News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[Smurf]

Ahh the irony, does anyone here realize that were I one of the pile of angry Leftists that clutter this thread, I'd started this reply by calling vanesch a racist for his/her remarks on Turkey?

Oh I get the irony... I just wonder if you do:

Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.

 

[ron damon]

Oh I get the irony... I just wonder if you do:

...if I were...

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize, the guy is Micheal Savage (I thing Randy Savage was a WWF guy lol). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html"

Macho Man Randy Savage and the lovely Elizabeth Oooohhh Yeeaahhh!

Michael Savage a liberal conservative?

I think he is the guy who actually coined the phrase Islamofascist, whatever that means. Fascism was called corporatism by Mussolini, and I don't know of any corporate ties to Al Qaeda.

This guy is to the right of Limbaugh. He calls liberalism a mental disorder.

 

[Rabid]

A few related Savage clips:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405130004
And then there's this

Savage called Arabs "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots"; asserted that Americans would like to "drop a nuclear weapon" on any Arab country; and that "these people" in the Middle East "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity" in order to "turn them into human beings."

Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405140003

 

[jimmie]

He calls liberalism a mental disorder

Any individual that places their faith in a particular name, and then believes that they are that name, has a mental disorder.

Place your faith in... you.

 

[vanesch]

Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.

I'm not absolutely against it. The problem is not Turkey, the problem is Europe, which is suffering a huge identity crisis. What's Europe to be ? I would think that Europe is what has been rooted in Greek-Latin civilisation. Why ? Not because it is "superior" or something like that, simply because it is the common ground of much of what European nations have made what they are. Of course the spread of Christianity did a lot to "preserve this unity" and that's why some think that Europe should be based upon Christianity, but the roots are to be found earlier.
Now, geographically, that puts of course the entire coastline of the Mediterranean in the basket, but let's face it, the islam civilisation erased since long the Greek-Latin tradition on the African and Asian part of it.
Now, I think that in the long run, Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more. I also think that Russia could join, and the Maghreb countries, and the Black Sea countries and... where does it stop ?
By adding more and more countries with DIFFERENT culture to the melting pot, you get such a diluted "union" that it just becomes a trade place and that nothing beyond that can be decided.
With that silly shooting down of the European constitution, ANY decision needs to be taken by unanimity. It has been shown already that with 25 very like-minded countries, that's impossible for most things. If you add totally different countries to the soup, Europe will simply stop existing. Oh, yes, we'll still have our silly parliament, flag, and stuff like that, but NOTHING will happen anymore, except a free market and easier travelling.
But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?
So we should stop now thinking of what would be good for a country when they join Europe, and think more what would be good for Europe.
I would have said that if the Constitution were adopted, and if there were a positive "European" spirit within the union, then there would be no problem with taking in Turkey. But it is not the case at all. Many people within Europe are getting back to their nationalistic reflexes. And Turkey will not improve on it, believe me. I think that we need to stop enlarging for at least a generation, and build up a stronger Europe with the existing members.

 

[Anttech]

Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more.

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

I aggree with your anaysis vanesch, Europe needs to stop expanding. But I think we should have some more trade aggreements with turkey. I also believe that Turkey needs to wash its-self clean of any wrong doings it has done in its recent history. If it wants to be seen in a better light within the EU.

 

[vanesch]

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

I agree with that, and I found it quite interesting to be labelled some kind of "racist" because I would be against Turkey joining the EU, which would somehow imply that the EU is "heaven" and the "untermensch" have to stay out of it. The EU has a certain vision on things, values, ways of thinking, etc... which have a common historical origin. The Turks have ANOTHER vision. Now, it is up to them to decide if they prefer to switch visions, put their own historic civilisation behind them and try to be "European", in which case they can join (much, much later than now, when the switch has been completed). Or they can stick with their own civilisation, in which case they don't really "fit" within the EU. Not because their view of things is *worse* but because it is *different*. If you like to play football, you join a football club. If you like to play tennis, you shouldn't join the football club! That doesn't mean that football is better than tennis.
Now, if the only thing they really want from the EU is the wealth and living standard, then this can be arranged with what is sometimes proposed as "preferential partner". They would participate in the EU market and free exchange, but they would not join the POLITICAL part of the EU.
I think everybody is making a big mistake by wanting to head directly for a membership of Turkey. It would be much easier to establish a partnership (which could eventually evolve into a membership, much much later). This partnership could then be extended, for instance, to the Maghreb countries too. I think that by wanting directly a membership, we're heading for a failure and bitterness. And I think we're screwing up an already fragile EU.

