Jeuneturc007RE: Firewalls & IP Addresses??????????????
If you want to trace anyone’s IP go to this address.. very cool..
http://visualroute.visualware.com/
type 126.186.18.254
to give it a try
Jeuneturc007RE: Firewalls & IP Addresses??????????????
If you want to trace anyone’s IP go to this address.. very cool..
http://visualroute.visualware.com/
type 126.186.18.254
to give it a try
Jeuneturc007RE: SCREW NATO — Old Europe responds
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-02-03 AT 06:48 AM (GMT)]This came in through e-mail.. unedited.. it somewhat reflects the mood in Turkey.. but mostly the Turks in the U.S.
GOODBYE NATO, WELCOME ‘NIDO’
(An Editorial)
Mahmut Esat Ozan
Chairman Editorial Board
The Turkish Forum
In Brussels, Belgium, there is a deep division at NATO Headquarters. For
the first time in the alliance’s 53 years of history, one of its members ,
Turkey has invoked Article 4 that claims is thereatened. This issue has
the potential trouble for Turkey if there is a war, France, Germany and
Belgium have all blocked an attempt to try and move materials into Turkey
to protect that NATO member in case there is action. The U.S. and Turkey
want to place in that area, some missile batteries, ‘Awacs’ airplanes,
and chemical protection, but France, Germany, and Belgium, that trio, says
that it would be tantamount to accepting the war against Iraq, so they now
have blocked the moving of that material,. The United States says this is
a serious damage to NATO’s credibility. Obviously this is an automatic
conclusion that neither France, nor Germany, nor Belgium will be helping
the USA.
WHAT DOES NATO ARTICLE 4 MEAN?
Knight Ridder News Service: Washington- The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization was created after World War II to promote stability in
northern Europe among its 12 original members and to provide collective
security in case of war with the Soviet Union. NATO now has 19 member
countries. Turkey was admitted in 1952.
The NATO Treaty was signed in April 1949. The document’s 14 articles and
preamble call for peaceful resolutions of disputes, the use of armed
forces for “collective” self defense and other obligations.
Article 4 of the NATO treaty states: The parties will consult together
whenever, in the opinion of any of them , the territorial integrity ,
[political independence or security if any of the parties is threatened .
This means that the NATO signatories will consult with each other when a
member is threatened. All decisions on NATO action must be made by
consensus, meaning all members agree to the action.
………………………….
NATO members met for two hours in the afternoon Feb. 10, 2003 briefed by
the chairman of NATO’s military committee on the seriousness of the threat
to one of its members’, Turkey. There is no doubt that the alliance is
facing “a threat of credibility” the representative of Turkey said. In
Washington, Rumsfeld said that NATO countries would work individually to
boost the defense of an old ally ,Turkey , the only alliance member to
border Iraq, should the (infamous )trio continue to hold out. President
Bush said he was very “disappointed” by the decision of NATO not to aid a
member, Turkey. “I don’t understand the decision . It affects the alliance
in a negative way. Hopefully the parties involved will reconsider.”
In actuality, many political pundits think that there isn’t too much to
worry about the foot dragging by the infamous trio. The United States
seems happy to go it alone. The only true ally is Great Britain. The
involvement of British troops in the case of war will mainly serve a
political purpose, indicating to the American public that there is, after
all, some sort of worldwide support for its government’s actions. However,
the Turkish government politely refused the introduction of British
Tommies to land on the Turkish soil for a very good reason . We Turks
remember well how the British government ordered Turks to evacuate the
Mosul and Kirkuk area when they were arbitrarily creating the map of Iraq,
after their winning a lengthy war over the Ottoman Turks and their allies,
the Germans, disregarding the fact that all those oil-producing
territories were part and parcel of the Ottoman Turks.
The US armed forces have reached a level of technological superiority
beyond the financial and political reach of any other nation, putting them
into a class of their own. With more than 3,000 cruise missiles or
precision-guided bombs already deployed around Iraq, the US appears able
to knock out a manhole cover in the streets of Baghdad without destroying
anything around it. This perception of the U,S’s military superiority has
changed the US’s geo-strategic outlook.
