There are certainly worse ones.
> No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
The point of that turn of phrase was that the Turkey was born already with a significant amount of its territory ceded and under occupation. This territory was not given up back to the Turks willingly.
> Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about. US involvement in this war was fairly limited at any rate. And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here. You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
> Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years.
Europe had been wanting the empire's land for centuries, something the post-war Ottoman government was all too willing to cede.
> Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep?
This is extremely anachronistic. The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
In light of the Ottomans' capitulation to Allied demands, of course the Turks had little desire to continue the monarchy. Why would they? It had not only lost the war, considerable amounts of territory, and the city of Constantinople, but the imperial government itself stood in the way of trying to retake any lost territory. Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.