A European dream ...
I've had another one of my strange dreams ... I'm afraid it's an occupational hazard that comes with being an incurable news addict.
I dreamt that a political analyst from Mars dropped by the studio - and this is what he told me:
"I have been studying your system of government here on Earth, and frankly, I can make no sense of it. I look at the maps, and I observe that you have divided your planet into lots of different countries, separated by borders, so I have tried to match these countries with how you people run your lives.
"I see that each country has its own separate governing structure (although I am puzzled by a place called Somalia, where there seems to be no structure at all).
"But I also see that in the continent called North America, you have something called NAFTA, which seems to link together three different countries called the United States of America, the United Mexican States (although I gather no one actually calls it that), and Canada. But they still have three separate governments. I understand that this NAFTA exists only for the purpose of commerce.
"And in the continent called Europe, you have something called the European Union, which doesn't have its own government, but which does have its own parliament. I have been reading that now it wants to have a President as well, although it still won't have a government. Apparently it has 27 different governments. Is this right?
" My understanding is that most people who live in this European Union want to keep their separate governments. I have read about referendums in which they said they didn't like their leaders' ideas.
"So I would like you please to explain: if your system is called democracy, which as I understand it means that ordinary people decide how they want to be governed, why are your leaders in Europe so determined to do something which most people don't want them to do?"
Also in my dream, there was a man from the European Union. This what he said in reply:
"My dear Mr Martian, I'm afraid you have it all wrong. The plans we have are the results of many years of discussions between all our different governments, each one of which has been fairly elected by the people they represent. That's why we call our system 'representative democracy'.
"In each country, people have had an opportunity to vote for parties with different ideas about how the EU should be run - but the parties they have chosen are those which have come up with the ideas which you seem to find so difficult to understand. For example, in the UK, there is a party called UKIP; in Ireland, there is a party called Sinn Fein. Neither of them is represented in government because neither of them got enough votes in a general election.
"You are right if you think that many European earthlings take little interest in how the EU is run. But they do like to be able to travel and trade freely across borders, and the people who run our businesses like being able to hire workers from wherever they are most readily available.
"I hope you are not making the mistake of believing everything you read in our newspapers, because they are not always reliable sources of information.
"When you were looking at your Earth map, did you notice a country called China? I ask, because it's becoming a major economic power, and we Europeans think we need to group ourselves together to make sure that China and the US don't decide for themselves how to run the world. As you will have noticed, European countries tend to be quite small, not like the US and China.
"What we EU leaders are doing is taking decisions which we believe to be in the best interests of the people who elected us. If they don't agree, they can vote for someone else. That's why we call our system democracy."
The man from Mars had one final question. "Please explain: why is it called the Lisbon Treaty?" And the man from the European Union replied: "I'm terribly sorry, I've completely forgotten."
And then I woke up. Funny things, dreams ...
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Do we live in a democracy? Clive James came up with a litmus test.
Q. Can the government in power be removed at the whim of the people?
Complain about this comment
THE EU's 'HAPPY HALLOWEEN GIFT TO THE WORLD'- A SUPERSTATE EU!!
HOW IRONIC!! THE PATH TO AN EU 'SUPERSTATE' CEMENTED IN TIME TO COINCIDE WITH NORTH AMERICAN 'HALLOWEEN'!!
UK AS PART OF AN EU OF 'INDEPENDENT, LOOSELY ALIGNED NATION-STATES'- YES;
UK AS PART OF AN 'EU SUPERSTATE'- WOULD CEASE TO EXIST AND THEREBY WOULD HAVE FORFEITED ITS 'WORLD INFLUENCE' IN TOTALITY!!!!!!!!!!!
The UK as a 'central player part' of an EU which is structured as: an aligned- TO VARYING DEGREES AND LEVELS- association of independent, sovereign nations would be but one of many international bodies in which the UK can, in the future, maintain and improve its historic constructive role worldwide...
But, a UK as part of a 'Lisbon Treaty facilitated' 'EU superstate', made up of surrender monkey, amalgamated 'former-nation-states' would eventually end up being trammeled by Continental ego's and memories-of-empires aspirations run-amok...
The EU was not conceived to eventually become a 'superstate political body', striding the international stage as a 'lock-step unit'- made up of amalgamated nations...
Its main purpose was intended to be, as a group of loosely, and to varying degrees aligned nations*, that by its existence, acted as an obstacle to a repeat of the worst of Europe's past:
- never ending wars;
- ethnic and racial intolerance/pogroms; and
- subjugation of/inappropriate profiting from overseas peoples via badly administered colonies and Empires...
* in social, economic and legal policy areas...
Unfortunately, should the UK allow itself to be part of the intellectually dishonest lie that is the Lisbon Treaty- GETTING OUT LATER WOULD NOT RETURN TO THE UK THE HIGH STANDING AND BROAD INFLUENCE THAT IT NOW HAS...
A 'superstate' EU will loose the most productive functional characteristic that has been a prominent part of the various EEC/EU models existing until today: the abilities of INDIVIDUAL EU MEMBER NATIONS to counterbalance each other and to act as checks and balances to stop less than desirable policies/laws from coming into force and/or to amend them...
Amalgamation of EU member nations' militaries- as the Lisbon treaty is leading towards- is unnecessary and in many ways represents an improper and overreaction by those with slighted egos to the 'world order' results of WWII'...
Constructively coordinating EU member and other nations' militaries can be and is regularly done capably through NATO...
Once the 'base' 'political unit' of the EU changes from what it has been for over 5-decades: 'individual member nations' to 'individual adults'- ALL member nations will have allowed themselves to be subjugated to a political governance structure that, down the road- could legislate or act in ways that would not be agreeable to or in the best interests of individual 'member' nations' peoples- and not in the world's best interests- but nothing will be able to be done by the EU's respective 'member' nations- other than damagingly attempting to get out of the 'superstate EU'...
There ought to be an EU- but not an EU that by its existence extinguishes the sovereignty and world-role of its member nations...
_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Complain about this comment
The whole sorry mess began in 1776 when the upstart American colonists declared themselves independent of the country that owned them. Unprecedented in its impudence, it was only by luck that it succeeded. If that wasn't bad enough, they started something called democracy, an idea that had been cast aside even in its crudest form for a couple of thousand years since ancient Greece. How could Europeans create what would appear to their populations to be their own democracies without actually giving up any power and control in government that served the powerful and privileged turned out to be easier than expected. The systems chosen appeared democratic superficially but in form only, not in substance and because Europeans had always been cowed by government, there was no significant protest ever when government bared its teeth against the popular will and showed its true face. The French may have national strikes for a day or two but they never amount to much. Governments are never really threatened in Europe. Whomever wins elections, the powerful remain powerful. So if a referendum is held on something important to the will of power and the needed action is defeated at the polls, it is just circumvented like the vote didn't exist. Whether in France, Holland, or Ireland, one way or another the popular will is unimportant. Power is power. In Britain where there might actually be a vestige of spine appearing, there won't be any referendum no matter what else happens because the electorate might not tolerate ignoring a negative outcome. And so David Cameron merely teased the British population coyly as if to pretend he might hold a referendum on something to do with the EU although now that Lisbon is a done deal it wasn't clear what the referendum would be about. (Did the UK get opt outs in Lisbon the way it would have had under the so called Constitution? Even the term opt outs was a fraud since what they really were was merely five year deferrals after which the UK would comply with the full Constitution or be subject to penalties without limit. For many the term opt outs was sufficient salesmanship enough.)