EDIT: hum, but we should get back on topic...

 

[vanesch]

But why? Are they beyond modernization? What fundamental reason prevents them from advancing? 100 years ago nobody saw in China, Japan (~150), Korea or India any potential, yet all of them flourished under (diverse) direct intervention by western powers...

First of all, "modernisation" and "advancing" in your mind means "adapting a Western style of living" and not all people over there are convinced that that is a positive evolution. The very fact of not being able to see that makes you blind to the big mistakes you are committing over there. Although SOME parts of western living style (cars, radios, cellular telephones...) are accepted and desired over there, the core values ARE NOT. "freedom of religion", "women's rights", "democracy" etc... are very discutable values in the Arab world.
Of course, we, in the West, see that as just "backwardish" and "barbaric" but it is not always perceived that way in these countries, and you cannot (especially using violence !) just come in with your dirty boots and think they will find it obvious that you bring them these values (shove it down their throats if you like), because it is in a strong collision with their core values, which are islamic religion, tribal traditions and an Arab nationalistic sentiment. Whether or not you and I like that, this is the way things are over there and if you do not take it into account when you do something over there, chances are you're going to screw up dearly.
If we hope for them to change, it is NOT, certainly NOT, going to work with bombs and guns, because you will strengthen their desire to protect their core values more than to make them change.
You cannot make someone love you by beating up, and a similar thing is at work in the ME.
For instance, as an analogy, do you think that you could convince your average American of the good of communism by bombing them until they become communist ? Or would that just enhance the hate for everything communist ?
The way to change things over there would be by showing some respect for their different value system and to hope that the change would come from within. We could help that a little bit by getting more secular governments over there. Not by IMPOSING them, but by manoeuvring in such a way that secular governments which adopt a separation between state and religion can provide a positive balance to their own population.
The example you give, China, is btw funny. You cannot say that China became prosperous under Western (English) domination, can you ? They are becoming prosperous thanks to a mixture of communist dictatorship eaten with a capitalist sauce, which was certainly NOT military imposed by western countries. I'm also not very sure that India got where it is today "thanks to military intervention of the west". They got more exploited than anything else under the English domination, and what they achieved on their own afterwards has nothing to do with that.
The example that is often cited is Japan, but Japan is different. First of all, there was not this fierce religious tradition as is the case in the Arab countries: never the conflict took on the face of a religious war as it seems to be the case in the ME. And second, with Japan, the West had the moral high ground: they were attacked, and what the Japanese got to suffer after that was the consequence of their own aggression. In Iraq, you're the aggressor, and, as is now clear for about 90% of the world, the original reasons given for the invasion were simply not true. You cannot get lower on the moral scale!
The only thing that the Iraq invasion achieved was to be a major propaganda campaign for OBL, and all those favoring a radical theocracy in the Arab world. You've made islamic terrorism seem acceptable by a big part of the Arab population who finds it finally a right response to the military muscle of the US they have to deal with, and you've made life miserable for all those favoring an evolution towards more western values within Arab societies.
AND ALL THAT WAS EASILY TO BE FORESEEN, in the same way that bombing Americans to make them adopt communism is easily seen to be counterproductive. It doesn't take a PhD in political science to see that.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

I think you miss the point. Turkey WANTS to join the EU. The 'E' in EU stands for European. There's two concepts of Europe: geographical, and political. The only one that has any real value is the latter, and that IS the EU. So you can't join the EU and NOT "europeanise". This doesn't mean Turkey has to suddenly embrace binge drinking and football hooliganism, or start eating escargot and making pretentious films with gratutious pornographic images. It just means they have to qualify for a club they wish to join.

European countries have to "europeanise" to join the EU. We've had market sellers in the UK arrested for selling in pounds and ounces. Why should Turkey be given special treatment?

