Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Do American and European values differ?
| Nearly four out of five Europeans asked in one poll said they thought Americans and Europeans have different values. Almost as many Americans agreed. But the Inglehart Values Map (see p.257 of Free World) shows a much more complex picture. Do you think we have different values? If so, what’s the biggest difference? |  |
Debate - Page 9/13
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
John Bancroft, England
I haven't read all this debate so maybe this has already
been stated but here's my two pennies worth:
European values? Greece is not like France which is not like Norway which
is not like Britain etc. Europe is not united by history, currency, language,
religion and certainly not by direction or aspiration.
Just looking at the history of the constituent parts of the EU should
tell you it does not have shared values: former communist and fascist
countries all rescued from oblivion by British stalwartness, Britain's
commonwealth (Australia, Canada, India) and Britain's grown-up offspring,
the USA. Britain's island geography did not make it isolationist but rather
outward looking, dragged relucantly into European affairs by European
wars.
If you look at the debate in Britain over the EU, you will see that Britain
is still arguing over its anglo-saxon, historical values against the foreign
values that the EU will impose (and were the EU has any worthwhile values,
these are the ones the EU got from Britain not vice versa eg democracy,
rule of law etc).
Britain will usually side with America because America sprangforth from
British values and in many respects amplified them and carries them through.
Britain's only link to Europe is geographic, which is unfortunate.
Michel Bastian, France
(about AP article, dated may 18th)
Goes to prove that Clinton is a very wise man. I completely agree with
him.
Juanma Fernandez, Bilbao, Basque C.
antti vainio wrote: „I don't think "Phil"
is crazy, he's just pulling our leg and laughing his arse off when we
take him seriously..."
He must be having a good time then.
Phil Karasick wrote: „I don't think there's anything "crazy"
about killing fanatical Islamic terrorists. I don't think there's anything
"crazy" about defeating murderous thugs who think they can destroy
a newly elected democratic Iraqi government, who think they can car-bomb
their way into power. I think what we are doing is wonderful. It's exactly
what we should be doing. I hope we keep doing it. We're going to win,
too.‰
You are not killing only „fanatical terrorists‰, and you know
it. Even my grandma does. You have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.
Do you want me to look for the figure? Who the hell is your government
to judge who must and must not die! I would ask you: are Americans‚
lives and Iraqis‚ lives equally worth?? Your and your government‚s
arguments are hypocrisy itself.
What the hell are you "going to win"?? Dollars?
Phil Karasick wrote: Of course, considering the craven and cowardly attitude
of the present Spanish government (the "government of choice"
of Al-Qaeda terrorists everywhere, because Zapatero does whatever Al-Qaeda
tells him to do), I'm not surprised by your attitude.
The „cowardly attitude‰ of president Zapatero has been to
do what Spaniards have asked him to. Remember the concept of democracy??
You claim to have invented the issue, don‚t you?
Therefore, the „cowardly attitude‰ doesn‚t come from
Zapatero, but from Spanish people themselves. Do you know a word about
suffering terrorism for more than 30 years?? Do you know how many socialists
(Zapatero‚s party fellows) have died murdered by terrorists? Do
you know how many socialist town-hall councillors live on a permanent
basis with a bodyguard 24 hours a day here in the Basque Country?
Learn this: we Spaniards don‚t want our forces in Iraq because we
do know your government is liar. LIAR. You are struggling for oil control.
I shouldn‚t waste my time by writing things known to all.
Some Americans should evolve a little and be a bit less arrogant.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Dear Michel Bastian: For your consideration....
OK, I´m considering.....
> FRANCE: DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR
<...>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857266/site/newsweek/
Hehe, a newsweek story again, eh? Content is pretty limited anyway: basically
it tells me that Chirac likes sumo (filed this one under things I didn´t
know but am not really interested in knowing either) and that he rules
his country "fighting above weight". Otherwise, it´s just
the same old litany of "France is actually a mediocre country with
a president who has delusions of grandeur". Nothing really new here
(except that growth is 2% above EU average, which I didn´t know;
interesting the author has to concede that fact)
You want to talk about Chirac? Well, it´s not exactly the topic
of this thread, but I suppose it´s only fair since we´ve talked
about Bush and the US quite a lot. So let´s get informed:
I already posted that I am not a huge fan of Chirac. There are reasons
for that, one of them being that he´s a conservative gaullist and
I´m not. Another reason is the fact that he´s "getting
on a bit" as they say. He´s just too old, too rigid in his
opinions, and he´s been a high-ranking politician too long. I call
it the "Kohl syndrome". Chancellor Kohl had the same kind of
problems towards the end of his political carreer as Chirac has now: detachment
from the grassroots and a certain authoritarian streak. There is no remedy
against that except limiting the presidential terms. Incidentally, that´s
one of the good things Chirac did: he caused the term of office of french
presidents to be reduced from seven to five years (in 2000). Unfortunately,
french presidents, like most european leaders, can get reelected more
than once, and that´s where I think we can learn from the american
system (though that´s another topic again).
Another good thing Chirac did was refusing to follow Bush into Iraq (yes,
I know: that´s just my opinion, not yours, Phil, so please leave
it at that).
And the third good thing he did was trying to promote the EU (with varying
success, and for all the wrong reasons, but at least he tried).
He did a couple of other good things in his term of office, but I won´t
go into detail since these are french domestic issues.
Right, this was the good stuff he did, now, Phil, let´s get to the
stuff you´re interested in: what´s bad about Chirac? Listen
up, ´cause now you´re going to get the true detailed reasons
for Chirac bashing, courtesy of a genuine european "leftie":
1. the man is hiding behind his presidential immunity. In the mid-nineties,
Chirac was involved in a few high profile cases of corruption (notably
the Méry case and the Juppé case)and of vote rigging (the
so-called "Tiberi"-case). For details, see http://www.answers.com/topic/corruption-scandals-in-the-paris-region
which gives a relatively concise account of events as they emerged in
the press.
Chirac was subpoenaed as a witness in some of these cases, but refused
to testify because of his presidential immunity. The french supreme court
(cour de cassation) ruled that he had immunity, but that proscription
dates for any crimes he might have commited were pushed back. So if he
doesn´t get reelected in 2007 or if he doesn´t run, he will
face prosecution.
I don´t know if he´s actually guilty of anything in all these
cases (though it´s pretty likely he is), but I don´t care
for him hiding behind his office. This is the main reason I don´t
particularly like the man.
2. Politically, he´s an old-school gaullist, a political direction
I think has been outdated since the seventies, probably even before that.
So what exactly is "gaullism"? It´s a political philosophy
based on the views of (who else) Charles de Gaulle. The main traits of
gaullism are social conservatism, the promotion of a strongly centralized
state and the unwillingness to enter international commitments at the
expense of national interest. Incidentally, I guess you might even call
Bush a "gaullist" by this definition, which is pretty ironic,
don´t you think?
Of course, I can relate to none of these principles. I´m not a social
conservatist, I´m a federalist at heart (so a strongly centralized
state is right out in my opinion) and I think any country, not just France,
should have a global, non-nationalist view when it comes to international
commitments.
3. He fights against his own political pals too much, especially when
they´re doing good work (again, another trait he has in common with
Bush; cf. Powell). Of course, I´m alluding mainly to Nicholas Sarkozy
here (current head of the french conservative party; up and coming french
politician; mark the name, he´s quite likely to become the next
french president; for a detailed biography, have a look at http://nicholas-sarkozy.biography.ms/),
but many others have had problems with Chirac as well (including Alain
Juppé whom he dropped like a hot potato when he got indicted).
4. Like I said, the "Kohl syndrome".
5. He botched the referendum on the EU constitution. Thinking the yes
vote would win hands down, in a grand gesture he decreed a referendum
instead of simple ratification by parliament, and then he ran a terrible
campaign for the "yes" vote (incidentally, a few socialist politicians,
especially Laurent Fabius, ex-socialist minister of finance, didn´t
help either). With all his antics now it´s pretty likely the french
will refuse the constitution. Regardless of whether the french vote "no"
or "yes", I can already hear all the eurosceptics whine about
how not even the french want the constitution. Chirac did irreparable
damage to the EU with that stunt of his. He should have just ratified
the constitution quietly, like most of the other european states.
