Opinion: Turkey, leader of the Muslim world?

Your title doesn't match your article.

Pbbbbbbbbbbbtttt.

Economic power won't push Turkey into leadership of other Muslim states. If anything, increasing wealth would tend to lead Turkey away from that fate.

I will agree with you. A modern industrial society full of middle class folk generally have little time for religious fundamentalism. Well, most don't. It does seem that the U.S.A. is edging toward religious fundamentalism. Let's hope the "normal folks" pass it by.

I will agree with you. A modern industrial society full of middle class folk generally have little time for religious fundamentalism. Well, most don't. It does seem that the U.S.A. is edging toward religious fundamentalism. Let's hope the "normal folks" pass it by.


Re-read the article guys. It's not about Muslim fundamentalism at all. Turkey, for a Muslim state is very secular, including banning the hijab in public service. (May have rescinded it recently). Turkey is the 17th largest economy in the world, 7th in Europe. This is about a reforming of the Ottoman Empire. So it may be a good thing in that it would make the Muslim world more secular. OTOH, as we've seen in the US, leaders are not averse to using religion to drum up support, so they could go the other way too.

If you read the article to the end, it says that Turkey and Japan will be unsuccessful, that the US is just too powerful. It also predicts the collapse of Russia and China.

*Yawns* Wake me up when Japan isn't reliant on the United States to defend itself, and when Turkey isn't cooperating with Israel, let alone planning to recreate the Ottoman Empire (Yeah, Israel would LOOOOVE the Ottoman Empire). Then this theory can be possible, barely.

Edit: I think this guy just stole a Tom Clancy plot (I know there's a US vs. Japan one...Debt of Honor?) And chose a random Muslim country. Basically, he could write a great techno-thriller.

Japan is reliant on the US for defence?

You obviously have no idea of how well equipped and powerful the JSDF is. Japan is far more powerful than anyone else in Asia, with more modern aircraft, ships and weapons than China, Taiwan or South Korea. It also has an excellent space program and large nuclear industry. If they wanted/needed to have the bomb, Japan would have it in less than a year. Their high level of technology is also helping them to build a missile shield at least as good as the one Dubya built and would easily allow them to build ICBMs if they needed to. The only thing that really restrains the Japanese from more aggressive posturing is their constitution and a large number of Japanese citizens who aren't interested in ruling the world militarily (though there is a fairly well-organized right wing movement that advocates that path).

Yes, the US has bases in Japan, but those are there more for the US's benefit (forward deployment of forces) to intimidate China and North Korea. Perhaps your argument had merit back during the Cold War, but Japan doesn't need anyone to protect it nowadays, least of all the US.

Wake up. Japan has the largest navy in the Pacific Ocean at any given time since about 2005, their air force is more modern than anyone else's in the world (meaning they have more newer airframes per capita than any other air force), and I believe it was last year or 2008 that their PM quietly announced that Japan could be a nuclear-armed state in a matter of a few months if they wanted to be. In the circles I move in this is accepted as the politely evasive way for Japanese leadership to say that they already are a nuclear armed state.

A couple years back when Japan tired of Chinese subs transiting their waters without permission China threatened them if they interdicted the subs. A Japanese Army general responded by saying that he was not concerned about the Chinese threat as 'the Imperial Japanese Army still knows its way around China' (paraphrased).

That comment was important for two reasons.

* The general referred to the Japanese Self-Defense Forces Army as 'the Imperial Japanese Army' - a term that had not been used since WW2. That's a subtle way to say that the Japanese are not content to use their army just for self defense anymore.

* It also said, quite clearly, that Japan was prepared not just to wage a war with China, but to fight the war in China.

Japan does not need the USA anymore.

Interesting. I did not know this. I thought Japan was very weak militarily because of their constitution (written by McArthur). But we all know, technologically, if they put their minds to it they could make advanced weapons no probrem.

This guy's scenario tho, seems to hypothesize that the US etc lose their nukes, or that they won't deploy them if they're threatened.

The Japanese were more or less encouraged by the Reagan administration to build a military adequate for their own defense and to stop relying on the USA as the USA simply cannot afford the Cold War logistical positioning that used to be present in Japan.

And I don't think the USA will lose our nukes.

But it would not surprise me to see Obama throw them away. He seems to be bent on disarming the USA...just like Jimmy Carter was.

Well in that case I would consider that a severe black mark against Obama. I'm all for peace, but I think nukes, at least so far, have done a pretty good job of keeping us out of WW3. So I guess Anne Coulter has a point, we should appreciate being able to duck under Uncle Sam's umbrella if it rains.

In the 70's they had an intersting guy on As it happens on CBC. He was a think tank guy for the US defense department. He wrote a book called "Where are the adults." He saw his job as coming up with the most insane scenarious, which would then be vetted by the "adults" ie the people in charge. Instead he said, they just took his ideas at face value and ran with them.

His proposal was (for deterring the USSR) to sink a couple of Tridents in Lake Superior. He said they would be invulnerable, and had all the fire power needed to deter the Rooskies. He said the military savings from the arms race could then be put in the civilian economy (which gives returns 100 times greater than investment in the military) and the US could out compete the USSR economically. Instead of course, the USSR just wound up collapsing from within.

Well in that case I would consider that a severe black mark against Obama. I'm all for peace, but I think nukes, at least so far, have done a pretty good job of keeping us out of WW3. So I guess Anne Coulter has a point, we should appreciate being able to duck under Uncle Sam's umbrella if it rains.

In the 70's they had an intersting guy on As it happens on CBC. He was a think tank guy for the US defense department. He wrote a book called "Where are the adults." He saw his job as coming up with the most insane scenarious, which would then be vetted by the "adults" ie the people in charge. Instead he said, they just took his ideas at face value and ran with them.

His proposal was (for deterring the USSR) to sink a couple of Tridents in Lake Superior. He said they would be invulnerable, and had all the fire power needed to deter the Rooskies. He said the military savings from the arms race could then be put in the civilian economy (which gives returns 100 times greater than investment in the military) and the US could out compete the USSR economically. Instead of course, the USSR just wound up collapsing from within.


I think with nukes, a little goes a long way, and more is not necessarily better. As long as Obama sticks to that idea, doesn't just unilaterally disarm, things will be OK.

I will agree with you. A modern industrial society full of middle class folk generally have little time for religious fundamentalism. Well, most don't. It does seem that the U.S.A. is edging toward religious fundamentalism. Let's hope the "normal folks" pass it by.

Where is this happening in USA? Here in the mid-west (Ohio river Valley)don't see anything that supports your statement.

I will agree with you. A modern industrial society full of middle class folk generally have little time for religious fundamentalism. Well, most don't. It does seem that the U.S.A. is edging toward religious fundamentalism. Let's hope the "normal folks" pass it by.

Where is this happening in USA? Here in the mid-west (Ohio river Valley)don't see anything that supports your statement.



I dunno, Angler. Maybe you're a fundie, and so to you it just seems normal?