Meanwhile in Rumsfeld’s ‘old Europe’, the war-weary citizens of Germany
have just gone through approximately 20 hours of TV programmes revisiting
Stalingrad – that epitome of strategic hubris, where over 1.2 million died
in the epic battle of 1942-43 and a whole German army vanished like the
children’s crusade in the Middle Ages, where hundreds of thousands of
young crusaders were set afloat to reach Jerusalem and free the city from
the infidel. Then one thing was wrong. The greedy Italian ship owners even
though they were Christian themselves, had sold to these doomed young
crusaders unfit vessels which sank in the Mediterranean. Sea.
Today’s German citizens stand by Chancellor Gerhardt Schroder who won the
last election by rejecting any German participation in forcible regime
change in Iraq. Perhaps this attitude is an unexpected success of the
post-1945 re-education. The trauma of a lost war in 1945 was deepened by
the knowledge of the deepest moral defeat any nation has ever suffered in
European history.
Whatever the sources of the pacifist mood in Germany may be, it is a fact,
and should be welcomed by its neighbors. But it is not. There was a shock
to Schroder last week – when the heads of eight European states, with
secret guidance from Spain and Britain and without the knowledge of France
and Germany, signed a letter affirming the righteousness of the US war
plans.
Schröder and Chirac took this as a betrayal – in particular on the part of
Poland, which had just been accepted into the Union at great expense to
the two nations mentioned earlier: Germany and France..
In an article published in a reputable New York financial daily we find
the following words: ” For the next weeks, in a curious twist of history,
the political futures of Chancellor Schröder and his Green party foreign
minister Joschka Fischer depend on political calculations in France. If
France, which has always pretended to suffer from Germany’s unwavering
alliance to the United States, decides to go forward and join the US and
British war against Iraq, it will leave Germany alone with Syria in
abstaining in the Security Council of the United Nations. In that case,
Schröder’s international isolation would be complete.
In that event, he might decide to hand over power to the rising star of
his Cabinet, the minister of labour and economics, Wolfgang Clement.
Fischer, who became a firm Atlanticist under the loving guidance of
Madeleine Albright, could stay on as a foreign minister.”
An old hand in international politics, the former Secretary of State who
served under two presidents, Dr. Henry Kissinger, has said that what
France has done was somewhat expected, However, he adds this time it looks
to me that France is not doing something unilaterally, it is trying to
recruit other European members to join France, Belgium, and Germany, which
Kissinger said was unacceptable.
Another voice was added dissatisfied observers watching what is going on.
The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld characterized the renegade
action of the trio of NATO members “unpardonable.” The conclusion he
reached was in a paraphrased form : ” Turkey will not be hurt , many
nations will come to her aid, in case of need.
IS NATO RELEVANT ANYMORE?
For all practical purposes NATO is not an effective organization anymore
Out of 19 members 3 of them may have deliberately succeeded in scuttling
this old venerable alliance. One of whose members, Turkey, had joined the
alliance in 1952
This is a serious rift among the members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). Sooner or later there is the imperative of replacing
NATO with a more effective organization, even if it is an association
devoid of France Germany, and Belgium. On one of past Sundays early
morning programs a commentator offered his two cents worth (as he called
it) referring to the rebellion at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium
. He said :”There’s a Turkish proverb which goes: “Dogs bark but the
caravan moves on,” And the caravan which is moving on is larger than lot
of people think… and yes, there is a Poodle barking in France, a
Schnauzer barking in Germany, and I don’t know what kind of dog barking in
Belgium, a Chihuahua, maybe.”
Another Sunday morning commentator had this to offer: ” Half of our
nation’s global critics cannot get into internet without mentioning my
favorite country France. They’re asking facetiously, of course , by saying
how can we go to war without France. I say going to war without France is
like going hunting without an accordion”. This young man continued:
“Schroder’s Germany has provided vast stocks of materials to build
chemical and biological weapons which Saddam has used against his own
people and on the Iranians. He has conducted various experiments on his
own Iraqi prisoners worthy of infamous Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele.”