So to sum things up, Phil, you can see I´m under no illusion concerning
Chirac or France. However, that doesn´t give you or anybody else
the right to call us "megalomaniac", "degenerated",
"whimps" or "generally corrupt".
Juanma Fernandez, Bilbao, Basque C.
On the 2nd anniversary of the Coalition invasion of Iraq,
media-reported civilian deaths are approaching 20,000, and the death-rate
is spiralling upwards.‰
(http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/)
>>Phil Karasick, are you and Mr Bush thinking of coming to the Basque
Country to help us kill the bag guys?? I hope you aren‚t. You know,
I‚m afraid you‚ll miss many shots.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "....the Serbs got
rid of Milosevic basicly themselves (with little help from friends)."
|
A classic example of revisionist History if ever there was one. It wasn't
until someone (specifically, the U.S.) called the Serbs' bluff, stood
up to them and started making the war expensive for Milosevic and his
gang of thugs, that the Serbs suddenly got tired of Milosevic's murderous
antics and decided they'd had enough. The Serbs ONLY turned on Milosevic
AFTER the U.S., using precision pinpoint bombing, began targeting the
specific properties and business interests of known Milosevic cronies
and associates.
|
The Serbs were happy enough with Milosevic -- so long as they were winning,
that is. It wasn't until their fortunes of war changed, that they re-evaluated
their opinion of their Great Leader. Everyone loves a Winner, and nobody
wants to be associated with a Loser. (Victory has a thousand fathers,
Defeat is an orphan).
|
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Bombing of Serbia was pretty random,
cities that were strongly anti-Milosevic were hit as well so I'm not sure
it was that brilliant operation either."
|
More revisionist nonsense. The bombing of Serbian forces not only was
NOT random, it was done highly selectively and with tremendous accuracy.
There were no B-52s, B1-Bs or other heavy bombers employed -- only individual
fighter-bombers. No "carpet" bombing, no area bombing. You must
think pretty highly of the U.S. military air forces if you actually, seriously
think that a few squadrons of F/A-18s and F-16s could devastate entire
cities. Proof, please.
|
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "....I'm not looking forward the time
when the mad jihadists trained in the battles are trickling to Europe."
Just where exactly do you think the mad jihadists are coming to Iraq FROM,
anyway? Sure, a lot of them are Saudis, Jordanians, Yemenis and Palestinians.
(So much for their being "peace-aspiring moderates"). But a
lot of them are European Islamic fanatics.... boys and men, from Muslim
families that immigrated to Europe in the last two decades, and recruited
by Islamic fanaticist websites and imams.
|
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Probably some of Iraqis already miss
Saddam." Oh, I'm sure you'd love for that to be the case. The problem
for you, though, is that it isn't the case. The Iraqi people don't want
Saddam Hussein back. They really don't. That's why they're going to put
him on trial for crimes against humanity, find him guilty, and probably
give him a one-way trip to a date with a hangman's noose. They don't believe
in Western-style coddling of criminals over there.
|
Oh, sure, there's probably a bunch of sullen, resentful, embittered Iraqi
Sunnis who miss the days when they and their homicidal maniac buddy Saddam
Hussein ruled over Iraq at gunpoint and repressed everyone else. Tough
rockos for them, eh? Life's just a b***h sometimes, huh?
|
They're no different from the whining sore-loser ex-Confederate thugs
who couldn't stand losing the U.S. Civil War. Before the War, they were
the ones who had all the power and priveleges, they were the ones who
ruled over everybody and enslaved and persecuted minorities. Then they
lost the War, they lost their power and priveleges, they got kicked out
on their asses and had to swallow their pride and learn to live with (and
among) the people they'd spent all those years beating down and repressing.
It reminds me of the true story of the ex-slave who escaped and fought
in the Union Army against the Confederacy. One day, while his unit was
encamped in between offensives, he saw his former master in a group of
captured Confederate prisoners. He went up to the glaring ex-slavemaster
and told him "Hello, massa. Bottom rail on top now!!!".
|
Of course, the whining hate-filled ex-Confederates couldn't stand that,
so they created the Ku Klux Klan and tried to shoot-burn-murder-terrorize
their way back into power. Kind of like how the whining hate-filled ex-ruler
Sunnis are trying to shoot-carbomb-murder-terrorize their way back into
power in Iraq now.
|
So, how did we eventually handle these ex-Confederate terrorists who tried
to shoot-burn-murder their way back into power, who tried to win back
through terrorism what they'd lost on the battlefield?
|
Well, the one thing we did NOT do was try to mollify their bruised feelings
by offering them any "guaranteed" share of Power. We were made
of sterner stuff back then. We told them basically to GET OVER IT.
|
It took many, many years and more than a few lives along the way, but
the ex-Confederate terrorists, and their descendants, and their ideology,
were eventually broken, defeated and discredited by a lawful, legitimate,
elected government that represented ALL the people.
|
And that's exactly the same course of action that we need to be following
in Iraq.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "why would a real redneck
like that read Guardian and give a second thought to what people in some
distant country thinks about Americans?"
|
No, I'm not "pulling your leg". I'm a political conservative,
not a redneck. (Considering that all of Finland is probably what could
be charitably described as an inter-bred "single-family gene pool",
I think you yourself might come closer to the definition of 'redneck'
than I do). I read The Guardian occasionally so that I can see what lunatic
nonsense the rest of the world is spewing and remind myself of why I'm
glad I live in America. But I don't give a second thought to what people
in some distant country think about Americans. I said I was aware of peoples'
views in some distant country. I never said that I especially cared about
those views.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "to Phil: It's not
that bad but I don't claim it's a paradise (in Finland). Still, I think
a lot of people from Iraq would like to move here." Feel free to
invite them to move to Finland and see how many take you up on the offer.
|
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "We don't have trigger happy American
liberators shooting our kids if they are are dumb enough to go outside."
Funny, neither does Iraq. American liberators are not 'shooting kids if
they are are dumb enough to go outside'. Feel free to post any evidence
you have of your claim, or else kindly withdraw it.
|
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "I know you are not interested but
here we have most weapons per capita in Europe after the Swiss but when
we kill each others we use knives. One more difference between USA and
some European countries."
|
Yes, I'm not interested. And wow, what a wonderfully supposedly 'civilized'
(*derisive snort*) society you have where people kill other people with
knives. So, what you are really saying is that you actually have The Law
Of The Jungle, the biggest guy with the biggest knife is going to kill
people who are smaller and who can't defend themselves. Another reason
why I'm glad I live in America. If a big guy with a big knife tries to
kill me, I can shoot him between the eyes. As Americans
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Adolph Hitler was a Christian
and the Nazi army considered themselves a Christian army (a fact apparently
conveniently airbrushed from history)- the crosses on the wings of their
planes were Christian, the soldier's belt buckles bore the words 'God
Is With Us'."
|
False. Hitler was never a 'Christian' except in name only. He was never
particularly religious. Hence, he had no moral qualms about repressing
the German Catholic and Protestant churches when they tried to assert
that God's authority was superior to Hitler's. And he also he had no moral
qualms about elevating himself in Nazi mythology to being a near-diety
and replacing Jesus Christ. The Nazi army never considered itself to be
a "Christian" army, either. If anything, Nazi mythology came
closest to rekindling the paganism of the Germanic medieval tribes, with
their worship of Nordic and "Aryan" gods. The crosses on the
wings of their planes were not 'Christian", either. They were Germanic
crosses but carried no religious significance.
|
Mike in London wrote: "Nietsche has been described as a Romantic
Nihilist, not a humanist or relatavist. I assume you have a problem with
him because he criticised the morality of Judaic religion." No, we
have a problem with him because he was a raving antisemite whose anti-Jewish
hatreds were cited by the Nazis as justification for their murder of 6
million Jews.
|
Mike in London wrote: "Stalin was an Orthodox Christian, but kept
it quiet as Communism tends to see religion as a tool of repression."