EDIT: love the improved edit facility.

 

[Anttech]

Turkey WANTS to join the EU.

Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.

There's two concepts of Europe: geographical, and political.

Thats a bit simplistic, There is also a lot of economical benefits.

So you can't join the EU and NOT "europeanise".

I agree.. I didnt say they should join, but that doesn't rule out trade agreements. These trade agreements would boost the economy in the south east of Europe (and visa versa).

What point is it I missed?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.

For Turkey, read: democratically elected government of. You get the economical benefits of being in the EU by... joining the EU. You can't get breakdown recovery unless you subscribe to the club.

Thats a bit simplistic, There is also a lot of economical benefits.

I'm not sure that actually follows from what I said, but yes, it was simplistic. Not oversimplistic in context, though.

I agree.. I didnt say they should join, but that doesn't rule out trade agreements. These trade agreements would boost the economy in the south east of Europe (and visa versa).

Same problems apply, hence Turkey could not join the EC.

What point is it I missed?

The first one - that Turkey (see above) has the most interest in joining the UE, so it is not a question of the EU imposing "europeanisation". In fact, some member states would rather they didn't "europeanise" just for the sake of getting into the EU.

 

[vanesch]

Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.

I also think that a large part of the motivation of several countries to join the EU is the economic benefit they think it will bring them. But this can only be true up to a certain level: if the economic differences are TOO big, it will create problems. Nevertheless, I think close economic cooperation is in everybody's interest, but that's exactly what a partnership would establish.
I think there IS a political reason why Turkey (or at least part of some politicians there) wants to join the EU, and I can understand the reason, and I'm all in favor of it. I think that some wise politicians over there realize that once they will be part of the EU, it will be much more difficult for radical Islamic forces to go to a more theocratic regime, so their membership of the EU would be some kind of insurance against radicalism. It is the main reason that convinces me that I should not be against the joining of Turkey to the EU. But my opinion is that Turkey is too big a country, and the EU to weak a union, to be able to carry the burden. We still have to swallow Eastern Europe.

 

[Anttech]

For Turkey, read: democratically elected government of.

El Hom.. I am sure that you understand that a representative Democratically elected government does not represent the views of everyone in the Country that it governs!
I didnt miss any point, I believe that the PEOPLE of turkey don't particulay want to join the EU.. they just want the economical beniefts. the GOVERMENT may want to, but i wasnt referring to that.

The first one - that Turkey (see above) has the most interest in joining the UE, so it is not a question of the EU imposing "europeanisation". In fact, some member states would rather they didn't "europeanise" just for the sake of getting into the EU.

Thats your point of view. I don't think the PEOPLE of turkey want to join, and they (the people) don't want to "Europeanise". The Goverment as you are referring to may want to join the EU. I fail to see how you came to this from my post: EU imposing "europeanisation"

Maybe you missunderstand: If you think I want Turkey in the EU like they are you are very wrong. If they Europeanise then yes I don't have as much of a problem. (as long as they wash clean the wrong doings it has also committed) But I don't think they will, and I don't think they want too. My other point of Trade aggrements is just that, create a New Trade agrement with them, so the south east of europe and Turkey can trade better together and boost both economies.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

While I get the impression you're deliberately misinterpreting me, I'll take the bait one more time.

El Hom.. I am sure that you understand that a representative Democratically elected government does not represent the views of everyone in the Country that it governs!

And I'm sure you understand how democracy works, whereby the people elect a party (one of about 50 in Turkey) to represent them, govern them and make political decisions. No, not everyone, maybe not anything close to a majority, will have their view on joining the EU represented. That's democracy for you, the idealogy we seem to like imposing on other countries.

I didnt miss any point, I believe that the PEOPLE of turkey don't particulay want to join the EU.. they just want the economical beniefts. the GOVERMENT may want to, but i wasnt referring to that.

I think you did. No-one expects Turkey to suddenly go all continental. No-one even demands that Turkey meet the criteria to satisfy the EU that they may become a member state. You make it sound unreasonable that Turkey become more European to the extent that they may join the EU, but: no-one's forcing them to join; if you want to join the scouts you have to wear the uniform. It's as simple as that.

