Topic awaiting preservation: We "old europeans"... (Page 2 of 2)

Thanks for your compliments Bugimus.

quote:

---

There is a feeling by many here in the states that you French think you are culturally superior to us. Whether that is true or not, it is a belief here and nobody likes to be thought of as inferior.

---

Yes it is true. Many French think we are superior on the cultural plan. Basically, they learnt a bit of our history. Then they see that in almost every domain (music, litterature, food, drinks...) we have specificities. You must admit that in these domains we are generally famous. And then they see the USA. They do not know its history. They do not know its litterature. The only fact they consider is Hollywood standards, wild capitalism (Mc Donald's, Coca-Cola and others...), and superstars like Britney Spears etc... They do not like the only things they know from your country. For those "superior" minds, your culture is just a bit of junk, and is nothing compared to the "greatness" of the France culture. And so many French believe they are superior on the cultural plan. But they make a big mistake. Our two countrys have the same amount of culture. Their culture are as good. They are just DIFFERENT.

quote:

---

Moon Shadow, I'm interested in hearing more about why you do not support Chirac.

---

Well it's pretty simple. He is a liar and a thief. I do not speak for the international plan. But for me he is just a criminal. I will give you the full story... In 1995 our presidential elections took place. And he was elected. I have nothing to say on it, it was the choice of the msot part of the French. Two years later, he dissolved our assembly (I don't know if our system are equivalent but this is where the laws are accepted or denied). He wanted a bigger majority. New elections took place but this time the opposite party won. So it was now a cohabitation. He was the president, but he couldn't take any law. During 5 years, the prime minister took interesting laws. Even if they are not good in every domain, they reduced considerably unemployement and so on. And now we arrived in 2002. The first problems arrived for the president : he was accused of stealing funds, false jobs, eating for about 1000 euros a day (about 1000$) etc... But as he was the president, ha was untouchable. Next began the campains for the elections. The current prime minister promised to continue his work and to reduce unemployment etc... And Chirac promised very interesting things : he promised reducing unemployement even more than the prime minister, reducing taxs, reducing insecurity... And he was elected on this program. You can imagine that the horde of judges awaiting for him were disapointed... And he choosed a new prime minister. And he took his promise : he raised unemployement, he lowered the tax on wealth and raised the others, and he took extremist laws for security : begging, passive prostitution, staying in the hall of a building, showing up disagreement with the governement are all worth "hollidays" in a fesh place (jails). So first he lied. And he is still accused of many many crimes. That's why I do not support Chirac.

quote:

---

Boycotts and laws against French products is going too far but I will certainly not be drinking any French wine because I had no idea they used cow blood to make it!!!!!! Ack!!!

---

Well, I wasn't aware of that. And I don't think that any French I know is aware of that. This is probably false. Another "boycott" method I think. In the french great wines you can find in USA there is absolutely no adds like that. In minor wines, the grapes are more used so they need to add things (too damn complex names to translate) in the wine, but surely no cow blood ! This is probably illegal by the way ! I don't know what is "the Post" (those who written that) but I have no more confidence with them than with the New York Post...

quote:

---

While we are talking about all these things... Moon Shadow, what is your view of the attitude towards Jews in France? I have heard many reports of anti-semitism being strong there. Have you seen any of that? If so, what is your understanding as to why it still exists?

---

Anti-semitism ? Well in my life I haven't seen any anti-semitism act, but I can't assure it for the whole France. Sure we have sometimes all those cross from the WWII. But no really anti-semitism. Maybe in other regions of France, but not in mine. Racism is rather high in France (another shame), about 15% in the last elections (even 40% in certain places in Alsace-Lorraine). So this is maybe why you were reported that anti-semitism was strong.

And why it still exist ? It touches the most ashaming topic for me : the human nature. They are no "special" reasons for racism. The only answer I can give you is that humans NEVER learn, and many of us are very short minded. If only they were able to think to how they would feel if they were hated like they do to strangers, racism would vanish. But they can't. Or they do not want. This is purely egoism. It's sadden me.

Silence is another speech. -Me

Many alcoholic beverages utilize animal products in their manufacture, as Emperor said. Generally referred to as 'finings', used to clarify and often consisting of fish products. Many beers use a variety of fish parts - one of my personal favorites (and one of the finest breweries on the world), Samual Smith's often uses isinglass - a gelatin obtained from the air bladder of a sturgeon.

Many wines used to also use this, but have replaced it with 'ordinary' gelatin...which is generally made from cow/calf bones and skin.

Don't know about blood specifically, but it doesn't seem all that outlandish...all things considered.

On a side note, Samuel Smith's organic line of beers do *not* use animal products....they instead use seaweed finings - so they are perfectly suitable for vegetarians as well as being topnotch beers.



Not that that really has anything to do with the topic at hand...

To get back on topic: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/14187/1.html

quote:

---

But instead of millions of Americans taking to the streets to call for an end to this nonsense, there are initial signs of a boycott of German and French products. As an American in Europe, I can attest that Europeans always make a clear distinction between US government policies they don't like and the American people they do. What are you telling the world, my fellow Americans? That you agree with Bush's "with us or against us"? Because if you do, the only sensible response must be, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

---

quote:

---

The USA has become the greatest danger to world peace.

---

This one should really angers any American. Though I agree mostly with what it is said in this article, this sentence is a bit exagerated. Don't you think so ?