Stalin was never an 'Orthodox Christian'. Like all Communists, he hated
and feared religion (any and all religions). However, he did not hate
religion because he saw religion as a 'tool of repression'. He actually
hated religion because he believed (correctly) that a religious belief
that recognized the existence of a Higher Power and a code of conduct
deriving from religious values, was a threat to the Communist ideology
which believed that all power on Earth and in society emanted from the
All-Powerful Communist State Government. Communism tried not only to destroy
religion, but also tried to supplant and replace religion. Indeed, some
fervent Western Marxists have essentially tried to elevate Marxism to
an informal 'religion' and have split into various factions that argue
over the meaning of Marx's writings, much like Christian sects disagree
over the interpretation of biblical writings. Communism was a jealous
God, tolerating no competitors.
|
Mike in London wrote: "Relativism does not mean no morality- only
that morality is sociological, not existential." To me, relativism
means that morality is subjective according to the sociological and societal
whims of the society and individual. Accordingly, depending on the customs
and/or world view of the society and/or individual, potentially any action,
no matter how horrific, can be committed with a clear conscience because
it is justified or considered to be acceptable by that individual or that
society. Thus we see that various European nations are already on the
fast track toward justifying euthanasia - and not merely voluntary euthanasia
(as in circumstances where an individual has previously expressed a preference
for not being prolonged in life by artificial means), but also involuntary
euthanasia in which physicians terminate life arbitrarily in the belief
that they are being "merciful". Such was the reasoning of the
Nazis in terminating the lives of physically and mentally disabled people.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Europe lost 40% of its population
in the Black Death- believe me, to say that Europe is facing a crisis
of population in this way is just anti-European propaganda. All that's
happening is a few countries (such as the UK) have a very slightly lower
death rate than birth rate- the population of (an already over-populated)
Europe is still increasing, however."
|
Well, no, that's not the case. It's not "anti-European propaganda".
It's Reality.It's The Truth. Europe's population birth rate is not producing
new Europeans at a rate sufficient to keep up with the rate of deaths.
Thus the population in Europe is projected to decline by approximately
100 million people over the next 50 or so years, while America's population
is projected to rise by a similar amount over the same time period. Also,
Europe is not over-populated (although it may seem that way since Europeans
are crammed into overcrowded densely packed cities in the name of some
fictional "greater good"). Given, however, that numerous European
social programmes are based on the concept that a limited number of recipients
are to be supported by a much-larger pool of contributors, and given that
the number of employed contributors in these European countries is shrinking,
it is basically obvious that expensive social welfare programmes are going
to face a huge shock requiring either higher taxes, cuts in benefits,
or both. German Chancellor Schroeder at least and at long last recognizes
this and is trying to make corrections and reforms, but his countrymen
are still in Denial.
|
Mike in London wrote: "And no, Europe is not being flooded by Muslims-
that is patently more anti-European propaganda, which is not even worth
discussing unless you want to get yourself some statistics."
|
No, it's not "anti-European propaganda". Once again, it's Truth.
If you want some statistics, here's a few: in about 15-20 years, about
20 percent of France's voting-age population will be Muslims. At that
point they will become a force in French politics too large to be considered
to be a "minority".
|
Mike in London wrote: "If we want to discuss our 'inadequate morals
and values' I would point out that the USA has an image throughout the
entire world of amoral capitalism (no, I'm not a commie- I believe in
capitalism, but I also believe in morality). I'm not saying the Europeans
are particularly noted for moral stances, but the USA is most certainly
no better. I feel you are probably just equating religion with morality
again." Well, yes, the USA IS better. The example of a Coca-Cola
plant in India supposedly taking all the local drinking water is ludicrous.
Coca-Cola, like all businesses, is regulated by the laws of whatever country
they happen to be doing business in. It's up to the Indian government,
not Coca-Cola, to assure an adequate supply of drinking water to its citizens.
In my view, morality does derive from religion and from basic religious
values.
|
Mike in London wrote: "And no, social welfare is not destroying Europe-
European economic growth is close on the heels of the US, and is accelerating
faster. More anti-euro propaganda: the American right would love it to
be true as it justifies their policies of removing responsibility of the
state towards the individual."
|
Well, no, European economic growth is still well behind that of the U.S.
As for "responsibility of the state towards the individual",
the ONLY responsibility the U.S. Government has toward individuals is
to provide and safeguard those rights specifically enshrined in the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
|
Please note that those rights are (in general) Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of Happiness, along with those specifically named in the Bill of Rights:
the Right to Freedom of Speech, the Right to Freedom of Religion, the
Right To Bear Arms, and a number of other important rights that socialistic
"social engineers" regard as irritating anachronistic impediments
to their quest of overriding the Individual and imposing their goal of
a socialist Utopia controlled by The Wise And Loving Big Mommy Government.
|
Also, please note that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any "right"
to free health care, any "right" to guaranteed housing, any
"right" to any "guaranteed" annual income, any "right"
to Taxpayer-funded daycare or any "right"to "guaranteed"
Warm Milk And Cookies At Bedtime. Nor is there going to be.
|
Mike in London wrote: "Just to finish off: The American Constitution
(drafted by Englishman John Locke after the Enlightenment)...".
|
Just to finish off: The Constitution of The United States was drafted
at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the
Summer of 1787. The primary author of the U.S. Constitution was James
Madison (later to become a U.S. President himself). John Locke himself
played no role whatsoever in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. This
was understandable considering that at the time of the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Locke had already been dead for 83
years. (He died on October 28, 1704). His ideas and concepts of liberty,
though, did later influence the written works of Thomas Jefferson and
other Founding Fathers of the United States.
Johnson, Minnesota U.S.A.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA-WOW! This is great. I was looking for a
site that is talking about the difference between U.S. and Euro countries,
I think I found it.
OK here's my say. I'm an American guy,18 years old,raised on a farm in
central minnesota, this summer I'm signing up and joining the U.S.Army.
I belive in standing up for what is right, and not letin some caveman
in a 3rd world country be in charge of things. Now i must say i havent
read all of the posts on here only the first few pages, but i will when
i have more time. lemme just say this about you EU boys: when it comes
to Europe, theres two groups: theres the one's who's cans we've saved
and there the one's whos cans we've kicked. simple as that. Now I do not
hate europeans- never have never will, but just because your afraid of
a challenge, like taking a hard line against evil, not be all snobby to
us who will. I am a christian, I beleive in God, I dont look at it like
a "religion" I see it more as its a Faith, God is real whether
you choose to care or not thats up to you. I have hope, somthing I think
alot of european countries are lacking.I read this once:"War is an
ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state
of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war
is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable
creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."~ John Stuart Mill.Hey i think
he was even british. like it or not i beleive that statement is true.
that is why I will fight for my country, because in the end its the right
thing to do, no matter how long and hard it gets. The things youpeople
say about us wanting to go shoot everybody till we are out of bullets
is not true at all! ( and dont say u don;t say that cause i took a foreign
exchange girl from Germany to the highschool prom this year and we've
talked about this kinda stuff so I know you people think that.) we aren't
crazy trigger happy wackos. yeah sure i got a gun, my dads got like a
zillion- he's even got a cannon, we can because we are free. never ever
would i want to have to kill another person but if they keep killing people
for no good reason then they need to be stoped.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington
Michel Bastian wrote: "Just a little pointer here:
the reconquista´s been over since 1492. The spaniards have proven
they´re more intelligent than to go play El Cid with automatic weapons
in Iraq just so they can relive some medieval power fantasy, like you
obviously want them to do."
|
Well, YOU might think that the reconquista's over. However, Al-Qaeda seems
to think that the issue's still in doubt and waiting to be decided. They
keep referring to Spain as "Andalus" and hinting that they really
don't accept the 1492 outcome.
|
And no one is suggesting, or has suggested, that the Spaniards should
have "gone to play El Cid with automatic weapons in Iraq just so
they can relive some medieval power fantasy". However, if the Spanish
people genuinely and honestly cared about the Iraqi people, then it seems
to me that they'd be willing to step in and help provide the Iraqi people
with the security that they very much need and clearly want.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "I think I once answered
but anyway, I think the Serbian people toppled Milosevic, not the almost
random bombing."
|
The bombing not only was not "random", it was done with near-pinpoint
accuracy. The Serbian "people" did not topple Milosevic. The
vast majority of the Serbian people had nothing whatsoever to do with
it. It was the bombing of the factories and assets of Milosevic's cronies
that convinced them to turn on him.
|
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "A Finnish friend of mine who's been
lot in Serbia told that cities like Novi Sad which were totally against
Milosevic were hit as badly as any other place."
|
Your friend is mistaken. The US never bombed whole cities in Serbia. We
could not have done so even if we had wanted to (there are no B-52s based
anywhere near Serbia). Novi Sad may certainly have suffered from shelling
during the war, but it is extremely unlikely that any major damage was
done by U.S. / NATO bombing. Of course you are more than welcome to provide
evidence to the contrary, if you have it. "My friend says so"
doesn't qualify as 'evidence', however.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington
Maybe European values and American values
are not so far apart after all. American populists and conservatives for
years have denounced the "one-world government" concept. Now
it appears that the Europeans are joining in.
|
CONSTITUTION FOES FEAR FOR FRANCE'S SOUL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/constitutionfoesfearforfrancessoul
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I previously stated: I do not believe I
have ever referred to the French or Germans as "wimps" or "traitors".
|
To which Michel Bastian responded: "You haven´t (at least as
far as I can remember), but other people have, abundantly."
|
I then stated: They (the rest of the world) have the right to disagree
with our policies. They have the right to formulate their own policies.