What separates the U.S. and the Berlin-Paris axis is that the Americans,
whether they are from the right or from the left agree that “morals”
matter and the foreign policy should not serve merely economical and
territorial ends. The French and German position in contrast proceed from
expediency. Germany supplied the hardware for Saddam’s bio-chemical
weapons program, and the French position on Iraq is all about oil.
Nevertheless their own press blame the U.S. for it. French companies
reportedly invested more than $60 billion dollars on clandestine oil
contracts with Saddam Hussein, knowing at all time that what they were
doing was against the U.N. resolutions, therefore, illegal.
As for the allegations that U.S. is acting like a ‘unilateralist’ cowboy,
consider this, at the last count, 16 European nations are supporting the
Bush Administration, but Germany, France, and Belgium are opposing.
While we were contemplating serious debate about ‘war and peace’, our old
buddies in Paris and in Berlin were behaving more like Monty Python
caricatures than statesmen, trying to cover their precious ‘derrieres’,
and not succeeding”
AN OFFER FOR SOLVING THE PRESENT IMPASSE
A NEW ORGANIZATION TO REPLACE NATO
Seriously, instead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we should
have a new Association of European nations and the United States of
America .I would like to name this organization by its new moniker, NIDO
:
The “NEW INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE ORGANIZATION” This will include the 8
European nations who were recently admitted into NATO AND WHO rebelled
against Germany and France by courageously backing the United States of
America. Their decision to do so was advertised on a full page ad in the
New York Times which infuriated Chirac and Schroder to no end. This action
of theirs should worry Schroder more than Chirac.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, for the next weeks, in
a curious twist of history, the political futures of Chancellor Schröder
and his Green party foreign minister Joschka Fischer depend on political
calculations in France. If France, which has always pretended to suffer
from Germany’s unwavering alliance to the United States, decides to go
forward and join the US and British war against Iraq, it will leave
Germany alone with only Syria in abstaining in the Security Council of the
United Nations. In that case, Schröder’s international isolation would be
complete, and the U.S. President George W. Bush will have scored a
satisfactory point and vindicate against the humiliating German insults he
had to endure during the last German elections
Jeuneturc007RE: SCREW NATO — Old Europe responds
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-02-03 AT 06:48 AM (GMT)]This came in through e-mail.. unedited.. it somewhat reflects the mood in Turkey.. but mostly the Turks in the U.S.
GOODBYE NATO, WELCOME ‘NIDO’
(An Editorial)
Mahmut Esat Ozan
Chairman Editorial Board
The Turkish Forum
In Brussels, Belgium, there is a deep division at NATO Headquarters. For
the first time in the alliance’s 53 years of history, one of its members ,
Turkey has invoked Article 4 that claims is thereatened. This issue has
the potential trouble for Turkey if there is a war, France, Germany and
Belgium have all blocked an attempt to try and move materials into Turkey
to protect that NATO member in case there is action. The U.S. and Turkey
want to place in that area, some missile batteries, ‘Awacs’ airplanes,
and chemical protection, but France, Germany, and Belgium, that trio, says
that it would be tantamount to accepting the war against Iraq, so they now
have blocked the moving of that material,. The United States says this is
a serious damage to NATO’s credibility. Obviously this is an automatic
conclusion that neither France, nor Germany, nor Belgium will be helping
the USA.
WHAT DOES NATO ARTICLE 4 MEAN?
Knight Ridder News Service: Washington- The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization was created after World War II to promote stability in
northern Europe among its 12 original members and to provide collective
security in case of war with the Soviet Union. NATO now has 19 member
countries. Turkey was admitted in 1952.
The NATO Treaty was signed in April 1949. The document’s 14 articles and
preamble call for peaceful resolutions of disputes, the use of armed
forces for “collective” self defense and other obligations.