The other problem was how to confront the fact that with the empires gone, European nations which never had much value for enterprise, private profit, or individual initiative would be reduced to a collection of small players on the world stage. France and Germany saw that neither could rule Europe alone either through persuasion of its superior culture and intellect in the case of France or through coercion by military force in the case of Germany. The solution was the invention of a superstate run by France and Germany together pretending at first to be just a free trade agreement and then to be a large democratic confederation. And so the pretense goes on. Some Europeans see right through it but there is little they can do since the majority are cowed even by their own governments. The ultimate convincing argument for the majority of states which are small and often poor is bribery, transfers of money from the larger wealthier members with or without the consent of their taxpayers. Which new small member would choose to be left out in the cold alone when it could belong to this powerful entity and get free money, money that could be used for political bribes by the ruling parties to keep their voters loyal and for corruption through embezzlement and nepotism?
At least two problems arise. The first is how to construct such a state from 27 such different entities that will remain cohesive. At the very least, at its core it must remain secretive because it will have to reconcile differences among its constituents that in some cases have been the source of competition and even violence for hundreds or thousands of years. Eventually this problem will disappear as cross migration and resettlement will make the population homogenious throughout the realm. At that point there will be as many Serbs living in Britain as there are Brits living in Serbia and all regional distinctions will disappear.
The other question is whether or not 27 small fish can appear to the outside world to be one big fish or seen another way, can 27 men each of whom can't swim alone manage to stay afloat in a sea of world competition if they are bound together. The obvious answer which the Europeans will do and say anything to keep from acknowledging is that they can't. The first clue as to why they can't is to see where the source of Europe's current wealth came from. After two world wars, Europe was a spent economic force, literally bankrupt and broken. In Western Europe, the wealth was created by a pax Americana which had as one of its strategic goals, the prosperity of Western Europe to prevent it from falliing into the Soviet orbit. It did this with tax incentives to large corporations to invest there. As a mirror image and to a lesser degree, the Eastern European nations were subsidized by the USSR. Even though their economies are a shambles, they would have been much worse off without those subsidies. The cold war is over, the pax Americana no longer serves American interests, the last vestiges of it will be removed in the coming years quite possibly including American participation in NATO which serves no useful purpose any longer. The interests of America and Europe no longer coincide, in fact they are in an adversarial relationship now and that includes the UK. Oblivious to this fact, Europe spends its remaining wealth on its lavish social safety nets, its transfer of wealth, and subsidizes them with higher taxes and deficit spending it swore it would never do. So on the international stage, Europe cannot find even a niche market to compete in where it is best in class. Not in Agriculture, not in industry, not in technology, not anywhere. Too expensive, to bureaucratic, it will not survive as a world leader. Should it try to insulate itself though protectionism, it will get the same in return from its competitors who also are its largest potential markets. So for the Europeans vis a vis the EU, it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, if the Martian has the patience to read through you're boring alternative history above, he might very well ask: Why did the USA single-handedly subsidise the re-development of Western Europe following WWII? What was the point of preventing it falling into Russian hands if it was literally bankrupt and broken? Seems like a pretty stupid enterprise - the money could have been spent on Mexico or Brazil or Texas.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"Why did the USA single-handedly subsidise the re-development of Western Europe following WWII?"
"Seems like a pretty stupid enterprise"
It does, doesn't it. I wish Mr. Truman, Mr. Marshall, and the others who engineered it were still around so that I could ask them that very same question myself. In light of subsequent history, they might have thought they'd made a terrible mistake in retrospect. Had the USSR had to take on the burden of post war Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe it might have collapsed a lot sooner.
Complain about this comment
Marcy, So effectively your answer to Mr Martian is that the wartime leaders of the USA were a pretty dumb bunch. They didn't have any ulterior motives when they involved the USA in the European theatre of WWII.
This Martian is going to be convinced we humans are a stupid bunch if he has the bad luck to meet you.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, that is not what I said. You just used two illigitimate methods in your argument.
First you changed the subject. We were talking about the post World War II period, not the war itself.
Second, you deliberately restated my argument not as I said it but twisted into a different argument YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD REFUTE.
I'll deal with your supposed argument first. It is a common rebuttal to the sacrifice Americans made to liberate Europe from the Nazis and fascists to say that they did it for their own ulterior motives. (The same goes for the rebuilding of Western Europe after the war.) In fact it was the confluence of different motives that made the decision to make this sacrifice inevitable. Some motives may have been self interest such as facing the inevitable battle with an implacable enemy at the earliest time when he'd be weakest. Other motives were not self interest such as putting an end to the slaughter to prevent as many deaths as possible during the war and to prevent death, starvation, and deprivation as quickly and as effectively as possible after the war. Even with American action, WWII was the worst bloodbath in history. Whatever the motives and whether we are talking about American policy during or after WWII, that does not negate the magnitude of the sacrifice or the fact that Europeans benefitted enormously from that sacrifice Americans made on their behalf they were not compelled for any reason to make. I am no longer surprised at the cynicism of Europeans ascribing self interest as the sole motivating factor as that is what they would have done, how they would have seen it. The proof is that beyond government donations to poor countries, private donations from individuals to impovrished people around the world from Europeans is next to nil while it is enormous from Americans. This is one more proof that it is impossible for Europeans to understand America or the mentality of Americans.
The issue was whether or not the US should have simply walked away from Europe after the war or as your argument goes, whether America should have gotten involved in Europe in the first place. That is what most Europeans wanted America to do in Iraq, leave them to their fate. Not only would Europeans have allowed the horror of Saddam Hussein's cruel regime to remain in place indefinitely, their opposition to the Amercian led intervention had a decidely negative impact on the outcome. Had Europe supported the invasion or at least not stood in the way, the outcome might have been far different. It is interesting that Europeans would have denied to Iraqis the liberation from a murderous dictatorship by Americans having enjoyed the benefits of just such a liberation by Americans themselves. Also, Europeans argue that America had to come to fight in Europe because America was threatened by the Nazis but they also argue that the perceived threat of Iraq to America was a false doctrine invented by the Bush administration to justify the invasion. At the time, among others, Vladimir Putin based on reports of his intelligence agency, George Tenet the director of the CIA appointed by the Clinton administration, and British Intelligence among others disagreed. This is proof that Europeas are inveterate liars whose real motive is hatred for America because America has so severely eclipsed it. European motivation is hateful revenge and to see America diminished in any way possible. Europe's absurd attempt to return to a position of international importance by the cobbling together this house of cards of a European Union is as pathetic to this American as it is funny.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, firstly I don't apologise for simplifying what you said - it seems that this is the only way to get a response from you. Time, and time again, people question the specifics of your gross generalisations, and you ignore them - generally hiding behind some kind of "I know I'm right" bluster.