No one is challenging that. No one is stopping them. What they do not
have the right to do, is to impose their beliefs and policies upon us
in America.
|
To which Michel Bastian responded: "Which they did? Exactly how did
they do that?"
|
My response: They haven´t (at least as far as I can tell, because
the USA has refused to allow it), but many people in Europe have wanted
to, abundantly.
|
I also stated: And I think they (the Iraqi people) will also remember
very, very clearly who opposed their Liberation, who secretly (or not-so-secretly)
hoped that the U.S. would lose and be defeated.
|
To which Michel Bastian replied: "Nobody hopes the US will be defeated."
|
My reply: "You personally might not, but other Europeans clearly
do, abundantly.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> It took many, many years and more than a few lives along the way,
but the ex-Confederate terrorists, and their descendants, and their ideology,
were eventually broken, defeated and discredited by a lawful, legitimate,
elected government that represented ALL the people.
You don´t go to southern states very often, do you? Believe me,
you don´t want to know what they think about Washington sometimes
;-). That´s why they voted for Bush. He´s one of them (weelll,
sort of at least ;-)).
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> No, I'm not "pulling your leg". I'm a political conservative,
not a redneck. (Considering that all of Finland is probably what could
be charitably described as an inter-bred "single-family gene pool",
I think you yourself might come closer to the definition of 'redneck'
than I do). I read The Guardian occasionally so that I can see what lunatic
nonsense the rest of the world is spewing and remind myself of why I'm
glad I live in America. But I don't give a second thought to what people
in some distant country think about Americans. I said I was aware of peoples'
views in some distant country. I never said that I especially cared about
those views.
And that´s exactly the problem many americans seem to have: even
if they´re aware of what happens outside the US (which isn´t
the case very often anyway), they don´t really care. They think
they don´t have to, because it doesn´t seem to affect their
lives directly. One thing they tend to forget though: globalization. It´s
going to creep up on you, slowly at first, and ever faster proportionally
to technological advancement. Whether you want it or not, the economy
is getting more globalized by the minute due to better transport and communication
(case in point: this site where I´m discussing things with people
from all around the globe; wouldn´t have been possible just thirty
years ago). Potential and actual military conflicts (like Taiwan, North
Korea and Iran) affect the US because of the ever-present nuclear threat,
international terrorism is a factor they have to take seriously etc. etc.
And the trend is going to spread, I´m afraid. Intellectual isolationism
(i.e. "what do I care what happens in Darfour, China or Europe")
just won´t be possible any more in a few decades. Incidentally,
that´s why your political concept of nations continually in conflict
with eachother and the US as top dog because of their military and supposedly
superior economic power is not going to work on a global scale, Phil.
Military conflicts will not be conducted on a global scale anymore. Much
too dangerous, costly and counterproductive. All the military can do is
intervene locally, as a kind of police force, anything else will be physically
impossible. Even Iraq, that oh-so-easy war already strained the american
resources enormously). Also, business will be conducted on a global scale,
and fiddlesticks to the US federal trade commission or the european commission´s
directorate general for internal market and services. Information technology
will improve and spread on a global scale. Transport technology will facilitate
global exchange. Control is moving away from national states fast, and
we´re not in the 20th century or the cold war anymore. The global
conflicts of the future will be resolved in corporate boardrooms (and
through the internet), less and less in governmental offices or on the
battlefield.
And incidentally, to all those who want to revive the british empire:
get real. Try it and you´ll end up as the 51st state of the union
(if you´re lucky; if you´re not, you´ll just flounder
into irrelevance). That goes for every single state in the EU: no european
state, not Britain, not France, not Germany or Spain or Italy or Sweden
or anybody else will stand a chance at all on the global political scale
if it tries to go it alone, commonwealth or no commonwealth. Heck, even
the US can´t do everything they want all the time. Far from it,
even if I´ll admit they are the most powerful single country at
the moment.
And yes, Phil, ultimately, we´ll need some kind of international
democratically legitimized governmental control, because otherwise America
won´t be ruled by the oval office anymore, or France by the Elysée
palace. They´ll all be ruled by international business corporations
and consortiums. Nothing you or the Bush administration say or do will
change that (except if the US decided to start a nuclear war with somebody
or other, of course ;-)).
It won´t be in your lifetime or mine, but barring a global killer
asteroid I´m willing to bet that in 100 or 200 years´ time,
our descendants will be laughing their heads off at the concept of "national
states". Look around you, Phil. It´s already happening.
Michel Bastian, France
to Phil Karasick:
> Well, YOU might think that the reconquista's over. However, Al-Qaeda
seems to think that the issue's still in doubt and waiting to be decided.
They keep referring to Spain as "Andalus" and hinting that they
really don't accept the 1492 outcome.
Right, I can already hear the almoravid cavalry riding for Granada.
> And no one is suggesting, or has suggested, that the Spaniards should
have "gone to play El Cid with automatic weapons in Iraq just so
they can relive some medieval power fantasy". However, if the Spanish
people genuinely and honestly cared about the Iraqi people, then it seems
to me that they'd be willing to step in and help provide the Iraqi people
with the security that they very much need and clearly want.
You mean the security the US aren´t able to provide? Imagine that.
I´ll agree, though, that the european states should be more forthcoming
with help toward the Iraqis, even if it´s not military in nature.
However, as many americans, you completely misread what happened in Spain.
It had nothing to do with "cowtowing" to Al Quaida. It had everything
to do with their government lying to them. That´s the difference
between the spaniards and the US: when a spanish PM lies to them, they
chuck him out, when a US president lies to his people, they reelect him.
Michel Bastian, France
to Phil Karasick:
> Maybe European values and American values are not so far apart after
all. American populists and conservatives for years have denounced the
"one-world government" concept. Now it appears that the Europeans
are joining in.
|
CONSTITUTION FOES FEAR FOR FRANCE'S SOUL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/constitutionfoesfearforfrancessoul
Again, you completely misread what´s happeing in France at the moment.
Read the article you cited: there are many resons why a majority of voters
will probably vote "No", not the least of which is displeasure
with the current government, for reasons that have nothing to do with
the constitution or the US, for that matter. You think the french are
going to vote "no" to conform to american political concepts?
Boy, you couldn´t be more wrong. Many people vote "no"
because they think the constitution will institutionalize american style
capitalism in Europe. They don´t want that. Of course, they´re
mistaken, because the constitution does no such thing. But the mere mention
of the american social model will provoke a revolt against anything that
even remotely looks like american style government. So no, Phil, if the
french reject the constitution, it won´t be because they want to
accept american style politics. It will be because they don´t want
anything to do with it.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez in Bilbao, "Basque
C." (it's called "France" or"Spain", by the way
-- there is no separate "Basque Country") wrote: "You are
not killing only ≥fanatical terrorists≈, and you know it.
Even my grandma does. You have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.