Article 4 of the NATO treaty states: The parties will consult together
whenever, in the opinion of any of them , the territorial integrity ,
[political independence or security if any of the parties is threatened .
This means that the NATO signatories will consult with each other when a
member is threatened. All decisions on NATO action must be made by
consensus, meaning all members agree to the action.
………………………….
NATO members met for two hours in the afternoon Feb. 10, 2003 briefed by
the chairman of NATO’s military committee on the seriousness of the threat
to one of its members’, Turkey. There is no doubt that the alliance is
facing “a threat of credibility” the representative of Turkey said. In
Washington, Rumsfeld said that NATO countries would work individually to
boost the defense of an old ally ,Turkey , the only alliance member to
border Iraq, should the (infamous )trio continue to hold out. President
Bush said he was very “disappointed” by the decision of NATO not to aid a
member, Turkey. “I don’t understand the decision . It affects the alliance
in a negative way. Hopefully the parties involved will reconsider.”
In actuality, many political pundits think that there isn’t too much to
worry about the foot dragging by the infamous trio. The United States
seems happy to go it alone. The only true ally is Great Britain. The
involvement of British troops in the case of war will mainly serve a
political purpose, indicating to the American public that there is, after
all, some sort of worldwide support for its government’s actions. However,
the Turkish government politely refused the introduction of British
Tommies to land on the Turkish soil for a very good reason . We Turks
remember well how the British government ordered Turks to evacuate the
Mosul and Kirkuk area when they were arbitrarily creating the map of Iraq,
after their winning a lengthy war over the Ottoman Turks and their allies,
the Germans, disregarding the fact that all those oil-producing
territories were part and parcel of the Ottoman Turks.
The US armed forces have reached a level of technological superiority
beyond the financial and political reach of any other nation, putting them
into a class of their own. With more than 3,000 cruise missiles or
precision-guided bombs already deployed around Iraq, the US appears able
to knock out a manhole cover in the streets of Baghdad without destroying
anything around it. This perception of the U,S’s military superiority has
changed the US’s geo-strategic outlook.
Meanwhile in Rumsfeld’s ‘old Europe’, the war-weary citizens of Germany
have just gone through approximately 20 hours of TV programmes revisiting
Stalingrad – that epitome of strategic hubris, where over 1.2 million died
in the epic battle of 1942-43 and a whole German army vanished like the
children’s crusade in the Middle Ages, where hundreds of thousands of
young crusaders were set afloat to reach Jerusalem and free the city from
the infidel. Then one thing was wrong. The greedy Italian ship owners even
though they were Christian themselves, had sold to these doomed young
crusaders unfit vessels which sank in the Mediterranean. Sea.
Today’s German citizens stand by Chancellor Gerhardt Schroder who won the
last election by rejecting any German participation in forcible regime
change in Iraq. Perhaps this attitude is an unexpected success of the
post-1945 re-education. The trauma of a lost war in 1945 was deepened by
the knowledge of the deepest moral defeat any nation has ever suffered in
European history.
Whatever the sources of the pacifist mood in Germany may be, it is a fact,
and should be welcomed by its neighbors. But it is not. There was a shock
to Schroder last week – when the heads of eight European states, with
secret guidance from Spain and Britain and without the knowledge of France
and Germany, signed a letter affirming the righteousness of the US war
plans.
Schröder and Chirac took this as a betrayal – in particular on the part of
Poland, which had just been accepted into the Union at great expense to
the two nations mentioned earlier: Germany and France..
In an article published in a reputable New York financial daily we find
the following words: ” For the next weeks, in a curious twist of history,
the political futures of Chancellor Schröder and his Green party foreign
minister Joschka Fischer depend on political calculations in France. If
France, which has always pretended to suffer from Germany’s unwavering
alliance to the United States, decides to go forward and join the US and
British war against Iraq, it will leave Germany alone with Syria in
abstaining in the Security Council of the United Nations. In that case,
Schröder’s international isolation would be complete.