Silence is another speech. -Me

Yes, I think this sentence is exaggerated, and I think it was meant to be.
I also think that the rest of the article will also make some americans angry, though hopefully not about the fact that it was written (shoot the messenger), but about the facts that caused it to be written:

quote:

---

Now the German government is daring to treat the USA as an equal, for whatever reason, and not just play the role of yes-men. The reactions of US diplomats to this freedom of speech are not worthy of playground bullying. The Bush administration is out of control. They want to develop "mini-nukes" - and use them. They ruled last year that US soldiers would march into Den Haag, Netherlands to free any US soldier charged with a war crime at the International Court of Justice. They arrest innocent Americans and legal emigrants who are merely suspected of a crime, and the Patriot Act allows the government to break into apartments without a warrant and collect "evidence" against people not charged with crimes. And they don't even have to tell the people that they broke in!

---

BTW:
Do you agree that starting a war is endangering peace?
Do you agree that there is only one country in the world that is preparing a large-scale war right now?



[This message has been edited by MW (edited 02-15-2003).]

MW, can you please define what "peace" is to you? I believe true peace is *not* simply the "absence of conflict". Do you care to think about that at all? What price are you willing to pay, to avoid conflict? I am doing my best to stay out of the specifics that we have already repeated som many times in the other threads on the coming war so I thought maybe these questions could help us understand the foundations of our different points of view on how the world works.

And now I have to start looking into how the different beverages I thought were vegetarian maybe are not after all! Bummer!!! Anyone know whether or not Knob Creek Kentucky Straight Bourbon is made with animal parts? Sheesh!!!!

I apreciate that you are interested in a honest exchange of opinions.

Yes, I define peace as absence of war (conflict is such a harmless word). I think it´s as simple as that. It´s the human right of not having your home bombarded, your family killed and your country destroyed.

Now if you wouldn´t mind, please state your definition of peace.

I am usually interested in such exchanges but there are times when my temper gets the better of me. I am all calmed down now

quote:

---

The first vision of peace that often comes to mind is that peace is the absence of war or conflict. To think of the absence of conflict or war certainly comforts the heart, but is peace simply the absence of something? Or is peace the presence of something else?

This is where it is so important as peacemakers to visualize true peace. We need to envision what truly is the opposite of conflict. The opposite of conflict is not neutrality, the harboring of disgust or refusing to speaking to each other. The opposite of conflict is the honoring of another person, culture or nation. It is finding and acknowledging what is good within another individual or nation. It is seeing past our differences in gender, culture, history or positions and uniting in dignity as human beings. In such honoring, we not only feel safe, but we feel valued and respected. http://www.phenomenews.com/articles/peck.html . . .

---

quote:

---

Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict -- alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.
-- Dorothy Thompson

---

quote:

---

We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace.
-- Jeane Kirkpatrick

---

I appreciate your love of peace, I really do. But I wonder whether you are willing to allow your home to be bombed or taken away from *you* in order to have absence of conflict. What are you willing to give up in order to have an absence of conflict? Would you be willing to have your freedom of speech removed to have the absence of conflict?

Do you see my point in these quotes that probably seem like self-defeating to my position?

[edit] In short, my definition of peace is a positive and active state of freedom, human rights, security, propserity for all peoples, etc. [/edit]


[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-16-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-16-2003).]

Let me again state that I don´t think peace is absence of conflict. It is absence of war, or violence. In a free world, In a free society there are always different interests, so there will always be conflict. The question is if we are willing to resolve a conflict without resorting to violence.

quote:

---

In short, my definition of peace is a positive and active state of freedom, human rights, security, propserity for all peoples, etc.

---

My definition of peace is that peace is what is first needed in order to achieve any of these things.

quote:

---

I appreciate your love of peace, I really do. But I wonder whether you are willing to allow your home to be bombed or taken away from *you* in order to have absence of conflict.

---

Oh boy. No I am not. I know you aren´t. Do you expect anyone to be?


Let me ask a hypothetical question, too:
If a country from the other end of the world was bombing YOUR cities for twelve consecutive years and THEN say "and now we´re going to war against you", would you welcome them as liberators to have absence of conflict?

And, yes, your quotes are self-defeating to your position.

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 02-16-2003).]

Well, I think the point from Bugimus' post (if I may be so bold...), is that - the world eventually comes to a point where you have to do one of two things: 1) accept someone infringing upon - or outright taking away - your rights, or 2) engage in violent acts such as war.

So, I think the real question is - Where are you willing to draw that line?

DL: Thank you for making me restate this more clearly.
I got carried away a bit (this being a higly emotional topic, as others have stated and experienced before), so my post was not understandable enough:

I draw this line where I am directly attacked, or actively threatened.

And, as it seemed to me that other people draw this line somewhere else, I felt this raised another question, which comes down to:
Where do you draw the line between self defense and an unjustified attack?

DL-44, thanks you stated it perfectly

And because global politics do indeed break down to the two points you stated, I am sometimes in favor of *making* peace as opposed to just *envisioning* it.

MW, the answer to your second question is difficult to answer because every situation is different. I do not have a magical formula for knowing when the line between self-defense and unjustified attack has been crossed. In the case of Iraq, you are free to read my points in the other two threads dedicated to it. There isn't much more to add to that issue at this point.

But I am not tired of all these lovely hypothetical questions we are throwing back and forth. Please tell me what happens when your country is *unable* to resist the attacker? Is there ever a case where another country should come to the aid of a weaker country that is being attacked?

Are you still with us, MW?

Yes, still here, but with a little less time on my hands, plus I AM tired of hypothetical questions by now, so I´ll just answer your last one and then I´m outta this thread (But I´d be very, very interested in your thoughts about the not-so-hypothetical strategy papers WS posted on "not asking the right question bout Iraq"):

So, yes, I think one country should come to the help of another country (doesn´t even have to be a smaller one) when it is attacked.
I don´t see the connection with anything we have discussed so far, but as I said, I am tired of the what-if game anyway.

Best, MW