Thats your point of view. I don't think the PEOPLE of turkey want to join, and they (the people) don't want to "Europeanise". The Goverment as you are referring to may want to join the EU. I fail to see how you came to this from my post: EU imposing "europeanisation"

As a people, I don't see how much unwanted change is necessary beyond adhering to new regulation. Like I said, no-one's demanding they suddenly become like Europeans as people. The EU requirements largely pertain to the government. No-one is asking the Turkish equilent of Joe Bloggs to recognise Cyprus - but the government must do. And I'm sure people who have been tortured by Turkish authorities aren't going to see the zero-tolerance on torture as giving into "Europeanisation". And I'm sure Turkish women aren't going to think that being granted equal rights is a comprimise too many either. Or does 'Turkish people' just mean men to you? Perhaps your statistics railing against the unrepresentative views of the government are unrepresentative of ALL of the Turkish people, of all religions and both genders.

My other point of Trade aggrements is just that, create a New Trade agrement with them, so the south east of europe and Turkey can trade better together and boost both economies.

So rather than comprimise and negotiation, you suggest Turkey do as they please and everyone else bend over backwards to boost their economy, an economy of a country with sexual inequality, religious segregation, and institutional corruption? Forgive me, but I'm with the EU if they don't quite see it your way.

 

[Skyhunter]

But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?

I am not against Mexico becoming the 51st state. I think most people in Louisiana would agree with me. Then they wouldn't be perceived as the poorest state in the Union

I do agree with your argument about European identity. I also agree that the
European union, as demonstrated by the failure to ratify a constitution, needs more work on the unity of the current members, before adding more and diverse nations to the mix.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I also agree that the
European union, as demonstrated by the failure to ratify a constitution, needs more work on the unity of the current members, before adding more and diverse nations to the mix.

People read too much into the failed constitution. The constitution was ultimately rejected by referenda, not by inter-state politics. It was the public who nayed it. The failure on the EU member states' part was putting any form of a constitution to public vote at a time when the EU was changing and, in terms of the member states' international politics, fragmenting. You don't honestly think a reasonable proportional of the people who voted actually read the damn thing do you? It was protest. It was not politics.

Of course, a pointless and comprimised constitution rushed through is no use to anyone anyway. But that's not why it was rejected.

 

[Anttech]

While I get the impression you're deliberately misinterpreting me,

I feel the exact same about you!

So rather than comprimise and negotiation, you suggest Turkey do as they please and everyone else bend over backwards to boost their economy, an economy of a country with sexual inequality, religious segregation, and institutional corruption? Forgive me, but I'm with the EU if they don't quite see it your way.

Explain to me where I say we bend over backwards?.. Where did I say they should do as they please? Then let them into the EU, You are sensationalising a point, that I never made!

Mate I am greek, born in the UK. I KNOW about Turkeys shortfalls. I am not condoing they be let in unconditionally..

I think you did. No-one expects Turkey to suddenly go all continental. No-one even demands that Turkey meet the criteria to satisfy the EU that they may become a member state. You make it sound unreasonable that Turkey become more European to the extent that they may join the EU, but: no-one's forcing them to join; if you want to join the scouts you have to wear the uniform. It's as simple as that.

Sorry you obviously can't read, or asymilate what i wrote.

Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"

Asymilate what you want, but what I was saying here is that Turkey won't "Europeanise", and I don't believe they need to. If they don't "Europeainse" then I believe there is no place for them in the EU.

I also believe from talking to MANY Turks they are not bothered.. They don't want to be in EU. But they do want fast cars more money etc etc... Thats there dilema

I think you miss the point. Turkey WANTS to join the EU.

I am not disputing there government wants too.. But I never referred to there goverment.I won't bother arguing with you, becuase we have no arguement... I aggree with most of what you were saying, yet you seem to think I dont...

whatever... Moral ---- just like E-mail a lot can get lost on a forum board!

 

[Skyhunter]

Of course, a pointless and comprimised constitution rushed through is no use to anyone anyway. But that's not why it was rejected.

Hmmm...sounds familiar...Oh yea they are going to vote on another one Saturday.

