|
Post by nisse on May 20, 2007 19:51:36 GMT 3
Stalin was a dictator to ,
democracy works well in scandinavia, maybe its little bit different in finland, but thats to bad
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on May 20, 2007 20:28:34 GMT 3
Stalin was a dictator to , democracy works well in scandinavia, maybe its little bit different in finland, but thats to bad Bush was elected democratically, so was Blair, so was Sharon, so was Macias Nguema. In Finland democracy is actually that: "You can vote Huey, Dewey or Louie, but you will get anyway nephew of Donald"
|
|
|
Post by karakhan on May 20, 2007 21:18:29 GMT 3
I always admired Finland's government. very democratic, least corruption, etc
however it is right, not all forms of governments can be applied anywhere in the world.
Countries like Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan developed when they had a military dictatorship or one party rule.. something very undemocratic. Singapore has been ruled by the PAP for all its existence. Japan's LDP is virtually a one party state as they only lost power once. only South Korea and Taiwan recently become more democratic..but during their development and industrial phase, they had to use undemocratic means.
I think for C. Asia, they will need a dictatorship that is not soo corrupt as the current one, but strong enough to unite the people and force down economic policies that will be hard but necessary (i.e long working hours, etc).
I think the first thing I would like to see is a union of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. I would also like to see Karakalpakistan being part of this union too. the current Uzbek government isn't doing to well with them.
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on May 21, 2007 20:45:45 GMT 3
Our democracy almost collapsed before WWII (communists, monarchists, Lapua Movement). And in Kekkonen's time (1956-1981) we were somekind of autoritarian half-democracy.
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 22, 2007 3:23:18 GMT 3
Stan v stan
A new sort of Great Game May 17th 2007 | ALMATY The Economist CENTRAL ASIA has long been squabbled over by outsiders. The latest manifestation of this old imperial “Great Game” is a proposed gas pipeline linking Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan with Russia. But a struggle for leadership has broken out between countries of the region as well. When Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, proposed what he called a Central Asian union last month, few people paid attention. The Kazakh leader, who was against the break-up of the Soviet Union and is keen on integration European-Union style, periodically floats ideas for a common market. They usually do not get very far because there is little support for them among the neighbours. At first, there was no reason to think the four other former Soviet republics would like his latest initiative any better than previous ones. But the balance of power in the region is changing. Kazakhstan's oil-fired boom—growth has averaged almost 10% a year since 2000—has imbued the country's leadership with both self-confidence and a sense of mission. Its elite wants to take the impoverished “stans”—Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan—under its wing. Kassym-Zhomart Tokaev, the speaker of the Senate, says that “Kazakhstan is trying to build stability in our region”—a modest claim, perhaps, but one no Kazakh official would have dared to make even a year ago. The Kyrgyzstanis, who have stumbled from crisis to crisis since their “tulip revolution” in 2005, have been the first to taste Kazakhstan's claims to leadership. During his visit to Kyrgyzstan's capital, Bishkek, at the end of April, Mr Nazarbayev humiliated his counterpart, Kurmanbek Bakiev, by publicly lecturing him about Kyrgyzstan's shortcomings and telling him to follow the Kazakh model: economic reforms before political ones. President Bakiev was in no position to disagree. Kazakhstan, whose income per person of $3,800 is eight times Kyrgyzstan's, is the country's largest foreign investor. Many successful Kazakh entrepreneurs already think of Kyrgyzstan as pretty much a province of Kazakhstan, anyway. So better bilateral relations are welcome, but a union would be another matter. All five republics would benefit from closer co-operation, says Sergei Shatalov, the World Bank's country manager in Kazakhstan. All are landlocked. All incur massive transaction costs. All would benefit if they jointly tackled problems such as electricity shortages, water distribution, and drug trafficking from Afghanistan. The smallest states, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, do not have much room for manoeuvre. Turkmenistan, the region's other big energy producer, used to be isolated by the leadership of Saparmurat Niyazov. It is possible it might emerge from its shell under a new president, Gurbanguli Berdymukhammedov, who was elected in