Secondly I agree generally with your assessment of why the USA entered WWII as it did, I certainly don't put it (or it's assistance in Europe post WWII) purely down to self interest. My assessment of your comments was to point out that your views consistently put self interest above everything else, and you often mock those that don't concentrate solely on themselves. For you to accuse an entire continent of this trait is laughable.
Thirdly, of what relevance is Iraq here. Most Europeans wanted no invasion in the first place - that's one statement I can agree with. Was an elaborate WMD theory invented to justify USA entry to WWII? Was Pearl Harbour a fake? Was WWII about one country with a dictator who wasn't invading any neighbouring countries who were already in the process of fighting back?
So, can you provide evidence for any of the following statements, or do we have to bate you some more:
"The proof is that beyond government donations to poor countries, private donations from individuals to impovrished people around the world from Europeans is next to nil while it is enormous from Americans."
"That is what most Europeans wanted America to do in Iraq, leave them to their fate. "
Of course, if you just want to play your winning argument again (Europeans can't possibly understand Americans) please feel free to do so.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"of what relevance is Iraq here. Most Europeans wanted no invasion in the first place - that's one statement I can agree with. Was an elaborate WMD theory invented to justify USA entry to WWII? Was Pearl Harbour a fake? Was WWII about one country with a dictator who wasn't invading any neighbouring countries who were already in the process of fighting back?"
First of all, Iraq did invade Kuwait, did fight a war against Iran so to ascribe benign motives to the Iraqi regime and pretend that it did not try to acquire WMDs or pose a credible threat to other countries is just one more lie. The UN never learned of the secret nuclear weapons program Iraq had until Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who ran it went to Jordan and revealed it to the world himself in 1995, four years after Saddam Hussein's regime was supposed to reveal and destroy it as a condition of the cease fire of 1991, four years after the UN inspectors had been "investigating" all WMDs in Iraq. That was why America was in Saudi Arabia, to protect much of the world's oil supply from Iraq and that is why al Qaeda attacked the US if you listen to Osama Bin Laden's own words. It was because the US had troops stationed on sacred Islamic soil. All of the rest of the gibberish about Israel came much later. To this day we do not know if Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in 1991. If he had them, we do not know where they are hidden, in Iraq itself or somewhere else such as in Syria. That would come as no surprise since Iraq sent what was left of its air force to Iran in 1991 rather than see the US shoot all of it down.
In a world of WMDs, international terrorists, and relatively free movement around the world, the Marquis of Queensbury rules can no longer be applied to war. A nation cannot afford to wait to absorb the first punch as proof that there is a threat that justifies retaliation. When there seems to be credible evidence of capability and intent or that intent exists and capability is being acquired, the only rational course of action is a massive pre-emptive strike. The mistake in the case of Iraq was America's of course. The first time the UN inspectors were denied immediate unfettered access to a building, the US should have immediately flattened the building with a warning that the next refusal would bring an end to the cease fire and a resumption of the war until the Iraqi regime was eliminated. That it didn't demonstrated to Saddam Hussein that he could play any cat and mouse game he wished and get away with it. And that is exactly what he did...for twelve years. This is also what the US failure to pre-emptively strike Iran and North Korea were big blunders many people could pay for dearly in the future.
Another mistake is to suggest an equivalence between both sides in these conflicts and confrontations. For example, there is one line of thought that says that if it is okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons, it is okay for Iran to have them too. This is absurd and you know why well enough that I won't waste my time explaining it again.
Europe has a penchant for ignoring threats to its own security and dismissing alarm by others like America when they arise. Europe dismissed the threat of Hitler. It pretended the USSR was not a dire threat. It tries to paint Islamic terrorism as a criminal act to be dealt with by police, not an unconventional asymetric military threat to be dealt with by armed forces. Europe would also deny those like America the means to fight effectively even when it has the will. For example, the torture of prisoners to extract information about planned terrorist attacks even with WMDs has been severely criticized yet these tactics have proven effective not only in pre-empting strikes against the US but against Europe too including against the UK.
Inevitably Europeans always seem to get it wrong. Perhaps that is why Americans don't pay attention to them much. There is little success can learn from failure except to use it as an example not to be followed.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, thank you so very much for proving me right. Instead of providing any evidence about the massive generosity of American citizens (I'm not saying they are not generous, I just want to see your 'proof'), or explaining why the second Iraq War (the one which most Europeans opposed) was in any way similar to WWII you go off on some diatribe about the first Gulf War.
You also assume to know my opinions on nuclear weapons, and then move onto Islamic terrorism (and how to deal with it) - another totally irrelevant subject.
Not so much a case of "twisted into a different argument" with old Marcy, definitely a case of changing the subject at his convenience.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, you want a link? here's a link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/
"Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany."
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, it does not surprise me that you do not see the strong similarity between Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. If you did, you'd either have to agree that the invasion of Iraq was justified or that not attacking Germany before the calamity of WWII became inevitable was right.
Yet the connection is unmistakable. A blind man coluldn't help tripping over it in the dark.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link Marcy.
The article doesn't actually state that this charity is to "[external] poor countries" as I think you implied. But then again maybe that high degree of internal giving helps to make up for a decent social safety net? Also interesting that such a large percentage goes to religious organisations - I assume you don't approve of that - Aid with bibles etc... Anyway, proof that Americans are indeed a charitable bunch.
As you well know, I was comparing the overall situation of WWII vs IraqII. Many countries (unfortunately) have brutal dictatorships, they are not being invaded. Also, as you know, the primary justification for the invasion was because of the external threat the country posed, not the presence of Mr Hussein.
So in you little thesis, I would have agreed with the invasion of Iraq if I believed the justification given by our leaders (I did not believe it) and had we the means of disarming Germany before the onset of WWII existed, I would have also agreed with that process (as I understand it, the means certainly did not exist).
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"So in you little thesis, I would have agreed with the invasion of Iraq if I believed the justification given by our leaders (I did not believe it)"
YOU would not have been responsible for the consequences of being wrong and the Director of the CIA appointed by President Clinton, Vladimir Putin, and MI5 being right. What if they had been and after an attack on the US shortly on the heels of 9-11 the CIA Director had told the American people that he'd warned the President that Hussein having WMDs was a slam dunk and even the President of Russia warned him that Iraq was planning to attack the US. What do you think would have happened then? What do you think? When do you think?
Complain about this comment
Sparky, maybe only neurons two and three are firing at the moment eh? Don't worry I'm sure you'll catch up when number one kicks in as well.
