...FUCK are you gibbering about??? If I could make heads or tails of that, I might be able to actually rebut it.

As it is, I can only note that it seems to reflect nothing so much as your usual deep confusion about English grammar and European history and geography.

Oh, WTF, even if I try as best I can: The first bit, about Iraq and Serbia, makes no sense at all that I can discern. The tiniest little bit in the middle that I'm actually fairly sure what it means: Yes, I think Turkey doesnt belong in the EU, but not because of their hats. The last bit, about "when the austrians ran europe" -- is this supposed to evoke some kind of historic parallel to the days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, when the Osman Empire held sway over large parts of Eastern Europe?

If that's what you're trying to say, here's a newsflash from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries: We threw off their tyrannical yoke! Greece, Albania, Rumania and Bulgaria, and all the little states and statelets that used to be Yugoslavia, are no longer ruled with an iron fist by the Pascha in Constantinople! WTF does that have to do with anything -- are you saying they *should be*, or what?!?

So, how many Senators does England -- sorry, Britain -- have in Washington D.C? If none, why not? That seems to be at least as logical and sensible as whatever it is you are trying to say: After all, in the days of the Austran Empire, Britain ruled large parts of what is now the USA. Brilliant solution to the Middle East problem, though: Israelis and Palestinians can settle their squabbles, as they won't have control of the region to contend for any more -- that'll have to go to Italy, obviously, since the Romans once held sway all around the Mediterranean.

Both the above make *at least* as much sense as your gibbering about "when the austrians ran europe".

If you want a more exact reply to the rest of your little screed, please translate it into coherent English. (NB: That's two translations.)