foreign ministers of the three candidate nations to settle the issue.

Verheugen first asks the Bulgarian foreign minister: "When did the Americans first use the atomic bomb in the WW2?" After getting the correct reply of 1945, Bulgaria is congratulated on its entry to the EU.

Next, Romanian foreign minister is asked where the a-bomb was dropped and as soon as he replies "Hiroshima," Verheugen shakes his hand and welcomes Romania to the Union.

Finally, Verheugen smiles warmly at Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, and asks: "Please tell us the exact number of the dead when the abomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the victims' names and their adresses."
 
Turkey doesn't deserve to be in the EU. Bulgaria and Romania are kind of doubtful, too. In fact, I'm not quite sure about the benefits of this whole sudden blitz-expansion. Why the need to hurry? It's just going too fast, and anyone who has played any of the Civilization games is going to understand that.
 
Baboon said:
Turkey doesn't deserve to be in the EU. Bulgaria and Romania are kind of doubtful, too. In fact, I'm not quite sure about the benefits of this whole sudden blitz-expansion. Why the need to hurry? It's just going too fast, and anyone who has played any of the Civilization games is going to understand that.


What on earth does Civilization have to do with anything? Not even EU2 has anything like this. Or Vicky.
 
Baboon said:
Turkey doesn't deserve to be in the EU. Bulgaria and Romania are kind of doubtful, too. In fact, I'm not quite sure about the benefits of this whole sudden blitz-expansion. Why the need to hurry? It's just going too fast, and anyone who has played any of the Civilization games is going to understand that.

You read too many Kharn posts.
 
Wooz69 said:
Baboon said:
Turkey doesn't deserve to be in the EU. Bulgaria and Romania are kind of doubtful, too. In fact, I'm not quite sure about the benefits of this whole sudden blitz-expansion. Why the need to hurry? It's just going too fast, and anyone who has played any of the Civilization games is going to understand that.

You read too many Kharn posts.

It's da truth. Rapid expansion will be the death of the EU yet, mark my words.

(or not, ehehehe)
 
No, but if you look at other unions (besides the USSR, but we all know what happened to them), they took longer to form. Like the USA. They didn't go from 13 to 50 states in a year. I mean, what's the rush? Let Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania become a little richer, and a little wiser, before being allowed to join. I'm not a racist, and I really don't care much for the EU, but thing is, my country is a member, so it affects me whether I want it or not. We can't let just anyone join just like that. Just look at Turkey. They're kind of oppressive, last time I checked (death penalty etc.).

I just don't see why the sudden need for a gigantic EU expansion. We just got, what, 10 new members in a day? It's not like Russia or China is going to steal them first, now is it? Seems like those EU officials are preparing for something bad, very bad, to happen, very soon.

And Crap, Civilization has a lot to do with it. Sure, you need to expand the first few turns, but expand too much, and you'll see your military being too stretched, your economy not sufficient for the growth of those 20 new border cities you built in a turn, your population density being too weak, and so on. Early expansion is a good thing, but there is a limit to what you can handle.
 
Some people don't know shit about integration processes to the EU.

's not like all of a sudden th parlament in Brussels said "Yo, it's time for more countries to join, just like that"

And some people play too much Civilization.

EDIT: some other people drink too much, and post stuff at 5 AM, too.
 
Indeed. The integration process seemed to be very "yo, it's time for more countries to join". It all happened very suddenly. I mean, 10 countries! What's wrong with one at a time? It's so sudden and unexpected, like being buttraped in a dark alley (not that I would know).

And Civiliation is a very realistic simulator, so don't complain about it.
 
Baboon said:
Indeed. The integration process seemed to be very "yo, it's time for more countries to join". It all happened very suddenly. I mean, 10 countries! What's wrong with one at a time? It's so sudden and unexpected, like being buttraped in a dark alley (not that I would know).

Actually that's not true. The 10 countries may have been added in a single day, but only after an arduous and long application process which was started years and years ago.

In any case, "too fast" is a rather relative matter. How fast any empire or union can expand and hope to live depends completely on their inner balance and stability. A union must be able to work, efficiently and clearly, with no problems and little flaws, before thinking about expanding.

Take the Roman Empire. Before expanding, they always made sure that their internal political system was set and accepted by the people, and before moving forward they always made sure that the new lands would pose no trouble. Which is why they lasted so long, and which is why it took external forces finally destroy it, tho' the internal workings were tearing it apart too.

Now take the lands of the Khanate Horde. Under Ghengis, they rode over the Russian states, into Europe, went back out of sheer disinterest in those barbaric nations, and held what is still the largest stretch of land ever held under a single flag. But what kind of an internal system did they have? No political system to speak off, worst of which was a lack of a clear system of governance of the subjugated people (which is why a lot of the Russian towns were allowed to govern themselves, though they had to recognise the Khans and pay taxes) and no clear concept of who wasthe ruler and who wasn't. Consequently, it shattered into fragments as the Great Khan died, and a lot of those fragments were driven back or destroyed in the next few centuries.

Much the same could happen to the EU. We have no democracy to speak of, with a European Parliament elected by a 1/3 minority of the people and the commision of ministers being little more than a bunch of whispering old men going behind everyone's backs. The current system of taxation and funding has already proven itself to be enormously flawed. Anarchy pretty much reigns, with France, GB and Germany doing what they want. It's a mess, so is that really the time to expand?
 
I concur. And I doubt the new countries will make things better. Hence, in the EU's case, taking it slower would be much better. Resolve your own problems before helping others with theirs.
 
Kharn said:
Actually that's not true. The 10 countries may have been added in a single day, but only after an arduous and long application process which was started years and years ago.