In that event, he might decide to hand over power to the rising star of
his Cabinet, the minister of labour and economics, Wolfgang Clement.
Fischer, who became a firm Atlanticist under the loving guidance of
Madeleine Albright, could stay on as a foreign minister.”
An old hand in international politics, the former Secretary of State who
served under two presidents, Dr. Henry Kissinger, has said that what
France has done was somewhat expected, However, he adds this time it looks
to me that France is not doing something unilaterally, it is trying to
recruit other European members to join France, Belgium, and Germany, which
Kissinger said was unacceptable.
Another voice was added dissatisfied observers watching what is going on.
The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld characterized the renegade
action of the trio of NATO members “unpardonable.” The conclusion he
reached was in a paraphrased form : ” Turkey will not be hurt , many
nations will come to her aid, in case of need.
IS NATO RELEVANT ANYMORE?
For all practical purposes NATO is not an effective organization anymore
Out of 19 members 3 of them may have deliberately succeeded in scuttling
this old venerable alliance. One of whose members, Turkey, had joined the
alliance in 1952
This is a serious rift among the members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). Sooner or later there is the imperative of replacing
NATO with a more effective organization, even if it is an association
devoid of France Germany, and Belgium. On one of past Sundays early
morning programs a commentator offered his two cents worth (as he called
it) referring to the rebellion at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium
. He said :”There’s a Turkish proverb which goes: “Dogs bark but the
caravan moves on,” And the caravan which is moving on is larger than lot
of people think… and yes, there is a Poodle barking in France, a
Schnauzer barking in Germany, and I don’t know what kind of dog barking in
Belgium, a Chihuahua, maybe.”
Another Sunday morning commentator had this to offer: ” Half of our
nation’s global critics cannot get into internet without mentioning my
favorite country France. They’re asking facetiously, of course , by saying
how can we go to war without France. I say going to war without France is
like going hunting without an accordion”. This young man continued:
“Schroder’s Germany has provided vast stocks of materials to build
chemical and biological weapons which Saddam has used against his own
people and on the Iranians. He has conducted various experiments on his
own Iraqi prisoners worthy of infamous Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele.”
What separates the U.S. and the Berlin-Paris axis is that the Americans,
whether they are from the right or from the left agree that “morals”
matter and the foreign policy should not serve merely economical and
territorial ends. The French and German position in contrast proceed from
expediency. Germany supplied the hardware for Saddam’s bio-chemical
weapons program, and the French position on Iraq is all about oil.
Nevertheless their own press blame the U.S. for it. French companies
reportedly invested more than $60 billion dollars on clandestine oil
contracts with Saddam Hussein, knowing at all time that what they were
doing was against the U.N. resolutions, therefore, illegal.
As for the allegations that U.S. is acting like a ‘unilateralist’ cowboy,
consider this, at the last count, 16 European nations are supporting the
Bush Administration, but Germany, France, and Belgium are opposing.
While we were contemplating serious debate about ‘war and peace’, our old
buddies in Paris and in Berlin were behaving more like Monty Python
caricatures than statesmen, trying to cover their precious ‘derrieres’,
and not succeeding”
AN OFFER FOR SOLVING THE PRESENT IMPASSE
A NEW ORGANIZATION TO REPLACE NATO
Seriously, instead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we should
have a new Association of European nations and the United States of
America .I would like to name this organization by its new moniker, NIDO
:
The “NEW INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE ORGANIZATION” This will include the 8
European nations who were recently admitted into NATO AND WHO rebelled
against Germany and France by courageously backing the United States of
America. Their decision to do so was advertised on a full page ad in the
New York Times which infuriated Chirac and Schroder to no end. This action
of theirs should worry Schroder more than Chirac.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, for the next weeks, in
a curious twist of history, the political futures of Chancellor Schröder
and his Green party foreign minister Joschka Fischer depend on political
calculations in France. If France, which has always pretended to suffer
from Germany’s unwavering alliance to the United States, decides to go
forward and join the US and British war against Iraq, it will leave
Germany alone with only Syria in abstaining in the Security Council of the
United Nations. In that case, Schröder’s international isolation would be
complete, and the U.S. President George W. Bush will have scored a
satisfactory point and vindicate against the humiliating German insults he
had to endure during the last German elections
Jeuneturc007RE: SCREW NATO — Old Europe responds
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-02-03 AT 07:45 AM (GMT)]Well here is some update..