February—though there is no sign of that yet. So Uzbekistan is the main stumbling block to a Central Asian union. The Uzbeks, who make up around half of Central Asia's 55m people, see themselves as the region's natural and historic leaders (though there is nothing to back up this claim today). They detest the idea that Kazakhs, whom they disdain as mere nomads, should usurp their role. The repressive Uzbek leadership does not get along with either Tajikistan or Turkmenistan, and relations with Kyrgyzstan fluctuate. Some members of the government grumble they have been too busy defending Central Asia from Islamic extremists to deal with their economy the way Kazakhs have—ignoring the contribution that their own persecution of dissenters has had in encouraging fundamentalism. In spite of obstacles, the Kazakh authorities remain upbeat about regional integration, and about their own growing clout. But, as one observer in Uzbekistan noted wryly, if Mr Nazarbayev had been really serious about his proposal, he needed to have made it in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, alongside President Islam Karimov. www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9205456
|
|
|
Post by nisse on May 22, 2007 14:38:39 GMT 3
they will create a union trust me
|
|
|
Post by nisse on May 23, 2007 1:45:55 GMT 3
in 10-20 years probably turkestan will have a loose union , if only they will unite, What do you guys from turkey think, do you want to join turkestan or eu
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2007 9:05:26 GMT 3
Turkistan/Turan, the E.U. can suck my poy poy.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on May 23, 2007 12:32:18 GMT 3
Turkey shouldn't join the EU. That would be the dumbest thing they could do.
Ataturk wanted Turkey to join Europe because it stood for power & development at the time. But nowadays that image is slipping slowly. Why do you think they let the balkan countries join (cheap labor)
Turkey shouldn't Join the CA union I think because It's not in CA. Mabey later whn there is a bigger union than they should join. Turkey allways wants to take a dominant role(if they want it or not) Turkey should definitly make a pact with Azerbaycan and Georgia even with Iran if they weren't so close and best buddies with those armenians.
Or a Black sea confederation.
Turkey- Georgia-Azerbaycan-Turkmenistan is possible mabey even Kazakistan later.
But for now Turkey should focus on it's own problmens and quit waisting time on that EU stuff.
I realy understand the Europeans Turks are not European simple as that. THe more middle eastern than European.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2007 18:52:20 GMT 3
They shouldn't join a Central Asian Union because they're not Central Asian, you're right. But if they move onto a Turk Union then Turkey should join. I agree, especially with Georgia, they've always been good with eachother but they need to get closer and do more work together. The Turks in Europe act more Turk than a lot of Turks in Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by nisse on May 23, 2007 19:41:42 GMT 3
Why georiga, they are not turks,
btw I dont think georigia wants to do anything with any turkic nation, they hate turks
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 23, 2007 22:32:54 GMT 3
No they don't hate Turks, we have very good relationships. You can cross the border without a visa as I heard.
But first we should get rid of the kurds.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on May 24, 2007 0:53:34 GMT 3
True the Georgians and Turks have lived with eachother for many generations.
The visa part is Indeed correct my Qagan.
My family comes from Ahiska wich was the capital of çildir an Ottoman province wich nowadays would include South-east georgia, Kars, Ardahan, Batum and Igdir(Basicly all of Turkish caucasus).
I allwayq hear Stories about how many georgian friends my great uncle had(he's 20 years older than my grandfather he's 87 now i think)
The Turks and Georgians allways lived in pece in that area(well not during the seljuk periode but thats another story)
It's most certain that the Georgians share blood with the people of North eastern Turkey were Inter marriages is verry common.
I can almost say that i'm 80% sure that the non CA blood of my self comes from Georgian. I'm probably more mixed that that but anyhow what I wanted to point out is Georgia is our ally and not our enemy.
I thrust the Christain state of Georgia more than any Muslim arab state
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 12:50:42 GMT 3
Yea man, Turks and Georgians get along great. I never knew about the visa thing and when I said about Georgia getting involved with Turkey in a union, I didn't mean an union based on race, a geographical union.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on May 24, 2007 22:47:49 GMT 3
Ofc you didn't ^^
Like I said Turkey in a Black sea union would be verry good I think better than EU
|
|