I didn't believe the WMD guff, and I don't think our leaders believed it either. Translated for you, this means I think they lied (politically speaking, they wilfully over-extrapolated from the available information). As a result of this, coalition soldiers died in quite large numbers (not to mention Iraqis, who I don't think you put the same value on).
Drawing parallels between 9-11 and a festering dictator with supposed WMDS (a dictator who was incapable of hitting anything other than his near neighbours ten years previously) is frankly insulting. Following what our leaders say in an unquestioning manner is not the role of the electorate.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, it's not just your eyes that are crossed, it must be the wiring in your brain.
"politically speaking, they wilfully over-extrapolated from the available information"
In English does that mean that they assumed the worst based on the evidence presented to them and acted on it? Good, it's better than hoping for the best and having it turn out to be another disaster like Munich. Peace in our time. That was British logic in 1938 and for many Brits it seems like it is the logic they use today. Small wonder they lost an empire on which the sun never set, lost their financial solvency, and will now lose their very identity as a nation to the EU superstate in record time. It serves as an excellent example for America to avoid ever repeating.
"a dictator who was incapable of hitting anything other than his near neighbours ten years previously"
A dozen men armed with nothing more than box cutter knives brought down both towers of the World Trade Center, several other buildings in lower Manhattan, and destroyed a fair part of the Pentagon all in one day just months before this happened. If President Bush had not acted and there had been an attack on the US as a result, he wouldn't have been impeached, he'd have been assassinated...by his own government.
Complain about this comment
Sparky,
In English (as I quite clearly stated in the same post), it means I think they lied, or at least wilfully misinterpreted evidence. Others have asserted that evidence was falsified or overstated. Without high level access to such information, neither you or I can say with any certainty what really happened -we are however entitled to our opinions. It appears I do not believe the WMD argument (never did) and you did. Is that correct?
Your Empire tosh is, as usual, completely irrelevant. I do note that you're a big fan of bringing up the appeasment tactics of Britain pre WWII - I'm yet to see you explore this issue any further though.
Thank you for drawing further attention to the differences between the tactics used by those who comitted the 9-11 acts of terrorism, and the weapons that were cited as the reason for invading Iraq. Logically then, wouldn't it have made more sense to shut down the box-cutter factories than hunt for some unsophisticated WMDs in the desert?!
Finally, apologies to Mr Lustig, but I can't help being amused by the tactics that Marcy employs in his debates. This blog is providing quite a good illustration of those, and we're getting a reasonable selection of his litle anecdotes too.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"It appears I do not believe the WMD argument (never did) and you did. Is that correct?"
I think you fail to understand the nature of the differences between us. I don't merely reject your opinions, your conclusions, your points of view. It's not a matter of left or right, liberal or conservative. I reject the very culture that has imbued you with the process by which you observe, think, draw conclusions, see the world, see life. Our differences are absolutely profound. We have virtually nothing in common. It is unlikely we will ever agree about anything.
Complain about this comment
"I reject the very culture that has imbued you with the process by which you observe, think, draw conclusions, see the world, see life. Our differences are absolutely profound. We have virtually nothing in common. It is unlikely we will ever agree about anything."
All of the above would appear to make contributing to a BBC forum seem a little pointless. Just why would our different cultures make answering the question so hard? I think what you actually meant was:
"I'm taking my bat home, you can't play any more"
Complain about this comment
Not only is there no agreement here, there is no understanding on your part. I refuse to see the world your way. I do not and never can have your perspective. I understand you, I simply will not accept what you say or think. But I don't think you understand me. I am not here to come to an agreement, I'm here to present you with another point of view which your world rarely if ever hears expressed. It may come as a shock to you in your insulated world that Europe has created for itself but there is far more to the human race than what you see and hear in your media, what you experience in that small region between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountainss, between the North Cape and the Mediteranean Sea. Europeans squabble among themselves in a very narrow self limted universe. But in the cosmic scheme of things, Europe is a minor planet and rapidly becoming a plutoid nearly irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. I think it should stop looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The stars and galaxies do not revolve around London, Paris, Berlin, or Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, what a totally meaningless statement you make. I'm not here to make you agree with me, I'm here to see you answer some straight questions behind the many emotion-laden and oft-contradictory posts that you make. The way you write above sounds so very different from the approach you adopt when discussing, for example, religion :- where a fact is a fact :- unchanged by it's observer.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in this aim of mine, but then living outside of and not having seen Pluto, sorry Europe, these last two years does that to a person.
Now please, do just take your bat home, or at least come up with a better explanation.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"The way you write above sounds so very different from the approach you adopt when discussing, for example, religion :- where a fact is a fact"
I don't know what you are talking about. The only fact about religion is that there are no facts to support any of them. Not when you actually investigate the claimed facts because you inevitably find they are based on nothing tangeable.
I went to live in Europe and found out the same was true for the religion of European civilization. There is no basis in fact to support the supposition that Europe is now or ever was civilized.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
The Martian would want to know when is the US government going to pay back the money it owes to Britain for expelling the French in the eighteenth century.
When Parliament levied taxes on these upstarts to help pay the costs (the British taxpayer paid the most), your lot kicked up a stink. Would you prefer to have been a colony of France? You'll have that lovely metric system you admire.
Complain about this comment
"The only fact about religion is that there are no facts to support any of them"
Marcy, thank you (once again) for illustrating my point. I find that we often agree when it comes to relgion. On that subject at least you tend to stick to the facts; so much for:
"I do not and never can have your perspective. I understand you, I simply will not accept what you say or think".
I hope you're aware of how absurd your statement regarding the 'European Religion' sounds, and how at odds your asertion that you fully understand Europe is with your frequent postings when it comes to a European's ability to understand the USA.
I think it's time for you to go home and put this one to rest. You seem to be getting very confused.
Complain about this comment
deep in the cellar;
"Would you prefer to have been a colony of France? You'll have that lovely metric system you admire."
We use both the English and Metric system in America. It gets very confusing. The reason that two American spacecraft that were supposed
to land on Mars in 2000 crashed into it instead is that one contractor was dealing in metric units, another in English units and neither realized the mistake because they specified only numbers, not units. If I buy a set of socket wrenches in a store, I get both metric and English (SAE) sockets every time.
