He's holding millions of Syrian refugees and has threatened to send them to Europe if things don't go his way. Think European nationalism is bad now? You might not have a NATO after that.

We should refuse to be blackmailed by him. If he is that bad, those refugees are in danger in his hands. Europe has several rich countries that can easily handle the amount of refugees held hostage in Turkey.

Which rich countries do you propose 'easily' settle 2.7 million Syrian migrants? I'd like to tell you about their nationalist/neo-fascist candidates and their vision. Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, Geert Wilders, Frauke Petry, Matteo Salvini, Norbert Hofer, etc. They're already building walls in Europe - in Norway, Greece, in the Western Balkans, Hungary. Border controls inside the Schengen area (I saw this first hand in Sweden a couple of weeks ago). We've already had Brexit. We could have Nexit, Frexit, Italexit, Grexit, and on. You might see a significant strain on the common currency, especially with some of the capital flight already going on. If anything close to 2.7 million refugees come to Europe at once, it's going to get _very_ ugly.

Europe does not want those refugees even if Merkel told you otherwise and undemocratically imposed refugee quotas on other EU states, which now threatens the EU's very existence. Then they're only Syrian in part.

But yes, I agree we should refuse to be blackmailed by Erdogan, although I'd not go as far as to kick him out of Nato.

What is strong about that massive paranoia this guy and his corrupt gang is displaying for months now? And how the hell do you get the idea that this behavior is something that would be accepted anywhere in the 21st century?

FYI: in democratic elections, you don't put the opposition in jail first and control the media in a way that the ones you've left don't even get a chance to reach the population or tell them in a honest way what is currently happening. I'm sure all those vote manipulations are also part of democratic elections in your eyes eh?

>Turkey is going through transformation, and it will come out of it stronger and mostly becoming pillar of Middle East.

Like Nazi Germany grew stronger and stronger and grew to be the leader of Europe (+)?

((+) until it was vanquished of course by democratic countries -- but where do you find democratic countries, when you need one?)

Every strongman is not a hitler, mao or stalin. Especially, when they come through with largely "free" elections.

Abuse of power as President is different from putting 6 million people in gas chambers and marching around and being responsible for deaths to 10s of millions of people.

Lets have some perspective here, Please!

Hitler came out of largely "free" elections.

I don't think, that every despot is similar to Hitler, but still it is a despot.

BTW: How do you recognize a despot: He behaves like one. Just open your eyes!

To be fair, the issue here is that he seemed to be an undesirable despot. A good despot is actually better than a democracy, but they are just terribly risky every regime change. And a bad despot is.. well, terrible.

Isn't this the same argument for leaving Assad alone in Syria?

Of course, it is. If Assad loses Chrisitians and Alawites will be massacred in Syria.

A more honest assessment is, Gaddaffi, thanks to regime change, you have slave trade live and well in Libya. Pick your poison.

Its always easy to say, replace this.. but it much harder to replace it with what?

Middle East is not a choice about good and evil, it always present two bad choices, I choose the ones in which fewer people die.