Do you want me to look for the figure?"
|
Yes, I DO want you to "look for the figure". And present "evidence",
which you have not done. Your claim that the U.S. has "murdered thousands
of innocent civilians" is utter Rubbish and Lies. Prove it, or else
Accept being called the Liar that you are.
|
To begin with, there is an enormous difference between Murder and Accidental
Death. You, like a lot of other leftwing nimrods, appear to have an enormous
difficulty in understanding that difference. If we didn't intend to kill
someone, but it happens anyway, then that's not Murder. It's an Unfortunate
Accident. And while accidents are unfortunate, they don't add up to Murder,
and we don't imprison people for Accidents. Nor should we.
|
Furthermore, the claim that we "murdered" anyone is smoke mirrors
and more Lies. Even the so-called "IraqBodyCount.net" website,
which claims to be the authority on civilian deaths, is too incompetent
to get it right. The website wrongly includes civilians who were killed
not by Americans at all, but by TERRORIST BOMBINGS. In plain English that
means that when Iraqi/non-Iraqi Terrorists MURDER Iraqi civilians (yes,
it's Murder, because they MEANT for civilians to die), IraqBodyCount.Net
reports those casualties as though they were somehow the "fault"
of the U.S. when in fact they weren't the fault of the U.S. at all.
|
You think you have somehow "suffered" from terrorism? How many
people have you lost in Basque terrorist incidents - 768 or so? In THIRTY
YEARS?!? That's like 25 people a year. B.F.D.(Go figure out what that
means, if you're too clueless to understand the intended meaning). That's
next to Nothing. That's fewer than probably die in a month in Traffic
Accidents. Oh yeah, you have really "suffered" alright. By the
way, here's where the figure of 768 ETA terror victims comes from. Go
look it up:
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=8
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Who the hell is your government to judge
who must and must not die! What the hell are you "going to win"??
Dollars?". We're among the Greatest of Nations on Earth - THAT'S
who we are. We are the Government that is helping the Iraqi people build
Democracy, for the first time in decades. And if someone attacks our soldiers,
then that someone doing the Attacking on our soldiers is going to Die.
And as for what we will Win, we will Win the war against this Terrorist
insurgency that is trying to enslave the Iraqi people and destroy their
fledgling democracy. And the Iraqi people will have won their Freedom
from Terrorism. Iraq will become a Democracy -- a shining beacon of hope
in a region that has long known nothing but Dictatorships.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Therefore, the ≥cowardly attitude≈
doesn∫t come from Zapatero, but from Spanish people themselves."
That's exactly right. You are a poussie nation, a nation of craven gutless
Cowards who bow to Terrorism. Maybe we should start treating Spain as
an Enemy nation, with all that entails.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> You must think pretty highly of the U.S. military air forces if you
actually, seriously think that a few squadrons of F/A-18s and F-16s could
devastate entire cities. Proof, please.
Go to any site on the F/A-18 or the F-16 and look: of course a squadron
(you wouldn´t even need "several" squadorns; one would
be amply enough) of F/A-18s or F 16 could devastate a city, and they wouldn´t
actually need carpet bombing for that. Depends on what ordinance they´re
carrying. That´s what the "A" stands for: assault. You
have a point, though, since carpet bombing or the wholesale destruction
of towns isn´t part of modern US or NATO warfare doctrine anymore,
and thus wasn´t used in the Balkans.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Your friend is mistaken. The US never bombed whole cities in Serbia.
We could not have done so even if we had wanted to (there are no B-52s
based anywhere near Serbia).
Wrong. The B-52 was built during the cold war and wouldn´t have
to be based anywhere near Serbia to strike Novi Sad. They could´ve
used planes based in the UK or even in the US, since those planes have
an unrefueled combat range of 8800 miles (14.080 km). With refuelling,
they can reach any point on the globe, deliver their ordinance and fly
back to their base in the US (which is what they did in Afghanistan and
Iraq, for example, where they flew out of RAF Fairford).
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> The bombing not only was not "random", it was done with
near-pinpoint accuracy.
"Pinpoint accuracy" in bombing is a myth. There will always
be collateral damage if you throw a 700 lb explosive device on something,
especially if this something is located in a city. However, bombings weren´t
"random", you´re right about that. They did have specific
targets (mostly military), the one really bad exception being the bomb
on the chinese embassy where intelligence messed up (I think, can´t
remember it too well).
Michel Bastian, France
> OK here's my say. I'm an American guy,18
years old,raised on a farm in central minnesota, this summer I'm signing
up and joining the U.S.Army.
As well you should if you believe that´s the right thing to do.
At least you have the strength of your convictions. Better than all the
people who whine about european "wimps" and don´t have
the stomach to go on the frontline themselves.
> I belive in standing up for what is right, and not letin some caveman
in a 3rd world country be in charge of things. Now i must say i havent
read all of the posts on here only the first few pages, but i will when
i have more time. lemme just say this about you EU boys: when it comes
to Europe, theres two groups: theres the one's who's cans we've saved
and there the one's whos cans we've kicked. simple as that.
Not quite as simple as that, but there´s been ample discussion about
this stuff already, so I´ll bite my tongue.
> Now I do not hate europeans- never have never will,
Good, since I don´t hate you either. We seem to have a basis for
discussion.
> but just because your afraid of a challenge, like taking a hard line
against evil, not be all snobby to us who will.
We´re not being snobby and we´re not afraid of a challenge.
We just have a different opinion about how to take that "hard line
against evil". Military solutions work sometimes, but not all of
the time as you´ll find out soon enough if you join the army.
> I am a christian, I beleive in God, I dont look at it like a "religion"
I see it more as its a Faith, God is real whether you choose to care or
not thats up to you.
Doesn´t matter what you call it, christianity (like any other religion)
is essentially a belief as opposed to a provable fact. You´re absolutely
entitled to that belief, and I´m not going to argue against it.
But be mindful you don´t try to impose your belief on others (especially
not at gunpoint if you join the army). It won´t work.
> I have hope, somthing I think alot of european countries are lacking.
Wrong, but you´d have no way of knowing that.
> I read this once:"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest
of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance
of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself."~ John Stuart Mill.Hey i think he was even british. like
it or not i beleive that statement is true.
Correct, that statement is true, but it doesn´t apply to us europeans
more than it does to you americans. We have moral standards we adhere
to (they´re just slightly different from those the Bush administration
is promoting), and we´re not adverse to fighting for them (see Afghanistan,
for example, or the fact that many of us have been standing up to Bush´s
browbeating, being called names, etc., which is just another form of fighting).
One thing the americans need to get straight: we are adverse to war if
it´s not thoroughly justified. That´s because war involves
killing and suffering on a grand scale (which is something you´ll
experience first hand if you join the army, especially if you go into
actual combat). Therefore, it´s not to be undertaken lightly, and
it certainly isn´t to be undertaken on sketchy information or on
outright lies.
> that is why I will fight for my country, because in the end its the
right thing to do, no matter how long and hard it gets.
Yes, true. You should do that, but before you join the army, you should
think long and hard about the motives of your leaders, because once you´re
in the army, it´ll be too late: you´ll follow orders, whether
you like them or not. And you might find that those orders may not always
be in the best interest of your country or in accordance with those christian
values you adhere to.
> The things youpeople say about us wanting to go shoot everybody till
we are out of bullets is not true at all! ( and dont say u don;t say that
cause i took a foreign exchange girl from Germany to the highschool prom
this year and we've talked about this kinda stuff so I know you people
think that.)
No, some of us think that, mostly those that are ill informed. On the
other hand, many americans think that every european is a wimp and only
wants to live off social security, which is just as wrong.
> we aren't crazy trigger happy wackos. yeah sure i got a gun, my dads
got like a zillion- he's even got a cannon, we can because we are free.
never ever would i want to have to kill another person but if they keep
killing people for no good reason then they need to be stoped.
Please make a distinction between gun use in the army or police force
and private gun use. Guns are tools to kill or severely injure people
or animals, period. That´s all a gun is good for. It´s ok
to use them if you need them (in war or in actual self-defence situations),
but other than that, they should be severely restricted since they´re
dangerous, and much easier to use than any other weapon. It´s basically
the same thing as a car: cars can be dangerous, therefore you need proper
training, a registration and a licence to drive them. Do you think having
to get a driver´s licence is an impediment to your freedom?
As for terrorists needing to be stopped: we agree on that one, but we
disagree on the means. You cannot completely stop terrorism with wars,
especially if you´re conducting a war against people that have nothing
to do with the terrorists in the first place. What you can do is step
up information gathering, find out which people exactly are terrorists
and arrest them (or even kill them if need be). Also, you have to take
away the reasons for people to become terrorists: try to give them a stable
society, try to eliminate potential hotbeds (like Israel/Palestine) through
negotiation, try to eradicate fanaticism through education. The more somebody
knows about other cultures and nations, the less he´ll be inclined
to suicide-bomb them. Sounds like a complicated, long-run plan? It is,
but who said life was going to be simple?