Britain has been paid back many times by Americans for anything they could have conceivably done for us. I for one am very happy I am not British and do not have a British heritage the way Canada and Australia does. Britain to Americans is just one small group of islands that once played an important role in our history over two centuries ago. Nothing more special than that.
crosseyes, you don't think there is a European religion? You must be joking. Why do you think your government won't allow a plebicite on the EU as it promised? The answer is that they are among its most ardent worshipers of that religion. Talk of not being in the fold to them is heresy. And it doesn't matter which political party you are talking about either. If Europe was civilized, would there have been a cholera epidemic in Italy in 1973 when I wanted to go there for a visit? Would I have periodically seen food flushed down a sink drain floating in the streets around Bordeaux? It was easy to see how cholera would spread quickly in places like that as well. As it would have been easy to see if I'd visited a British farm why hoof and mouth disease and mad cow disease were able to infect cattle 70 years after the last case had been recorded in the US. Would I have seen cheering crowds in Madrid roaring to the thrill of the brutal ritual slaughter of an animal? Would I have seen TV footage of mass deportations, reports of torture and government mass murder, and driving one million people out of their homes into the snow to die in the Balkins in the 1990s while all of Europe wrung its hands helplessly like they couldn't do anything about it? Would I have seen French students shouting down their professors not permitting them to deliver lectures time after time in school? Would I have seen university students waiting on cues for whatever reason pushing and shoving each other like herded animals time and again? And you tell me they are civilized. You are the one who is confused.
Complain about this comment
"you don't think there is a European religion?"
No, and the stuff you seem to be presenting as evidence doesn't improve my odds of that.
Thanks for the insight into how your 'logic' works, by the way. Here we see Marcy extrapolating conclusions from a purely hyperthetical visit to a farm in a country he has never even set FOOT in:
"As it would have been easy to see if I'd visited a British farm why hoof and mouth disease and mad cow disease were able to infect cattle"
Most encouragingly, the Spanish bull-fighting anecdote gets an outing. Hopefully we'll be getting a little poem or a reference from Are You Being Served in the next post. Even the hilarious, "even a broken clock is right twice a day" routine would be much appreciated.
Complain about this comment
"Most encouragingly, the Spanish bull-fighting anecdote gets an outing. Hopefully we'll be getting a little poem or a reference from Are You Being Served in the next post. Even the hilarious, "even a broken clock is right twice a day" routine would be much appreciated."
Since you know what my responses will be in advance, why don't you post them for me and save me the trouble? In fact, why bother coming here at all. You could write the entirety of each thread all by yourself, all sides of every argument even without the internet...and you'd win every time...no matter which side was right. Unless you are an exhibitionist who finds gratification in public display, of what value is this to you?
"Are You Being Served in the next post."
The stereotypes of Brits in that series was stunning. Most impressive was Mrs. Elizabeth Slokum who was a twin to Hyacinth Bucket. I can only imagine that Queen Victoria was of the same ilk. The incomptent management of jug eared Cuspice Rumbold, the self important arrogant Captain Peacock strutting around just like a peacock, the eternally grumbling sales staff, especially the submissive mewlish Mr. Humphreys, the impudet junior staff, all display one facet or another of British society as a microcosm. And then of course there was the invisible hands off top management of Young Mister Grace. How could I ignore the similarities between him and John Majors, him and Tony Blair. "You're all doing very well."
"As it would have been easy to see if I'd visited a British farm why hoof and mouth disease and mad cow disease were able to infect cattle"
How foolish of me to rely on the expert opinions of American agronomists when I should have actually gone there and seen it for myself first hand. How silly of me to think the USDA are the top agricultural experts in the world. What do they know anyway? The entirety of British livestock destroyed out of necessity due to recklessness and indifference not once but twice. You're all doing very well.
Complain about this comment
"Unless you are an exhibitionist who finds gratification in public display", Marcy, have you taken to talking to yourself?
I was merely pointing out that recycling the same tired anecdotes (usually 20 years old) does not entitle you to assume that your opinion is right on every subject.
Indeed, Are You Being Served was a great example of stereotypes in comedy, as too are "The Simpsons", "American Dad", "Cheers", "Seinfeld".......
So what did your USDA say? When was the entirety of British livestock destroyed? When you refer to twice, do you mean second localised outbreak (halted by control measures) which probably started from the USA/French owned FMD research facility in Surrey?
What's next? Something about your wine cellar or the sour grapes re: Airbus A380? I can hardly wait...
Complain about this comment
Let's see, there was mad cow disease, that was one time. Then there was hoof and mouth disease that Brits call foot and mouth disease (as opposed to another of their afflictions foot in mouth disease) that was the other time. The only sour grapes seems to be among people who are jealous that they didn't have the prescience or means to accumulate a nice wine collection when prices of great Bordeaux were still reasonable.
I imagine Mrs. Betty Slokum as "booming" Betty Boothroyd, former Speaker of the House of Commons and Mr. Humphreys as John Majors, former PM.
"Awda! Awda! Awda. We'd all like to hear the important message the Prime Minister has for us. Mister Prime Minister"
"[sob,sob] I refer the right honorable gentleman, and I do mean gentle man to the reply I gave some moments ago. And that comes in men's sizes small, medium, large, extra large, and extra extra large."
"So what did your USDA say?
They said British agricultural practices were dangerous and unsanitary. No such practices would be allowed in the United States for the very reason that they could result in among other things the very disasters the UK experienced. I think those practices have been changed as a result. I hope they have been changed. We may not know how many people who ate British beef were infected with prions for decades. It can take 20 to 30 years for the symptoms of the human form of mad cow disease to manifest themelves. Unknown ticking time bombs in who knows how many people due to reckless indifference.
Complain about this comment
Gee Marcy, I thought that Mr Grace was supposed to be John Major? Maybe you see him as some kind of weird hybrid of the two. I'm certainly not bitter that you enjoy your wine, merely bored of hearing about it.
Perhaps your confusing the USDA advice on Mad Cow desease (where, indeed some very bad mistakes were made) and Foot and Mouth. Either way, I'm always keen to see the evdience, you do tend to make rather a lot of throw away statements (please provide and I shall gladly read).
While we're on agriculture, have you any views on the use of child labour in the USA in this industry? IS that another example of reckless indifference?
Finally, do you think that former US President George Bushes is more like Peter or Chris Griffin from 'Family Guy'? I see Hilary Clinton as a Stewie myself.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
Insofar as child labor in agriculture is concerned, what I have to say is..."I'm always keen to see the evdience, you do tend to make rather a lot of throw away statements (please provide and I shall gladly read)."
Well I don't know how gladly but what's your source?
I have never seen Family Guy so I have no idea what you are talking about.
My comparison of Mr. Humphreys in Are You Being Served with John Majors had to do with his demeanor, not his responsibilities. Obviously the same could be said about Mrs. Slokum and Betty Boothroyd. I still can't get over PMQT. Why do the PMs even bother to try to talk when they are being shouted down. Ever watch proceedings of the United States Senate or the US House of Representatives? Ever watch C-SPAN or anything comparable in the UK showing live proceedings of your legislature?
You're the one who keeps bringing up my wine. I haven't thought about it in weeks. I drink very little alcohol these days, not much wine anymore. I've probably got enough wine for many many years to come.
Complain about this comment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-blueberry-farms-accused-of-using--children-as-pickers-1813193.html
Any news on the USDA source yet?