 

[vanesch]

Hmmm...sounds familiar...Oh yea they are going to vote on another one Saturday.

Well, at least the European one had 5 years of preparation and negociation behind it before ending up in the dustbin...

 

[vanesch]

You don't honestly think a reasonable proportional of the people who voted actually read the damn thing do you? It was protest. It was not politics.

I think it illustrates nevertheless the identity crisis Europe is going through, otherwise people would not have killed the constitution (even if it was for all the wrong reasons) ; if there were a strong "European" feeling that would have overcome national considerations, it wouldn't have gone that way. So one cannot explain away that no-vote so easily.
And, and... there is a very very serious practical problem that the shooting down of the constitution brought about. The constitution had a new decision mechanism of qualified majority, so that decisions that had a qualified majority were accepted. Until that text, the decision was taken by unanimity. You can do that with 10 or 12, but not with 25 or soon 27. There will always be one joker in the basket who thinks he can blackmail the others by saying "no". Margaret Tatcher invented that game. Austria did it recently. The others will soon learn the tricks. This means that ANY country, no matter how small, has a veto right against EVERY decision taken.
We don't even have a budget for after 2007. Blair and Chirac gave the bad example, but it is sufficient that, say, Malta and Cyprus have a disagreement over something and we won't have one.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think it illustrates nevertheless the identity crisis Europe is going through, otherwise people would not have killed the constitution (even if it was for all the wrong reasons) ; if there were a strong "European" feeling that would have overcome national considerations, it wouldn't have gone that way.

Oh, I quite agree, and I think I alluded to that myself earlier. I think the fragmentation may well last until a significant number of key players have stepped down or been voted out of office and some bright new spark can sell his bright new vision overseas. I don't know, I have a largely British perspective, and where once Europe was a hot topic, now no-one really wants to bring it up except the odd xenophobic conservative leader wannabe presumably fishing for the largely redundant UKIP's votes. A time of healing is required. Nonetheless, referenda on such a, symbolically at least, important decision invites failure (I think we discussed this before and you agreed? Maybe someone else) when so many parties, never in unity, are involved. So while I agree, and said myself, that climate killed it off swiftly, I'm not sure there's ever a good climate to accept a constitution in that manner.

So one cannot explain away that no-vote so easily.
And, and... there is a very very serious practical problem that the shooting down of the constitution brought about. The constitution had a new decision mechanism of qualified majority, so that decisions that had a qualified majority were accepted. Until that text, the decision was taken by unanimity. You can do that with 10 or 12, but not with 25 or soon 27.
There will always be one joker in the basket who thinks he can blackmail the others by saying "no".

That's the other side of the coin. I still think, however, you'll get a more resounding 'no' with 27 referenda than you would with even the EU's bureaucratic pi55ing contests. But, yes, unanimous endorsement, especially with referenda, does make you wonder if they think this will ever actually pass.

Margaret Tatcher invented that game.

No, the French invented that game, as I'm sure arildno could attest were he here (that would make an interesting sub-topic). Thatcher just raised the bar.

We don't even have a budget for after 2007. Blair and Chirac gave the bad example, but it is sufficient that, say, Malta and Cyprus have a disagreement over something and we won't have one.

I agree. I think the Blair/Chirac, subsidies/rebates debacle was kind of to illustrate a point. Blair went in demanding something he knew he wouldn't get, then came out talking about reform. Coincidence? Or sabotage?

 

[ron damon]