Antti Vainio, Finland
Phil wrote:Oh, sure, there's probably a
bunch of sullen, resentful, embittered Iraqi Sunnis who miss the days
when they and their homicidal maniac buddy Saddam Hussein ruled over Iraq
at gunpoint and repressed everyone else. Tough rockos for them, eh? Life's
just a b***h sometimes, huh?
I was more like thinking about parents with kids. Anybody can just die
anytime there and in the final game, it doesn't really matter if it's
a trigger happy American or a mad jihadist from some suburb of London
who blows himself up and the street next to him. Of course this is completely
impossible concept if you're a right wing nut who oozes hate from a cosy
corner table of Starbucks far away from the crappy places you people liberate
Antti Vainio, Finland
John Bancroft from England wrote: Britain's
only link to Europe is geographic, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, it would be great if we could cnange geography. The Middle-east
and Canada should trade places so all these religious fanatics could have
war on their own continent and leave the rest of us alone. Likewise, England
and Hawaii could swap places. The Irish would have a holiday resort with
a nice climate close by and a smaller neighbour they could bully in turn.
You would at last be one of the United states! That would be a bit unfair,
though. I have understood that your kind is a minority in England, most
of the Brits still have a spine
Antti Vainio, Finland
I feel depressed when I read the American comments on this page. Seems like almost everybody out there in your country is full of hate, paranoid and/or religious fanatic. Is your frigging country as sick as these postings indicate or is it just co-incidence that this kind of discussion entice lunatics like Phil Karasick?
Mike, London
To Phil Karasick:
A few points on philosophy to meander us further away from the point of
this discussion, although either way it may be telling:
|
John Locke wrote extensively on political philosophy, and laid the philosophical
groundwork for both the British and American constitutions: you are being
needlessly pedantic. The ideas contained in the American constitution
are clearly attributable to Locke. To draw an analogy- this is like crediting
Henry Ford with the invention of the motorcar, when in fact all he did
was develop an existing invention.
|
You wrote: "The Nazi army never considered itself to be a "Christian"
army, either. If anything, Nazi mythology came closest to rekindling the
paganism of the Germanic medieval tribes, with their worship of Nordic
and "Aryan" gods."
|
Did you just ignore the bit I wrote about the Nazi slogan of 'Cooking,
Children, Church'? Or the 'God Is With Us' belt- buckles? Why is the cross
of the Luftwaffe not Christian? Try looking at the Christian Orthodox
crosses of Eastern Europe. This is absolute, verified historical fact,
and you are simply making things up to refute it because you don't like
it. The rekindling of ancient Germanic mythology referred to the tribalism
a thousand years before medieval times: Germany was a centre for Christianity
during medieval times and has many of the finest religious architecture
in Europe. Reviving Germanic mythology was not about religion: Nazi Germany
did not suddenly become a pagan society worshipping multiple Gods- this
was an artistic movement intended to promote national pride, undertaken
in much the way we still look back to the culture and art of the Ancient
Greeks.
|
Nietsche has been described as an anti-semite, but generally only by those
who do not understand him. Either way, it is agreed that his writings
were hijacked by the Nazis, and twisted by them. This, however, bears
absolutely no relevance to whether he was a moral relativist or not.
|
As regards your assertion that Communism does not accommodate religion
because it is 'jealous' of it: you are again simply making things up.
Communism is a materialist philosophy, thus religion is necessarily alien
to it. Try doing some reading and understanding, rather than just hating
the unfamiliar. Perhaps you could also let Stalin’s biographers
know they are wrong about his stance on religion.
|
You wrote: "To me, relativism means that morality is subjective according
to the sociological and societal whims of the society and individual.
Accordingly, depending on the customs and/or world view of the society
and/or individual, potentially any action, no matter how horrific, can
be committed with a clear conscience because it is justified or considered
to be acceptable by that individual or that society."
|
Nearly, but you are misunderstanding at a fundamental level. Look at your
later post:
"Coca-Cola, like all businesses, is regulated by the laws of whatever
country they happen to be doing business in. It's up to the Indian government,
not Coca-Cola, to assure an adequate supply of drinking water to its citizens."
What you are saying there is that Coca-Cola has no existential moral responsibility,
and that the only responsibility they hold is that dictated by their society
(in this case the laws of the country they happen to be in). I would infer
that Coca-Cola are behaving unethically because my outlook (which is unavoidably
generated relative to my nature/ nurture experiences) leans further to
the left than yours, and I feel Coca-Cola should employ a sense of social
responsibility, regardless of the law. You, however, feel Coca-Cola to
have acted ethically because they have followed the letter of the law,
and that as long as they didn't break the rules what they did was not
wrong. Relativism would hold that neither of us are correct in an OBJECTIVE
sense, but differ according to our subjective personal world-views, and
that there is therefore room for debate and argument. Another example
is the gladiatorial contests of ancient Rome: to today’s mind,
they were unequivocally morally disgusting, but to the majority of Ancient
Romans there was nothing wrong with them. So: were all ancient Romans
evil, or were they simply products of the world in which they lived? Here’s
the crux: I think people believe relativism to be a moral code of living,
and confuse it with nihilism (an absolute [non]morality): it is not- it
is a way of analysing and understanding the morals already in existence.
Therefore, to be a relativist is, basically, to understand that morality
is forever in a state of flux and not absolute from the beginning until
the end of time.
|
Religious conceptions of morality do not allow for relativism because
God cannot change his mind. This leads to intolerance of those with differing
points of view. Consider this: in the same book of the bible (Leviticus?)
that berates homosexuality as an abomination, also states that to plant
a field with two different crops is also an abomination. Yet we never
hear conservative Christians protesting at farmers who plant their wheat
to close to their barley. So what has changed? The word of God surely
hasn’t- so it must be the Christians. Once again, morality is
not absolute. Perhaps those who may have been punished by their peers
in the past for planting two crops in a single field have a lot in common
with modern homosexuals who are punished by their peers today, yet those
doing the punishing will nevertheless hold that they are evil.
|
As for your comments about euthanasia: please stop making things up to
try and support your arguments, it is pointless and obstructive. The Nazis
did not execute the disabled for reasons of mercy- or perhaps you are
suggesting that Italians are so morally bankrupt that they wish simply
to murder their own parents and children? And why do you have to bring
the Nazis into everything?
Mike, London
Phil Karasick wrote: “In my view,
morality does derive from religion and from basic religious values.”
I feel this is a misconception which seems increasingly prevalent in the
USA. Look at it this way: if you do not know it is wrong to steal, rape,
murder etc. without reference to the bible you are exhibiting the symptoms
of a psychopath. The fact is the human race could not have survived this
long without a basic innate morality- instinctive behaviour essential
to our survival as a social animal, just as a pride of lions will not
devour each other once hunger sets in. On top of this we have more complex
learnt social codes, taught to us by interacting with each other in a
social framework (for instance, parents teach their children right from
wrong as part of what we refer to as ‘upbringing’).
Religion is a social construct, a method of bonding people together and
ordering society- it is therefore not religion that spawns ethics, but
human society. What has happened is that religion has taken common social
values, and claimed them as it’s own. This has been very successful
as religion can offer a good justification for morality (i.e. burning
in hell), a more powerful coercion than simply the idea that society requires
it and is better off for it. Before God told Moses “thou shalt
not kill”, I’m sure most people had a pretty good
idea that it wasn’t a very nice thing to do.
The reason I feel the idea that morality is based on religion is dangerous
is that all those that hold this view will therefore devalue those who
do not subscribe to their religion. Only one way of life is held up as
having absolute worth, the moral high-ground is occupied automatically
with reference to no other fact than those ‘other people’
that do not believe the same dogma.
Look at the Crusades: the Crusaders felt it entirely morally justified
to slaughter men, women and children because they did not possess the
moral worth that they did, because they belonged to a different dogmatic
idiom. The same can be said for Al Qaida, or Phil Karasick when he claims
the “right people” are being killed in Iraq.
Mike, London
One more point on the subject of relativism
that just occurred to me: Jesus said-
"Forgive them, they know not what they do".