for some reasons my school transcripts didn’t get to the embassy so the members of the armed forces came to my grandfather’s home to get me for the service.. apart from that.. Turkey doesn’t need any help from anyone.. but it’s nice to know who stands where. So Nato(not solely the U.S.) wouldn’t intervene if Turkey was attacked by Iraq? did I get that right?
JJ,
what’s Israel’s standpoint as far as being in the coalition and letting the U.S. use some of the airbases?
Jeuneturc007RE: SCREW NATO — Old Europe responds
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-02-03 AT 07:45 AM (GMT)]Well here is some update..
for some reasons my school transcripts didn’t get to the embassy so the members of the armed forces came to my grandfather’s home to get me for the service.. apart from that.. Turkey doesn’t need any help from anyone.. but it’s nice to know who stands where. So Nato(not solely the U.S.) wouldn’t intervene if Turkey was attacked by Iraq? did I get that right?
JJ,
what’s Israel’s standpoint as far as being in the coalition and letting the U.S. use some of the airbases?
Jeuneturc007RE: Big and Beautiful from Budapest
there is only one thing big and beatiful that comes from Budapest and it isn’t a plane!!!..
what’s going on with me?
Jeuneturc007RE: sunrise over atlantic
yeah I do.. or it must be one of those days for me.. heheuheh!!!
It’s over London -they look better full size
Jeuneturc007RE: Little n%2527 large
guys winglets and wingtips are not the same things.!! just to let you know..
(couldn’t help myself)
Jeuneturc007RE: sunrise over atlantic
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-02-03 AT 06:21 AM (GMT)]did you use flash on that one?.. aerlingus.. such a sexy name..!!!
Attachments:
Jeuneturc007RE: What is the most risque food you have ever eaten?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-02-03 AT 05:58 AM (GMT)]hmm.. Beef tripe soup.. and (kokorec) charred sheep intestines.
By the way Eu wants to ban these, in case Turkey if ever joins..
hmmm..
Jeuneturc007RE: What is the most risque food you have ever eaten?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-02-03 AT 05:58 AM (GMT)]hmm.. Beef tripe soup.. and (kokorec) charred sheep intestines.
By the way Eu wants to ban these, in case Turkey if ever joins..
hmmm..
Jeuneturc007RE: Earth re-entry problems
>a new design sounds sensible… BUT… it’s built by Boeing,
>which can mean only one thing…
>
>stand by for the Space Shuttle NG…
>
>the almost newly designed, Orbiter-600 (also avaliable in
>slightly bigger -7/8/900 series).
>
>Combining the best 30 year old technology with slightly
>bigger luggage racks.
>
>Plus, of course (and this is best bit) the option of
>winglets.
>
>and of course, the loosely based upon BBO (Boeing Business
>Orbiter).
So when are europeans going to send a shuttle in orbit?..
A-54XX?
Jeuneturc007RE: Earth re-entry problems
>a new design sounds sensible… BUT… it’s built by Boeing,
>which can mean only one thing…
>
>stand by for the Space Shuttle NG…
>
>the almost newly designed, Orbiter-600 (also avaliable in
>slightly bigger -7/8/900 series).
>
>Combining the best 30 year old technology with slightly
>bigger luggage racks.
>
>Plus, of course (and this is best bit) the option of
>winglets.
>
>and of course, the loosely based upon BBO (Boeing Business
>Orbiter).
So when are europeans going to send a shuttle in orbit?..
A-54XX?
Jeuneturc007RE: T:A:T:U… How do you feel about them?
having been with a ukranian girl last saturday.. I really can’t say anything bad!!!
Sign In