"1986 Chateau Lafite Rothschild drunk last night with a two pound two inch thick rib steak. The wine was superb and sipped from a fine crystal wine goblet perfect for that wine. There are many hundreds more bottles of that and better where it came from, my own wine cellar. One of countless dividends paid for the risk in life my grandparents took by leaving Europe and emigrating to America. Eat your heart out Europe"
Sound familiar?
"Ever watch proceedings of the United States Senate or the US House of Representatives?"
Yes
"Ever watch C-SPAN or anything comparable in the UK showing live proceedings of your legislature?"
Yes
"Why do the PMs even bother to try to talk when they are being shouted down[?]"
I assume you're talking about PMQs? The answer would presumably be that if what they have to say is worth saying, they will strive extra hard to be heard. That and they can just wait for the speaker to intervene if the shouting is excessive.
And finally, did you decide whether you believed the WMD stuff yet?
Complain about this comment
Looks like there are violations of the law. Not just on that farm but on quite a few. You'll probably find this all over Europe too, especially in poorer countries and where there is agriculture. You'll certainly find it all over the developing world. I'll bet many oriental style rugs are hand woven by children in places like Pakistan. In those countries, if children don't work, families may starve. It is a shame but that's how life is in much of the world. Here in the US it will be repressed for awhile but I'd bet in a few years it will be back to where it is now.
I don't know if Saddam Hussein had WMDs (biological and chemical, possibly radiological but not nuclear weapons) in 2002 and early 2003 but I think that President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and most world leaders based on the assessments of intelligence agencies all over the world believed it. Teriq Aziz said that some of the chemical weapons Iraq was known to have had were destroyed without any outside observers and with no records kept. Who would believe him? What leader would risk their national security on the assumption he was telling the truth for a change?
Complain about this comment
Marcus, thanks for a reasoned response. I agree that there are probably incidences of this in Europe, especially outside of the EU where Labour laws can be less stringent.
As for the WMD thing, I certainly respect your view (regardless of what you think of mine). Back in 2002 I recall having similar arguments with a good friend - so there certainly were a few who believed Mr Blair.
USDA?
Complain about this comment
USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture. I think it is widely recognized to be the number one source of knowledge about every aspect of food in the world. It not only has its own vast research capabilities and close ties to just about every major university and every other private and public institution related to food in the US and many around the world, it works with farm cooperatives all over the US to solve farming problems at the local level. This is one reason why the US is the most productive and efficient food producing machine on earth. Hundreds of millions of people everywhere depend on the output of American agrabusiness to survive even though only about one or two percent of our population work at growing food. Agricultural products are America's number one export. You can't really appreciate how vast it is until you fly across the US on a clear day during the growing season. If you look down, at almost any latitude you will see nothing by farms as far as the eye can see for hours and hours. Diversion of a significant portion of food growing to production to biofuels including ethanol additive to cut the cost of gasoline is the cause of the recent rise in world food prices. As a result in part of the USDA's efforts, America considers itself to have the cheapest, safest, most varigated food supply in the world. Even so, there are still quite a number of cases of food poisoning and deaths from food every year in the US. Usually the sources are discovered and pinpointed very quickly. Major source of the problems we do have are e-coli contamination. Other problems are mishandling at the point of preparation and service.
Labor laws where they exist are violated all the time everywhere in the world. I'm sure for instance prostitution is illegal in the UK yet it still exists. So does the hiring of illegal migrant workers. Singling out the US for violations is a crude and crass cheap shot by someone whose obvious agenda is America bashing. You can't point to even one country where violations of labor laws and unreasonable working conditions and labor practices don't exist.
Complain about this comment
Sigh! and you were doing so well.
Quite clearly I already knew what the USDA was; I was waiting for your evidence for your earlier statements about that organisation. Now I'm also waiting for the sources to support your new statement as well:
"it is widely recognized to be the number one source of knowledge about every aspect of food in the world"
The USA is indeed an enormous and efficient producer of food, what of it?
From someone who's avowed aim is to 'bash Europe' (please feel disagree with that, if you feel I have overstated your hatred), I would have though it was pretty obvious that I did not (and do not) bash the USA. I included that statement to demonstrate how easy it is to find examples where mistakes have been made in any country. Perhaps you haven't realised it, but this, along with presenting your owned warped opinions is one of your main tactics on these blogs.
As it happens, the story appears to have been found of sufficient merit around the world to be worth featuring. Perhaps this is due to skewed importance of US stories (good and bad) in the media, or perhaps its because it's fairly shocking to see this in such a rich, developed nation as the USA.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"From someone who's avowed aim is to 'bash Europe' (please feel disagree with that, if you feel I have overstated your hatred), I would have though it was pretty obvious that I did not (and do not) bash the USA."
I simply tell the truth about Europe based on what I have seen, what I have learned about it. If you choose to characterize it as bashing, I have no problem with that. I think Europe needs a good bashing for a change. Usually it is the basher. Many Europeans are angry and surprised when Europe is the bashee especially when the bashing comes from an American. How raucus and rancorous the reaction among many Europeans is to one single solitary voice that speaks in opposition to what they say about America, about themselves, and about the world. For them even a pin prick is more than they can stand. How delightful to have a box full of needles they have so thoughtfully provided me with.
I have no idea why the world is so preoccupied with American popular culture, why Michael Jackson's death for example is important to them. Can their own lives be so dull, uneventful, and boring?
BTW, insofar as the USDA is concerned, I'll leave the research to you. However, I'll give you a hint about where to start, a thread you can begin to pull at. Investigate how miracle crops were developed for the third world that brought about an end to periodic mass famines to a large extent that had previously plagued much of humanity for millenia.
Complain about this comment
Marcus @37
Investigate how miracle crops were developed for the third world that brought about an end to periodic mass famines to a large extent that had previously plagued much of humanity for millenia.
Most of these famines are man-made. There would be far less famine if countries grew food and other produce that is native to their environment and sold locally. I read about 'third world' countries growing food for export and, in quite a few cases, cotton. There seems to be little money in growing food for the local population. These 'miracle crops' that you speak sound like a reference to GM food. These are more expensive to grow and are geared towards export markets. You have to buy seeds every year and still purchase various sprays.
It would also help 'third world' farmers if both the USA and EU stopped their farm subsidies too! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that the US will get rid of theirs if the EU does. That ain't going to happen - don't get me started on French farmers . . .
Complain about this comment
"I simply tell the truth about Europe based on what I have seen, what I have learned about it."
Marcus, the problems with that statement are numerous. So often, your 'truths' are nothing more than opinion (without proof or reference), your personal experiences are approximately thirty years old (and as far as I can tell limited to only five anecdotes) and to top it all you will not allow that Europeans can learn about the USA, but continue to lecture them based on your 'learnings'.
I'm beginning to think that the saddest thing is that you appear to genuinely believe that getting an outraged reaction to these postings means that you have hit a raw nerve. In reality, any outrage is generally at the sheer arrogance/inaccuracy of your statements and has little to do with their actual content.