An expression of relativist thought if there ever was.
What has happened to the notion of Christian forgiveness?
Joe, Minnesota, USA
Johnson, Minnesota U.S.A. wrote a bunch
of, ummmm, poorly chosen, grammatically incorrect thoughts.
I am also from Minnesota, and I am very embarrassed...
I am just at a loss for words about what he represents.
Tito, USA
To Mike from London,
I mentioned how Europeans began to question their own morality and used
Descartes as an example, not to discredit him but to use the quote. Nonetheless,
your description of him of Œconfirming‚ Christianity is wrong∑
unless you prescribe to the so-called „mainstream‰ Protestant
denominations such as the Episcopalians (Anglicans to you). You see, around
the 1930s many so-called „mainstream‰ Protestant denominations
began to „modernize‰ and „secularize‰ their teachings
in order to keep up with the current popular culture. Well after roughly
75 years of „keeping up with popular culture‰ most if not
all Protestant denominations in the U.S. have lost members, not gained.
In fact the largest increases in attendance and membership have been the
„evangelical‰ Protestant movement and Catholicism. Ironically
both with uncompromising morals and ethics. I guess the Truth is not relative
after all, but that is to difficult an idea to comprehend to you euro
elites now is it?
I was showing how the Catholic Church was integral in all things European
and used the Enlightenment as a vague historical mark to signify the beginning
of the decline of Europe. Nice to know you still don‚t know your
history still quoting incorrect history of the Church such as the „sun
orbited the earth, science did not exist and the burning and torture or
heretics and women was a great day out for all the family.‰ Science
(and other liberal arts) were not only promoted by the Church, but sponsored
and funded. Galileo being one of them. And to correct your incorrect history,
Galileo was prosecuted because he was wrong in breaching his agreement
of silence. He was not prosecuted because he opposed the „sun orbiting
the earth‰. The Church educated him, gave him his tools, and helped
to publish his work and ground breaking theories. If it wasn‚t for
the Benedictine monks and monastery‚s of the early and Middle Ages
preserving great works of Greek science and literature, Galileo would
not have been able to come to his conclusion. The burning and torturing
of heretics did occur, albeit in lesser numbers than have been told. Around
120 or so in the span of 2000 years of Church history. If you ever decided
to do your own research rather than parrot what your history teacher taught
you from „secularized‰ and „anti-Church‰ history,
you would see this. But don‚t come crying to me when you find this
true and supported by the majority, if not all, of today‚s academics,
both European and American.
As far as the Pope condemning the Netherlands to death, I‚m sure
I could find more than one quote today in a Google search of Chirac saying
the same about the U.S. The Pope never said that or executed any order
relating to your comment.
As far as your Muslim peaceful coexistence comment, again, it wasn‚t
peaceful. Where did all the Muslims come from before 700 AD in Spain?
Where they peacefully welcomed into the Iberian Peninsula? Were Christians
„volunteering peacefully‰ to pay protection money or to convert
to avoid paying this protection money? As far as post 1492, all Muslims
were ordered to leave Spain by the fleeing Muslim clerics because it was
„wrong‰ to live under a non-Muslim ruler. They were not executed
or forcibly removed. As far as the Jews (anticipating your next ignorant
response) they were present in Spain and stayed in Spain before, during,
and after the Reconquista. How so? My Mexican grandmother was raised Catholic,
but her parents were Jewish, and their parents were Jewish, and so-on
and so-on. She liked talking about how her ancestors migrated to New Spain
(now Mexico) because they chose to, not because they were kicked out.
Plus they never converted, until my grandmother‚s generation, a
full 400 years after 1492. She told me about how her family fought alongside
Catholic Spaniards in evicting the Moors. I researched it to see if it
was an old wives tale and there is too much information here to disprove
your anti-Catholicism and revisionist secular history you ignorant euro.
To Michel,
Read this BBC article. It is addressed to you from the secularist‚s
Spanish people themselves from a European media outlet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3679336.stm
The Spanish of the 21st century are cowards.
To Phil,
Thanks, I don‚t like responding to uneducated Europeans, you‚ve
made my job easier.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Yes, I DO want you to "look for the figure". And present
"evidence", which you have not done. Your claim that the U.S.
has "murdered thousands of innocent civilians" is utter Rubbish
and Lies. Prove it, or else Accept being called the Liar that you are.
God, Phil, do something against your adrenaline level, will you. And cut
back on the coffee, man. You´re ranting again.
> To begin with, there is an enormous difference between Murder and
Accidental Death. You, like a lot of other leftwing nimrods, appear to
have an enormous difficulty in understanding that difference.
Ah, well, Phil, we´re not all as "enlightened" as you
are. Thank god for that.
> If we didn't intend to kill someone, but it happens anyway, then
that's not Murder. It's an Unfortunate Accident.
Right, the whole Iraq war was just an "unfortunate accident".
> Furthermore, the claim that we "murdered" anyone is smoke
mirrors and more Lies. Even the so-called "IraqBodyCount.net"
website, which claims to be the authority on civilian deaths, is too incompetent
to get it right. The website wrongly includes civilians who were killed
not by Americans at all, but by TERRORIST BOMBINGS. In plain English that
means that when Iraqi/non-Iraqi Terrorists MURDER Iraqi civilians (yes,
it's Murder, because they MEANT for civilians to die), IraqBodyCount.Net
reports those casualties as though they were somehow the "fault"
of the U.S. when in fact they weren't the fault of the U.S. at all.
Yeah, right, as I said, the US invaded Iraq totally by accident. It´s
a question of responsibility Phil. You know that word, do you? Your government
is responsible for these deaths, even if they didn´t actually personally
kill those people. Period. You can write dozens of rants to justify all
this, you can go on forever believing that Bush is actually the next best
thing to Jesus Christ for all I care. You´re wrong. Bush was wrong
to invade. By invading, he sparked an insurrection that even a blind and
dumb child could have foreseen, and he´s totally incapable of getting
it under control. Indeed, he´s bungling his way ever deeper into
the quagmire. AND he´s not man enough to take responsibility for
that. Instead, he keeps on feeding the public nonsense about him being
the saviour of democracy in the middle east. You want me to respect him
for that? Dream on.
> You think you have somehow "suffered" from terrorism? How
many people have you lost in Basque terrorist incidents - 768 or so? In
THIRTY YEARS?!? That's like 25 people a year. B.F.D.(Go figure out what
that means, if you're too clueless to understand the intended meaning).
That's next to Nothing. That's fewer than probably die in a month in Traffic
Accidents. Oh yeah, you have really "suffered" alright. By the
way, here's where the figure of 768 ETA terror victims comes from. Go
look it up:
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=8
Ah, another chapter of "Phil Karasick on things he´s got absolutely
no concept of". So what makes you an expert on terrorism? How often´s
Seattle been hit by terrorist attacks, huh, Phil? How many friends of
yours were killed or injured by terrorists? How dare you lecture a basque
on terrorism? Every single basque citizen (french or spanish basque, doesn´t
really matter, as you´d know if you´d done just a little superficial
research) has forgotten more about terrorism than you have ever learned
in your entire life. And btw, what´s that obsession with numbers?
Ah, right 768 dead spaniards are nothing at all. They´re only spaniards
after all, aren´t they?
> Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Who the hell is your government to
judge who must and must not die! What the hell are you "going to
win"?? Dollars?". We're among the Greatest of Nations on Earth
- THAT'S who we are.
Yeah, we got that, Phil. The US are great, the US are mighty, they´re
the best and all the others can just drop dead. Don´t bother repeating
this all the time, you´re beginning to sound like a broken record.
> We are the Government that is helping the Iraqi people build Democracy,
for the first time in decades.
Man, you would´ve done the soviet agitprop proud. You´re a
natural.
> And if someone attacks our soldiers, then that someone doing the
Attacking on our soldiers is going to Die. And as for what we will Win,
we will Win the war against this Terrorist insurgency that is trying to
enslave the Iraqi people and destroy their fledgling democracy. And the
Iraqi people will have won their Freedom from Terrorism. Iraq will become
a Democracy -- a shining beacon of hope in a region that has long known
nothing but Dictatorships.
I´m not quite sure if you´re posting this nonsense again and
again to provoke us of if you really believe it. If you do, I pity you.