Some goals were met, others weren't, so basically the whole expansion thing still needed more time. Hell, some of those countries were added in what I can only describe as 'haste'. And too many of those countries were too eager to join as well. If they beg you to join, you should learn to distrust them.

Kharn said:
How fast any empire or union can expand and hope to live depends completely on their inner balance and stability. A union must be able to work, efficiently and clearly, with no problems and little flaws, before thinking about expanding.

Which is where Baboon's Civilization comparison does make sense. It may be tricky to compare game mechanics with real life situations, but Civ is a damn good simulator. Politicians should be forced to play it at least once. And if they loose, they should draw their conclusions and become shepherds in a far away country. :twisted:

Ah, and the Fall of the Roman Empire... There's a beautiful lesson in there somewhere, and imo it goes like this: nothing lasts and there's nothing in the whole wide world you can do about that but this: learn to accept it. And maybe this: keep it simple.
 
*sniff* I'm sorry Kharn, I just couldn't resist...

Kharn said:
Which is why they lasted so long, and which is why it took external forces finally destroy it, tho' the internal workings were tearing it apart too.

Well, no.

The external forces didn't have all that much to do with it, really. Hell, my momma could've conquered the Western Roman empire with the state it was in.

There was almost nothing left of the Roman empire, really. Massive unemployment, Imperial Overstretch, the dissapearence of the Roman Imperial currency, extreme ruralisation, drastic decline in population, gigantic trade deficits, unsafety because of lack of government control, the loss of personal liberties for the agraric population, disintegration of the military system because of lack of coin and -of course- the failure of the system of Socii and Foederati.
In reality, the Roman empire was actually on the verge of collapsing. Already you could see certain sign of regionalisation across the empire.

So even though in the end, the barbarians did mark the end of the WRE, the freezing of the Rhyne only hastened the process. Really, one or two years longer and the Roman Empire would've collapsed on it's own.

So, it didn't take external forces to bring down the Western Roman empire. They just... happened to be around.




*Ahem*

Sorry about that. I just love teh damn classical history.

I'm going to let that remark about the Mongols slide, though. I wouldn't want to seem like a nitpicker around here... (and anyway, I don't have my notes on Asian history with me, and I'd be damned if I could remeber those darn names 'n dates out of the top of my head...)


Anyway, carry on. Nothing to see here. :look:
 
*Shrug*

Civilization is the only realistic simulator in which a trireme can whoop out a modern aircraft carrier.
 
Jebus said:
So, it didn't take external forces to bring down the Western Roman empire. They just... happened to be around.

Strange, I could've swore I said "though the internal workings were tearing it apart too". Which seems to imply that, had not an external invasion come, it would've torn itself apart. i.e. agreeing for you

But thank you for the further writings on the subject. It has nothing to do, however, with my point that one empire is stable and one incredible unstable.

Jebus said:
I'm going to let that remark about the Mongols slide, though

Excuse me? Let it slide? That seems to imply that there's something wrong with the remark, I'd appreciate it if you backed such an accusation up

*slaps Jebus with a metal gauntlet* A DUEL, SAH!
 
Kharn said:
Which seems to imply that, had not an external invasion come, it would've torn itself apart. i.e. agreeing for you

You KNOW I don't like you be implyin' things around here eh buddy. Them be fightin' words with me!

Kharn said:
Excuse me? Let it slide? That seems to imply that there's something wrong with the remark

Now how do ya dare to be accusin' me of doin' them dirty things like implyin', eh? Y'all want me to open a can of whoop-ass on ya? Eh?

I'd appreciate it if you backed such an accusation up

I will, I will... I've just got another couple o' thousand pages to study, but after that, I'm gonna be backin' up stuff so damn good you'll be hearing 'PwNd!" all over tha place!

So I might reply, but don't really have the time for it as long as my exams last.. But I'm going to give you a prelude: teh Mongolians did install a half-decent from of government (actually, they were culturally conquered by the areas they military conquered, especially China). I'd be damnded if I remember the dude's name, but one of the Khan's leading advisors said: "you can conquer a land on the back of a horse, but you can't govern it that way." Or somethin'.
So while the Mongolian empire wasn't as 'deeply' organised as the Roman was; the people in China -for example- weren't governed worse (in terms or organisation) than they were (or would be) under the Mandarins. Heck, maybe even better. And while their most Western conquests indeed quickly gained independance, they DID keep most of Asia... And controlled an empire that was still way larger and more populated than the Roman ever was.

But anyway, I might get back to you on that in a month or so.

If you won't be in Russia by then, that is.

Meh.


*slaps Jebus with a metal gauntlet* A DUEL, SAH!

You know how I like it when you slap me, babe...

Now draw your... "gun"...
 
Holy shit Kharn, that's a fat cat!

And IIRC from history lessons, I might be wrong though, the Roman umpire (hehe) was de-romanized before collapsing. As the roman empire progressively assimilated germanic peoples (they often joined peacefully, like in Civilization), these also kept some of their customs, mixing them with Roman culture. So the borders became less and less Roman, as the empire expanded. Cultural death or decadence is often a first step towards collapse, but whether this really affected anything, I cannot remember (I've forgotten all my Latin lessons).


As for the mongols, they might have had the biggest empire, but large parts of it was unpopulated, methinks (it stretched from China to Hungary, I think. They never got to Japan because of the "Kamikaze" and they were halted by Hungarian steppe cavalry, no?).

As the empire was so stretched out and not very densely populated, it would take months, even on horseback, to communicate between the regions. Again, whether that was a reason or not, I don't know, and correct me if I'm wrong (without a know-it-all attitude please).
 
Baboon said:
Cultural death or decadence is often a first step towards collapse

If it is (and I tend to agree), then the shit might hit the fan real soon.
 
Back
Top