BTW, it s not my role here to find evidence to support your own sweeping statements. Besides, if I research GM crops and the USDA, it's unlikely to provide me with any information on their thoughts on F&M, is it now?
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, you want inaccuracy, here it is in spades for you;
deep in the cellar;
"Most of these famines are man-made. There would be far less famine if countries grew food and other produce that is native to their environment and sold locally. I read about 'third world' countries growing food for export and, in quite a few cases, cotton. There seems to be little money in growing food for the local population. These 'miracle crops' that you speak sound like a reference to GM food. These are more expensive to grow and are geared towards export markets. You have to buy seeds every year and still purchase various sprays."
Ignorance and stupidity crosseyes.
deep in the cellar, the crops I'm referring to are not genetically engineered by DNA manipulation created in the 1990s and 2000s, they were hybrids developed by more conventional methods in the 1950s and 1960s. They replaced the locally grown indigenous crops because they were more disease and pest resistant, hardier in severe climate, had higher yields, and provided more nutrition. They were developed by laboratories in the US specifically for the dietary preferences and growing conditions in the parts of the world they were targeted for. They do not have to be replanted with new seed every year. I'm sure you'd find more than references about them all over the internet. You'd probably find an entire library of books about how they were developed, how they were introduced to local areas, and what impact they had on the nutrition of those people who used them.
crosseyes I can't possibly be more ignorant of Europe than virtually every European I've met or seen and heard in the media is about the US and that includes BBC reporters who have spent time here as well as the UK government's so called experts. Look in BBC's archives for an interview Owen Bennet-Jones conducted with Sir Christopher Meyers, the UK's ambassador to the US for over 5 years and you might see what I mean...or more likely in fact almost certainly you won't.
Complain about this comment
"crosseyes I can't possibly be more ignorant of Europe than virtually every European I've met or seen and heard in the media is about the US"
Why can't you? Everything I see you write demonstrates the opposite.
Strange that you should comment on the marketing of western crops to developing countries. We actually studied this at school. Your impression on what happened is certainly in line with what the hopes were at the time, and I don't doubt there were some major successes. There were however some downsides though, these included totally inappropriate crops (water intensive, export orientated...) and massive increase in the reliance of chemical fertilizers (purchased from, guess who... the US and Europe).
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, not only are you ignorant, you are stupid. Those American developed hybrids saved hundreds of millions of lives all over the world from starvation. I think they were given freely because most of those countries were far too poor to buy them. America poured vast sums of money in the form of all kinds of aid all over the world. The development and selling of improved agricultural strains to places like India and Bangladesh hardly seemed like a very profitable venture in the 1950s. I really do find Europeans consistently repugnant. You can't bear the thought that there is a far superior civilization to yours existing in the world even though the evidence for it is inescapable at every moment of every day of your life. Too bad, I'm only here to remind you of it by pointing it out. I'm sure you don't like it.
Complain about this comment
Sigh, sigh, sigh..........
First of all Marcus (ignoring your random and misplaced insults), where exactly did I say that the work of those clever agronomists wasn't aimed at helping those in developing countries? Where did I state that there weren't benefits? For that matter, where are your sources that "Those American developed hybrids saved hundreds of millions of lives all over the world from starvation"? Finally, where did I state that it was the evil USA with good old Europe coming to the rescue?
Marcy, you're apparently so insecure that you can see slights and insults where they don't exist. Even more worryingly, you really think that you're posts here have us Euro USA-bashers worried. If you want to provide a counter-point to Euro-complacency you'd be advised to keep your posts realistic, stuff like: "You can't bear the thought that there is a far superior civilization to yours existing in the world" just makes us laugh.
If on the other hand you want to keep me laughing this weekend, please do feel free to continue...
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, I don't expect that my criticisms of Europe worry anyone in Europe. It just irritates them that there is someone who thinks Europe stinks and says so. Nothing I say would make any European believe it, every one of them is so caught up in their own scam. If I were European, I'd be far more worried about the nexus of dire problems that have no solution landing on Europe this very moment, the perfect storm from which Europe can't escape. Not only are all their chickens coming home to roost at once, it is poetic justice that it has worked out so much like a Greek tragedy. It seems to be almost like fate planned it that way. If I were a believer I'd say it's God's wrath. But I'm not so I'll just say it is a coincidence.
Complain about this comment
No Marcus, if there's any irritation it's purely due to your shear arrogance, inaccuracy and inability to back up most of what you state with anything other than more hot air. However, after an initial period of outrage that anyone can be so insulting/wrong, most of us seem to quickly move to a situation where your posts bring us amusement.
Right now you seem to be fond of perfect storms/birds coming home to roost and Greek tragedy as your fun little metaphors. Unfortunately for you, simply stating something does not make it true (and when it patently is not true it just makes you look like an idiot).
Why not surprise me and write something lucid, or support some of your earlier assertions? On the other hand, do feel free to keep me chuckling.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, here' something for you to ponder. Once upon a time, people in far away lands spoke only Swahili, Pashtoon, Bengali, Aztec, Incan, Vietnamese, Arabic. But thanks to Europe's ancestors who went to those lands to enslave them, steal their human effort, their cultural artifacts, the resources of their land, even kidnap them and bring them to work in Europe, the descendants of those people now speak English, French, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish. Now many of them brave the seas of the world in boats just the way ancient European imperialist conquerers did centuries ago. They are headed the opposite way in Europe's direction to reclaim what was taken from them by becoming illegal migrants looking for jobs. They are an unstoppable relentless invasion force that numbers in the many millions, even tens of milions. One day they may outnumber indigenous Europeans. And because they are not assimilatede into Europe's culture and society the way migrants to America are, they will eventually impose their own culture when they are a prepondernace of the population. Eurabia will be real. Already the Archbishop of Canteberry has said that at least some of Sharia law is inevitable in the UK. I think he's right, it may already be happening. President Obama spoke about Europe's demographic time bomb early on in the campaign. What do you suppose he was talking about?
Complain about this comment
Hail Briatannia, Britannia rules the waves....catchy tune. Hard to believe it was only around a hundred years ago, a mere stitch in time by European standards that Great Britan had an empire on which the sun never set. One quarter of all humanity was under its thumb. Now it won't even be ruling itself anymore. My my how the mighty have fallen.
Complain about this comment
I see you've gone for the amusement factor again Marcy. No attempt to support your previous statements? All fine by me.
You've been peddling the Eurabia and Sharia law cards for some considerable time now. As I did back in April, I'll give you a little context from what the Archbishop said (back in early 2008):
"nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
Last time around you alleged that what was being proposed was that religious trials would supplant those run by the state, even though that was contradictory to what had been said. Given that these were comments made by a religious leader (not a policy maker) it seems rather academic anyway.
I assume that you do recognise that the founding of your own wonderful country is down to "Europe's Ancestors", who I believe are your ancestors too? Am I responsible for the actions of my ancestors? If so a lot of Americans are equally to blame for the list of crimes that you give.