You´re just one sheep in Dubbyah´s enormously large herd of
completely uncritical, unthinking neo-con americans.
> Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Therefore, the ≥cowardly
attitude≈ doesn∫t come from Zapatero, but from Spanish
people themselves." That's exactly right. You are a poussie nation,
Wrong spelling, Phil. It´s spelled "pussy". You can´t
even use obscenities right. How come a frenchman has to teach you your
own language AS WELL as your own constitutional system?
> a nation of craven gutless Cowards who bow to Terrorism. Maybe we
should start treating Spain as an Enemy nation, with all that entails.
At the speed you´re going, you´ll have the whole world declared
"enemy nation" by 2006. Incidentally, knowing spaniards, I bet
they couldn´t care less. You think the french are rude, arrogant
and uncooperative? You haven´t seen the spaniards yet when you insult
them.
Ross Gurung, France
It is like grabbing somebody, say Lambda,
by the scruff of his neck and then beginning to wonder whether we have
right to put him into the series of great riddles of life in order to
prove if he has got the stamina and willpower to go thru‚, all the
way to the Litmus Test.
I find Johnson, Minnesota USA is quite the master of his destiny and at
the same time liable to join the Army because he deems safety to fulfil
his ambition why not in the Army. He does not abjure his inbred culture
of being a patriot (not nationalist) while some proponents of Make love,
not War would throw at him sneaky and furious stare of contempt.
If needs must I would say that it was not bad for a start. If not, aimlessly
he would arse about in the ill-frequented streets of a local town. A cry
from a cloud-cuckoo land would rebuke me for having encouraged this young
boy to join the Army and thereafter to leapfrog over a Continent so as
to kill somebody or to get killed himself by somebody whom he never met
in person before, as if he were a crazy trigger happy Wacko. Moreover,
he has had the leisure to describe it in his linear and logical trend
of reasoning. I do not search a lame excuse for my opinion.
This young boy is supposed to represent one part of the future of the
USA. His American dream is worth dying for him because the span of time
spent for his up bringing and schooling taught him to be sincere and honest
as far as possible. Almost every Sunday his Pastor or Priest repeated
him to do something useful of his life. That he can hardly achieve if
he stays planted there in Minnesota labouring fields, it is very necessary,
though.
At present he has to pick his way thru' if one day he could be as renowned
as his Heroes that he came to know by reading Books as well as by seeing
the flicks. Further, how could he taste and undergo an experience of that
arm-wrestling at the Hong Kong Bay, simultaneously, drinking an ice-cold
beer, his body tanned like a lobster with brush hair-cut and slipover,
as recited by those brave US Marines heading to the 38° parallel of
the Korean war (1951), if he did not slog along to pave his way to the
better future. One day most probably he would be a giant win-win guy,
nobody can foretell for the time being. Therefore why those who are at
the helm of Country‚s front office as decision makers to send him
to the war-front have the greatest responsibility of his continuous Assessment.
The conspicuous lack of attention of the folks involved could make him
lose his precious life.
That said, John Bancroft, England feels very unfortunate that England
is in the EU. If he knows about what he says then his country‚s
history would help him clarify his purposes. After the recent history,
almost all his ancestors hailed from the Continent, by successive influxes.
Before 1974 England‚s GDP was at the same level of the then Italy.
The Continentals were not very warm and enthusiast for England‚s
membership in the EU, because everybody thought, right or wrong, that
England was the 51st. State of the USA. However, the relative forcing
of Harold Wilson was at last crowned with success and England joined Europe.
Willy-nilly to be in line with, Thatcher kicked off all those commies
who were strangling the country‚s Economy strike after strike. She
followed whole-heartedly Reagan‚s politics without scruples in the
interest of England. Thereafter with equal incentive this policy was renewed
by John Major and Tony Blair who kept pace upright with perseverance and
maestri a.
Taken together, now England‚s individual GDP is more than that of
Germany, France and Italy. Well done. Now some Continentals want to kick
England out of the EU because of its systematic EU bashing and its pathological
hatred for the same. Really, nobody will retain if England steps out of
the EU (would be quite easier after the French NO vote). However, there
is a snag in it. The rebate of 4 billion Euros (the Present of Mitterrand
and Kohl to put a stop to Thatcher‚s blackmail) and the Agricultural
Allowances to plough the farms of Prince Charles and several Landlords
would just disappear if England deserted the EU. This fall Blair can no
longer claim 4 billion Euros of rebate because of the entrance of 10 new
members of the EU who are greatly in need of help for their crying shortcoming
in Infrastructures. The privilege is no more rewarded. BTW (by the way)
most of the Financial and Industrial Giants would certainly prefer 400
millions of Continentals (Business is business) if the Custom barriers
were re-erected, to only 60 millions of Insulars (Already about 400,000
of them left England for the south the centre and Brittany of France,
Spain and Portugal). Before you are pipped at the post, think twice and
better avoid to dice with Economical death. Really, that would take a
biscuit! The visceral bad habits die hard.
In addition, before you make me want to spew or barf (I condone you, nonetheless,
for your Modesty is not English as a word Can Not is not French) for your
flagrant error about the accurate date of Birth of Democracy. If I remember
Homer‚s Iliad and Odyssey, Euripides‚s some Tragedies, Aristotle‚s
Treatise and Plato‚s Republic and Dialogues with Socrates, Pedicles
was the first Chief of a Democratic party in Athena (461 BC). Pedicle‚s
temple of Athena Parthenos on the Acropolis called as the Parthenon still
reminds us of its glorious past. Do you take the Great Chart (1294) of
Kingdom‚s Barons imposition of Parliamentary Organization the start
of Democracy in England or in the last resort, the beheading of the King
Charles 1st. (1649) by Cromwell and the imposition of the Republic (Commonwealth)
was the foundation of Democracy? You forgot along the path the Venetian
and Genoa Republics too. If I understand anything about history, you are
all Queens‚ subjects not the citizens of a Republic. Obviously individual
or collective proprieties appertain to the Sovereign; you are just there
to benefit from the Usufructs for 99 years unlike the Republic where the
proprieties, individual or collective, appertain To Whom It May Concern.
These were just the pricks of conscience and that was merely lip service
on my part.
I beg to differ that the modern Democracy really began with the Bill of
Federal Constitution of the United States of America (september17,1787)
followed by the French Revolution (1789) and the Bill of Human Rights
as well as the Bill of Constitution of Legislative Assembly (1792). The
feudal Representations to the Crown existed from the time immemorial in
Europe. Even the legendary King Arthur (V c- VI c / AD) was surrounded
by his 12 Knights around the famous Table. Should we say that was a Democracy?
Without general Polling, I do not think Democracy has anything to do with
these types of different regimes. Democracy means of the People for the
People and by the People.
It stems from the fact that the Democracy and the Republic defined by
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle have very little to do with Monarchy in
Europe. Never mind, England is governed democratically, though.
Before it is entangled and gets heated up because of my deliberate, provocative
and on purpose argument, I pray for the cease-fire in the wars of words
when this post defers to somebody‚s eyes/knowledge.
Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea
Joe, Minnesota,
So you are emnarrassed by Johnson, Minnesota's and you are a lot for words
about what he represents.
I guess its hard having perfect grammar a clear thoughts when you, Joe,
lack the basic decency to take a position rather than attack one. It looks
like the education system in Minnesota taught him to think and take a
position while it taught you to get your politically correct knickers
in a knot.
I am not an American but I am very much pro American in most things.
Things don't look good in Europe right now. The French voted the EU Constitution
down, and a couple of days later the Dutch did the same thing. The Brits
pulled their referendum off the table and the Social Democrats in Germany
took a real pounding in the state elections.
The best thing the Brits could do would be to abandon the EU and make
a better deal with the Americans. To hell with the EU. It is a failed
experiment.
William Knapp, Canada
I have always been struck by the one of
the [it seems to me] root causes of some of the Worlds grotesque struggles.
For example, What would there be to fight about in Northern Ireland if
it wasn't that religion distinguishes the combatants. The same view can
be applied to Palestine/Israel,Kashmir,etc.etc.
Would there have been the "Jewish Holocaust" in the second World
War had the Catholics not been preaching hatred for centuries?
Religion is the Worlds Cancer.........
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