I'm not absolutely against it. The problem is not Turkey, the problem is Europe, which is suffering a huge identity crisis. What's Europe to be ? I would think that Europe is what has been rooted in Greek-Latin civilisation. Why ? Not because it is "superior" or something like that, simply because it is the common ground of much of what European nations have made what they are. Of course the spread of Christianity did a lot to "preserve this unity" and that's why some think that Europe should be based upon Christianity, but the roots are to be found earlier.
Now, geographically, that puts of course the entire coastline of the Mediterranean in the basket, but let's face it, the islam civilisation erased since long the Greek-Latin tradition on the African and Asian part of it.
Now, I think that in the long run, Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more. I also think that Russia could join, and the Maghreb countries, and the Black Sea countries and... where does it stop ?
By adding more and more countries with DIFFERENT culture to the melting pot, you get such a diluted "union" that it just becomes a trade place and that nothing beyond that can be decided.
With that silly shooting down of the European constitution, ANY decision needs to be taken by unanimity. It has been shown already that with 25 very like-minded countries, that's impossible for most things. If you add totally different countries to the soup, Europe will simply stop existing. Oh, yes, we'll still have our silly parliament, flag, and stuff like that, but NOTHING will happen anymore, except a free market and easier travelling.
But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?
So we should stop now thinking of what would be good for a country when they join Europe, and think more what would be good for Europe.
I would have said that if the Constitution were adopted, and if there were a positive "European" spirit within the union, then there would be no problem with taking in Turkey. But it is not the case at all. Many people within Europe are getting back to their nationalistic reflexes. And Turkey will not improve on it, believe me. I think that we need to stop enlarging for at least a generation, and build up a stronger Europe with the existing members.

But how do you think the Turkish people will react if after many decades of difficult reforms, implemented with an eye to joining Europe, they are rejected? Wouldn't turning the back on them just empower reactionary Muslim movements to take back power and turn back the clock on modernization?

You raise some very interesting points, mainly that the European Union should remain European. But, lacking the perspective of living in Europe myself, couldn't one make the argument that Turkey, unlike the Maghreb or the rest of Mediterranean, has imbibed enough of European culture to consider it just the last of the many waves of "barbarians" pouring in from central Asia, and who went on to build those fabulous European civilizations, from Portugal to Finland? In other words, I see them as the last stage of the millennium-long process of European formation.

What I think is the real worry of most Europeans, is that despite their professed toleration and acceptance of diverse cultures, they're afraid to have more Muslims living among them. Let me emphatically say first that this is not to condemn Europeans, and reduce their complex feelings to such pathetic labels as "racism", and garbage like that. But it is clear they are worried about their cultures being drowned and superseded by a people who to the moment have not being willing to play ball and enrich, rather than supplant, European culture. However, like I hinted at in the previous paragraph, Turkey will not behave anything like the Muslim immigrants you have at present, because unlike them, the Turks will feel at home in Europe, rather than strangers in a hostile environment.

Really, what it comes down to is, the communitarian-Leftist paradigms that you currently live under are not flexible enough to accommodate the rich variety of human experience, and thus, even while maintaining beautiful French, Austrian, German, or Spanish cultures, you are unable to evolve and adapt to a more universal global culture. What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards ), can't compete with dynamic Asia and America, nor generate economic growth, investment, and jobs, and ultimately will be reduced to a quaint, pretty, little forgotten corner of the world.

I've always been fascinated by (if not in love with) Europe, but sadly I realize you are a tired people, exhausted by having given birth to the modern mind and all its wonders, and longing for some quiet and tranquility, just wanting to be left alone in the sidelines of History.

 

[Anttech]

What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards

Have you any idea how many Muslims live in Europe right now? how many Doctors are, how many 'city' folk in the riches area of Europe (London City) there are? Probably more than you can imagine.

But how do you think the Turkish people will react if after many decades of difficult reforms, implemented with an eye to joining Europe, they are rejected?

Turkey didnt start reforming to join Europe, They started reforming at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

I think you should read up a bit on the history of that area, if you want to have more perceptive on the reasons behind letting Turkey in or not…

I've always been fascinated by (if not in love with) Europe, but sadly I realize you are a tired people, exhausted by having given birth to the modern mind and all its wonders, and longing for some quiet and tranquility, just wanting to be left alone in the sidelines of History.

Lol why do you think this? If this was the case, why are we so engaged in making history, with sciences, politics, arts, music?

 

[vanesch]

But how do you think the Turkish people will react if after many decades of difficult reforms, implemented with an eye to joining Europe, they are rejected? Wouldn't turning the back on them just empower reactionary Muslim movements to take back power and turn back the clock on modernization?

In a way, yes. So there are people who say that, because of that reason, we are now OBLIGED to take in Turkey in the long run, because you cannot ask of them to do all what we ask of them, just to say no in the end. And there are others who think that, if we were to say no, this would be such a slap in the face of Turkey that they'd turn away (towards radical islamism, for instance). That's exactly why I regret that we are talking already about integration in the EU, and not about a partnership.

Really, what it comes down to is, the communitarian-Leftist paradigms that you currently live under are not flexible enough to accommodate the rich variety of human experience, and thus, even while maintaining beautiful French, Austrian, German, or Spanish cultures, you are unable to evolve and adapt to a more universal global culture.

Don't you think you're a bit suffering from that universally hated complex of superiority your nation is sometimes known for ?
The way you guys are "evolving and adapt to a more universal global culture" is by thinking that you should bomb all those who are not willing to adapt to YOUR standards and value system. When is the last time you "evolved and adapted" something else than your home brew ?

What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards ),

US: 1% Muslim
Germany: 2.6% of the population is Turkish ; 3.7% Muslim
France: 5-10% Muslim
UK: 2.7% Muslim
Netherlands: 5.5 % Muslim
(from the CIA factbook)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards ),

Could this be any more ignorant?

 

[Anttech]

Could this be any more ignorant?

I doubt it...

I thought this was "quant"

but sadly I realize you are a tired people, exhausted by having given birth to the modern mind and all its wonders, and longing for some quiet and tranquility, just wanting to be left alone in the sidelines of History.

Arent we just so Quant and Cute, us Europeans

 

[ron damon]

Could this be any more ignorant?

Could you be more of a jerk?

From Cornell University:

American Muslims are Affluent
U.S. Average income is $42,158 per year (U.S. Census 2000)
66% of American Muslim HH’s earn over $50,000 / year
26% of American Muslim HH’s earn over $100,000 / year

From Policy Review:

Immigrant Muslims tend to concentrate in the professional and entrepreneurial vocations, and especially in engineering and medicine, which jointly employ about one-third of Muslims in the United States. With such high educational levels, it comes as no surprise that many members of this community have done well; average income for Muslims appears to be higher than the U.S. national average. Although new, the community boasts a good share of millionaires as well as many other accomplished individuals (including one Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Ahmed H. Zewail, and such notables as the movie actor Omar Sharif, the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon, and the model Iman). Muslim Americans proudly say that theirs is “the richest Muslim society on earth” (as Muqtedar Khan put it in the December 1995 edition of the Message), and they are right; more than that, it may be the most accomplished.

From Foreign Affairs:

Unlike their U.S. counterparts, who entered a gigantic country built on immigration, most Muslim newcomers to western Europe started arriving only after World War II, crowding into small, culturally homogenous nations. Their influx was a new phenomenon for many host states and often unwelcome. Meanwhile, North African immigrants retained powerful attachments to their native cultures. So unlike American Muslims, who are geographically diffuse, ethnically fragmented, and generally well off, Europe's Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots: Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Turks in Germany, and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom.

The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter. In Europe, host countries that never learned to integrate newcomers collide with immigrants exceptionally retentive of their ways, producing a variant of what the French scholar Olivier Roy calls "globalized Islam": militant Islamic resentment at Western dominance, anti-imperialism exalted by revivalism.

As the French academic Gilles Kepel acknowledges, "neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children ... full fellow citizens." Small wonder, then, that a radical leader of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, a group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, curses his new homeland: "Oh sweet France! Are you astonished that so many of your children commune in a stinging naal bou la France [**** France], and damn your Fathers?"

I'm not in the mood for dealing with Leftist meanness, so I'm done with this topic.

And I came to Physics Forums looking for intelligent people to have political conversations with, outside the usual aggressiveness and knee-jerk attitudes found in more pedestrian forums. So much for the notion that scientists are endowed with a higher capacity for intelligent debate.

 

[Anttech]

In the Uk we have 1 person from the ubijanatingonismologicolickasimsisation. Funny enough this person earns 100,000$/mnth...
Hey guess what the ubijanatingonismologicolickasimsisatits on 'average' make way more money than Oxford or Cambrige grads do (per month)!
Strange world we live in?

 

[meL]

You people aren't talking about
anything here.

The power structure is greed.

It is all useless.