The last I heard (try googling "Muslim demographics - the truth" on Youtube"), white European birth rates were on the up, and the Islamification of Europe appears to be a scare story peddled by those with a fear of this religion.
As for your Borg-like assertion about the success of USA assimilation, well it's just too easy to find examples where that doesn't appear to have worked. I note, for example, that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was reported to be unhappy at alleged racial abuse.
I await the next dose of amusement with trepidation.
Complain about this comment
Hasan was a nut case. He brought his complaints to the Military authorities, they were investigated and dismissed as unfounded. So are his claims about stress. He was never in combat. He was just a terrorist. He'll surely get the death penalty. How happy we are to have it. I hope treason is one of the charges along with the 12 murders and 31 attempted murders.
Lots of kidnapping and other strange things going on in the UK. Forced marriages with girls being sent back to Pakistan, killing of suspected witches by Africans, you don't have to officially condone it if it exists in fact and the government tolerates it. There are 5 million Moslems in France about what, 10% of the population?
Europe will never change for the better. Why should it, the white people who live there and constitute the majority don't think there is anything wrong with it. They think it is fine just the way it is. They want to keep it the way it is. I'm telling you there is plenty wrong with it but I don't expect you to even consider that I might be right. One thing wrong with Europeans is that they are close minded to any criticism from the outside especially by Americans. I'm probably one of the few Americans you ever encountered who will not hesitate to say what I think of Europeans to their faces. What we say about them among ourselves is not publishable on this site.
Complain about this comment
"Hasan was a nut case"
"He was just a terrorist"
Which one? What evidence?
"There are 5 million Moslems in France about what, 10% of the population?"
And......this means.....?
You didn't even get this one right:
"I don't expect you to even consider that I might be right"
Apparently, unlike you, I am able to see problems where they exist. I'm even prepared to sift through your mindless dribble for the few grains of truth that occasionally appear.
I love this one (another old favourite):
"What we say about them among ourselves is not publishable on this site."
When are you going to support it? I accept that to most Americans, Europe does not figure highly in their concerns. I can also accept there will be ill-feeling towards us, some justified of course. I see no evidence at all for this secret conspiracy behind closed doors. Do you all meet up in secluded forest clearings wearing silly hats and burn effigies of Sarkozy et al? If so, what a sad situation where that bastion of free speech, that country that is not afraid to day what it thinks even if that is upsetting, has found itself in.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
""Hasan was a nut case"
"He was just a terrorist"
Which one?"
Both. Cleary being an Islamic terrorist is a form of insanity. I don't think that will keep him from the death penalty in this case though. It is not recognized legally as excusing what he did. I think that defense should his attorney's use it in his trial will fail. But what other defense can they offer that would explain his behaviour?
"unlike you, I am able to see problems where they exist."
Your entire society is filled with problems and they are far worse from where I stand than those of my society. Ours are solvable if with difficulty. Yours are not. One of the biggest problems your society faces is that it refuses to accept that it even has any serious problems. That refusal precludes any possibility of confronting them, analyzing them, resolving them. As a simple example your society refuses to acknowledge the severe danger it is in as a result of its racial and religious prejudice. It equates indifference with tolerance, a fatal mistake.
"I accept that to most Americans, Europe does not figure highly in their concerns."
You are right about that. Brits may refer to Americans as "septics" but take my word for it, when we bother to think about Europe and Europeans at all, we have our own catalog of epithets.
I tuned in to WNYC this morning to catch the news and what did I hear but BBC. In a piece about the Cenetaph and the queen placing poppies in memory of fallen British soldiers, the current fighting in Afghanistan was brought up and suddenly I realized that not only does Britain have a secret weapon to use there but why virtually all Brits are crazy. It's the pipes man, it's the pipes. Yes the bagpipes, that is enough to drive anyone out of their mind including the Taleban. Just play on, keep playing. That made a lot of things clear to me. Even on the radio, a second or two of it was all I could stand. Imagine having to hear it for hours. And they say blaring rock music at GITMO was torture.
Complain about this comment
#51
Nothing gets my blood pounding like the Massed Pipes and Drums at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo.
There are many Pipe Bands in North America. Marcus, you must have listened to the NYPD Pipes and Drums on occasion. Or are they Irish?
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I agree that terrorism is a form of insanity, and also that to commit such acts one would surely have to be insane. However I haven't yet seen evidence that this was an act of terrorism. Perhaps you're following this story more closely, I'd be grateful if you could explain.
Not a big fan of the bagpipes either, though I wouldn't criticise the Remembrance Day services.
As for our tolerance - I would say that it is you who have a problem with definition. You equate intolerance with strength. You are wrong.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, the stories that the perp Hasan had been going to a Mosque where he was being ifluenced by radical Islamists, his postings on the internet under his own name equating jihadist suicide bombers with American soldiers who fell on grenades to protect their comrades in battle, his own father's statement warning that there was something wrong with him, witnesses saying they heard him give the chant in Arabic "god is great" before he began firing all point to him as an Islamic terrorist. These stories are all over the media here, even PMSNBC is carrying it. I did not say he was affiliated with a particular group like al Qaeda, I just said he was a terrorist. It appears that he may have been a freelance terrorist but he's a terrorist none the less. President Obama said don't jump to conclusions, wait for the investigation but it is hard not to.
Complain about this comment
Scotch-git, if and when I eveer hear the pipes and drum I'll....get up and git. I'd rather hear the police siren wailing pulling me over for speeding than hear that horrific sound. It's police brutality, clearly it would be.
Complain about this comment
I'd take the President's advice on this one Marcy. Maybe you can discuss it at you next secret undercover Anti-Europe meeting?
Complain about this comment
Scotch-git, the sound of bagpipes makes me think of a whole herd of cows and bulls moaning in unbearable agony of their death throes. That's what crosseyes postings reminds me of too.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
These guys play requests! To Joisey frae Glasgow!
Complain about this comment
"That's what crosseyes postings reminds me of too."
Sparky, once you stop posting rubbish, start answering questions and start providing evidence, I'll stop droning on. Promise.
Complain about this comment
Noisy bags of wind and people who enjoy listening them. Scotland and England, a marriage made in heaven.
Complain about this comment
You got that one wrong Marcy, usually I don't enjoy listening to you, only when you're particularly amusing.
Complain about this comment
That's one thing I've never found you crosseyes, amusing. I can see why England gives tax subsidies to Scotland. That is what a paying audience does. And here I thought it was just to keep them in the UK so England wouldn't feel so alone. I suppose by some people's definition bagpipes are music. To me it's the sound of a herd of elephants with stomach flu.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear Marcy, we seem to be at crossed-purposes. You set out to annoy me but I find you amusing, I set out to amuse you but you find me annoying. What are we to do?
I get that you don't like bagpipes. Neither do I. I don't think the people of Scotland are worried by this.
So there's no redistribution of Taxes in the old US of A then?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS