OT: Europe's Problem--And Ours

The Ultimate On-Line Whistle Community. If you find one more ultimater, let us know.
User avatar
claudine
Posts: 1128
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Hi, I am a choir singer from Luxembourg trying to get back to Irish flute playing after a few years of absence from ITM.
Location: Luxembourg

Post by claudine »

DCrom wrote: The recent upswing in rhetoric, vandalism, and violence towards Jews makes at least some of us wonder - are we wrong for remembering, or are you wrong for forgetting?
I do NOT forget. I have seen KZs and have talked to survivors of the camps. I have read books, seen pictures. I am strongly opposed to all forms of racism or antisemitism. There have been victims of nazism in my own family. Why do you think that you care more than me?

We do not forget the horror. Every village in Luxembourg (and in France) has a monument for local deads of the 2 WWs, which includes those who were shot by the Nazis (standrechtlich erschossen). I have also seen the military cimetaries - those where the GIs lie, and also those were the German soldiers lie (some of them not older than 17).

But it is not right to treat today's generations as if they were guilty of the crimes that happened long before they were born. I'm just tired of hearing the same nonsense again and again.

P.S: Edited to delete some caustic content. I don't want another unnecessary flame war. So I'm out of this topic.
User avatar
DCrom
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by DCrom »

claudine wrote:
DCrom wrote: The recent upswing in rhetoric, vandalism, and violence towards Jews makes at least some of us wonder - are we wrong for remembering, or are you wrong for forgetting?
I do NOT forget. I have seen KZs and have talked to survivors of the camps. I have read books, seen pictures. I am strongly opposed to all forms of racism or antisemitism. There have been victims of nazism in my own family. Why do you think that you care more than me?

We do not forget the horror. Every village in Luxembourg (and in France) has a monument for local deads of the 2 WWs, which includes those who were shot by the Nazis (standrechtlich erschossen). I have also seen the military cimetaries - those where the GIs lie, and also those were the German soldiers lie (some of them not older than 17).

But it is not right to treat today's generations as if they were guilty of the crimes that happened long before they were born. I'm just tired of hearing the same nonsense again and again.
Actually, I aimed that at *all* modern Europeans, not specifically the Germans (who I think, because of the distrust they have endured, do far better in this regard today than France does).

Blaming it all on those nasty Nazis, now defeated, makes it easier to ignore enduring prejudices.
I find it interesting, and sad, that you view the United States as your enemy. Though I disagree, strongly, with many of the political stances taken by some of the leading western European countries, I differentiate strongly between "I don't agree with them" and "they are my enemy".
Ok, enemy is probably not the right word. Maybe adversary? How do you call someone who speaks to you in words of intimidation and reproach, someone who is definitely more powerful and who doesn't respect international laws?
cheap shot: France? From my perhaps biased perspective I've seen as much "intimidation and reproach" and "doesn't respect international laws?" (except when it suits them) from the current French government as my own.

With, though dressed up as morality, no justification beyond naked self-interest and a truly breathtaking narrowness of vision.
I'm also grateful that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the US is *not* really interested in world conquest. To put it bluntly: as things stand today if we were willing to use our armament as ruthlessly as our opponents claim we could defeat (in a purely modern military contest) any other nation.
What if the rich oil fields were in Europe instead of Iraq, and what if USA desperately needed more oil? I imagine some governments might be able to find some reasons for another "just war".

Saddam wasn't your enemy either. He was an evil dictator, but he was not a menace for your country.
Let's see: He says he's our enemy, he's doing his best to look like our enemy, he won't let us inspect to see if he still has the weapons that all (including the UN) agree he used to have (and he agreed to as a cease-fire condition last time around), he is openly funding terrorists in the west Bank (I know - that's ok, just because it's against those nasty Jews), there is at least some evidence he may be slipping information/aid to Al Quida (who most definately are our enemies . . .

He did his best to make himself look dangerous. And succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.

So: we either took out a real enemy or (worst case) deposed a vile, evil, dictator who did his best to look like a real enemy. I can live with that. And it looks a far sight more moral than the EU leaderships blind opportunism.

This was a war for oil - being fought with words by the governments of Germany, France, and Russia. Pfui.
Last edited by DCrom on Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GaryKelly
Posts: 3090
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:09 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Swindon UK

Post by GaryKelly »

TelegramSam wrote:Or you could just ignore me completely, that's great too...
Sorry, TelegramSam, I wasn't ignoring you; The first paragraph of my last post
was an attempt at expressing total concurrence with you. I simply omitted to address
my remarks to you personally (mea culpa).

But for Elendil et al, I really believe this Weigel piece is nothing more
than Anti-Muslim propaganda cleverly designed to appeal specifically to "God Bless
America" Patriotism. And no, there's nothing wrong with patriotism, nor "God Bless America".

Elendil suggests I've ignored (or more accurately am obdurately resisting) simple, non-invidious statements of fact... But there are no facts in Weigel's article. Merely cunningly crafted and juxtaposed questions designed to have the reader believe that the questions are statements of fact:

For those who can't be bothered to wade through the whole article, here's an executive summary:

1. There's a problem in Europe, and watch out America it's coming here too!
2. Europe's population is falling (we're killing ourselves, apparently).
3. Europeans don't believe in God any more and are turning their places of worship into museums (gasp, you have to pay to get in too!).
4. There's a shedload of muslim fundamentalists in Europe and they're insidioiusly worming their way into society and acquiring political power.
5. Europe is doomed to become a massive Islamic Fundamentalist power-base. Which
will threaten the USA. And watch out guys, it's happening here too.

Throw in a bunch of tedious and irrelevant out-of-context quotes, and pseudo-intellectual jingoism to add a touch of academic plausibility, and there you have it. Goebbels would have been proud of this piece.

He hooks you with the title "The European Problem..." (hey, bud, we all know Europe's a problem right?) "...And Ours" (holy spit! Ours?)

Then he presents some "facts" to tie the line to the hook:

"why is Europe systematically depopulating itself?
"Why is Europe committing demographic suicide?
"Why does no Western European country have a replacement-level birthrate?
"Why will Spain’s population likely decline from 40 million to 31.3 million by the middle of the century?
"Why will 42 percent of Italians be over age sixty by 2050?
"What is happening when an entire continent, wealthier and healthier than ever before, declines to create the human future in the most elemental sense, by producing a next generation?
"Why will Europeans not admit that these demographics—which are without parallel in human history, absent wars, plagues, or natural catastrophes—are the defining reality of their twenty-first century?"

To answer the last question first, because it's all bollocks.

Weigel gives no footnotes, no references, no readily-verifiable authenticated sources for his "facts".

Notice how very clever the juxtaposition of the questions are, and how craftily he makes you think there are facts here by giving a date, a couple of numbers, and a percentage.

Why does he not give figures for all European countries and for the USA? And why no sources? Because if 42 percent of Italians are over age 60 TODAY, his question is meaningless. Even if we believe his figures...thank you medical science for extending the average lifespan (and not just in Italy).

As for Spain, why single them out? (because they don't believe in God any more, are bad catholics, and are obviously practicing safe sex, the dirty heathen rascals). Where are the predicted demographics for the USA and the rest of the world...who knows, maybe the rising tide of oestrogen in our waterways is indeed to blame for the rising incidence of male infertility and falling birth-rates (thank you again, medical science, The Pill, and HRT).

Weigel doesn't say, of course. He wants you to believe we're all doomed over here...

Having established in the reader's mind that Europe is committing suicide and can't handle the world the way it once did (references to WWII, and another shedload of subliminal-implant questions like "Why do European states find it virtually impossible to make hard domestic political decisions—as on the length of the work week or the funding of pensions?" no evidence, by the way, just questions, and this from a bloke who lives in the land of 401k...hope your pension isn't in European stocks and shares chaps)
Weigel then adds more Plausible Academia with another bunch of questions:

"Why are so many European public intellectuals “Christophobic,” as international legal scholar J. H. H. Weiler (himself an observant Jew) puts it? Why is European high culture so enamored of the present and so contemptuous of both religious and secular tradition, as French philosopher Rémi Brague has pointed out?

(holy spit doods, he's quoting, uhm, some people we never heard of...one of them's a Jew, obviously a really religious fellow!...and a philosopher! it must be true!!)

Then of course the whole point of the message:

"One can see the effects of Europe’s self-inflicted depopulation in the tensions experienced in France, Germany, and elsewhere by rising tides of immigration from North Africa, Turkey, and other parts of the Islamic world."

"a Europe increasingly influenced, and perhaps even dominated, by radicalized Islamic populations, convinced that their long-delayed triumph in the European heartland is at hand."

To make all this work, of course, he has to appeal to the traditional and religious values which (and here I confess I'm on thin ice) are taught to every American child from day one of school. And so the specious claims in respect of modern Europeans all becoming godless heathens, turning our backs on our good W.A.S.P heritage. Sigh. Really.

No facts. Nothing more than nasty anti-muslim propaganda. Cleverly done and plausible. (I did wonder why on earth John Rhys-Davies, the Welsh actor who played Gimli in LOTR, soundly started spouting all this kind of BS while he was being interviewed about his role in the films. Now I know why...he'd obviously read this stuff and like many others,
believed it without thinking, and without asking questions. Someone posted the link to the interview on the forum, but I can't find it at the moment).

But let's be honest...if the Mayflower hove to off the coast of MA today, you can pretty much bet that all 101 of the Pilgrims would promptly be labelled Religious Fundamentalists, arrested, and whisked off to an open-air cage somewhere in Cuba in no time at all. Weigel would doubtless be happy about that.
Image "It might be a bit better to tune to one of my fiddle's open strings, like A, rather than asking me for an F#." - Martin Milner
User avatar
Bloomfield
Posts: 8225
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Bloomfield »

DCrom wrote:Actually, I aimed that at *all* modern Europeans, not specifically the Germans (who I think, because of the distrust they have endured, do far better in this regard today than France does).

Blaming it all on those nasty Nazis, now defeated, makes it easier to ignore enduring prejudices.
Who exactly blamed the Nazis for what here?
/Bloomfield
TelegramSam
Posts: 2258
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by TelegramSam »

bloom, I think it had something to do with anti-semitism, but I'm not sure.
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
User avatar
Bloomfield
Posts: 8225
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Bloomfield »

TelegramSam wrote:bloom, I think it had something to do with anti-semitism, but I'm not sure.
What I meant is: claudine responded to elendils "The Poles are Courageous Warriors" post by saying that WWII and the 12-years of the Nazis were over, and that Polish valour then isn't really enough in her mind to make her want to shell out for the Polish buying US weapons.

And now we have DCrom telling us blaming "it all" on the nasty Nazis makes it easer to ignore enduring prejudices.

It just makes wonder what has got lost in the transition.

(Not to mention that I am trying not to let on how very offended I am by DCrom saying "are you wrong for forgetting" to someone from Luxembourg.)
/Bloomfield
User avatar
DCrom
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by DCrom »

TelegramSam wrote:bloom, I think it had something to do with anti-semitism, but I'm not sure.
I was replying, perhaps in error, to Claudine's contention that I was unfairly blaming someone (implicitly, modern Germans) for anti-Semitism during the Nazi era.

Since I had specifically mentioned current instantances of anti-Semitism, many of them in France, I felt I needed to clarify myself.

For the record: though I think that Israel is in the wrong on settlements on the West Bank (unjustifiable from any practical or moral standpoint, but a constant stick with which their opponents can beat them), the willingness amoung EU to equate that with the out-and-out-terror campaign that is openly sponsored by the Palestinian Authority shows a truly remarkable amount of self-willed moral blindness. And the statements issued condemning Israel for measures like the security fence while either ignoring or applauding Arafat and his bloody-handed minions just reeks of the open Jew-baiting supposedly condemned to the musty past. As do the vandalism and violence directed against Jews in both France and Germany.
Last edited by DCrom on Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
U2
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Lubbock, TX
Contact:

Post by U2 »

Bloom wrote: . . .(Not to mention that I am trying not to let on how very offended I am by DCrom saying "are you wrong for forgetting" to someone from Luxembourg.)"

I second that opinion.
User avatar
DCrom
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by DCrom »

U2 wrote:Bloom wrote: . . .(Not to mention that I am trying not to let on how very offended I am by DCrom saying "are you wrong for forgetting" to someone from Luxembourg.)"

I second that opinion.
Sorry if I offended either of you - or Claudine - on this score. If so, it was entirely unintentional, since my focus was on current events, and when I mentioned long-standing European anti-semitism I meant it in the context of the last several centuries, or even millennia. And I wanted to make it clear I was *not* limiting it to the horrors of the Nazi era, but the background from which those horrors grew.

I should, perhaps, have phrased my reply to here to make that clearer. But I will stand by what I meant, even as I apologize for how it was perceived.

If you - any of you - still find it offensive, I'm truly sorry. But I will have to stand by what I believe.
Last edited by DCrom on Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jon-M
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Holyoke, MA

Post by Jon-M »

So, Bloomfield, just out of curiosity, what do you make of Hume? Surely, he is as impersonal and analytical as they come? Perhaps it is just American English that is somehow at fault here? (They do say that the British and the Americans are divided by a common language).
U2
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Lubbock, TX
Contact:

Post by U2 »

DCrom - I accept your explanation.
User avatar
pthouron
Posts: 608
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:30 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Nutley, NJ, US
Contact:

Post by pthouron »

DCrom wrote: Let's see: He says he's our enemy, he's doing his best to look like our enemy, he won't let us inspect to see if he still has the weapons that all (including the UN) agree he used to have (and he agreed to as a cease-fire condition last time around), he is openly funding terrorists in the west Bank (I know - that's ok, just because it's against those nasty Jews)
Stop putting words in the mouths of people. Nobody says it's ok because they're nasty Jews. By saying this, you're doing exactly what the Bush administration is doing: distorting the truth to make your point. Incidentally, this is also a two way street: there's plenty the Israeli government does to Palestinians that is morally reprehensible, but I don't hear you arguing THAT point.
DCrom wrote:there is at least some evidence he may be slipping information/aid to Al Quida (who most definately are our enemies . . .
Last time I checked there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of any connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. Keeping on repeating it does not make it so. Even Powell admitted to that.
DCrom wrote:He did his best to make himself look dangerous. And succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.

So: we either took out a real enemy or (worst case) deposed a vile, evil, dictator who did his best to look like a real enemy. I can live with that. And it looks a far sight more moral than the EU leaderships blind opportunism.

This was a war for oil - being fought with words by the governments of Germany, France, and Russia. Pfui.
Everybody agrees that Saddam was evil and the world a better place without him, BUT this is not what was sold to us as a reason to go to war. Now that the real reason turned out to be phony, this administration is turning to the alternate reason. It still remains that the American public was deceived.
User avatar
DCrom
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by DCrom »

U2 wrote:DCrom - I accept your explanation.
Thanks. Though we come in all political stripes here, I regard people here as my friends.

I'm willing to argue - passionately! - for those beliefs I hold most strongly, but I do listen to others, too. And though it's hard, I can be - and on occasion, have been - persuaded to change my views on a subject.
U2
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Lubbock, TX
Contact:

Post by U2 »

DCrom wrote:
U2 wrote:DCrom - I accept your explanation.
Thanks. Though we come in all political stripes here, I regard people here as my friends.
Just to be clear - I'm accepting that you didn't intend to offend anyone. But I do not see the accusation that someone else has forgotten Nazi Germany's crimes as a product of differing politics. I see that suggestion as an imposition, a replacement (if you will) of their position, with one they never stated. I'm not really certain you yet see the error in that.
User avatar
DCrom
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by DCrom »

pthouron wrote:
DCrom wrote: Let's see: He says he's our enemy, he's doing his best to look like our enemy, he won't let us inspect to see if he still has the weapons that all (including the UN) agree he used to have (and he agreed to as a cease-fire condition last time around), he is openly funding terrorists in the west Bank (I know - that's ok, just because it's against those nasty Jews)
Stop putting words in the mouths of people. Nobody says it's ok because they're nasty Jews. By saying this, you're doing exactly what the Bush administration is doing: distorting the truth to make your point. Incidentally, this is also a two way street: there's plenty the Israeli government does to Palestinians that is morally reprehensible, but I don't hear you arguing THAT point.
Actually, I agree with you on this. And I suspect the majority of people in Israel might agree with you on some points (I was amazed at the bitterness I've heard on the issues of settlements and the exclusion of religious students from military service by more secular Israelis - the religious parties can afford to be among the most hard-line: their sons don't need to serve).

There are no entirely unstained hands in this, but it's fairly easy for me to choose between the flawed and the utterly repugnant - which is precisely how I'd describe the actions of the two sides.

DCrom wrote:there is at least some evidence he may be slipping information/aid to Al Quida (who most definately are our enemies . . .
Last time I checked there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of any connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. Keeping on repeating it does not make it so. Even Powell admitted to that.
Evidence of full cooperation - no. There is, I believe, evidence of a certain amount of information flow and tacit aid (passports, free passage, etc)

And given the state of hostility that existed between us, and Hussain's unwillingness to cooperate in disproving it, as well as his open support of other terrorists (such as Hussain's much-heralded support for the families of suicide bombers), I believe action was justified on that count alone.
DCrom wrote:He did his best to make himself look dangerous. And succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.

So: we either took out a real enemy or (worst case) deposed a vile, evil, dictator who did his best to look like a real enemy. I can live with that. And it looks a far sight more moral than the EU leaderships blind opportunism.

This was a war for oil - being fought with words by the governments of Germany, France, and Russia. Pfui.
Everybody agrees that Saddam was evil and the world a better place without him, BUT this is not what was sold to us as a reason to go to war. Now that the real reason turned out to be phony, this administration is turning to the alternate reason. It still remains that the American public was deceived.
And if you look at last year's State of the Union message, or Bush's speechs to Congress justifying the war, you would see these were NOT listed as the only, or main, justification for war. Anti-war people keep repeating this, but the full text of the speeches don't back this up.

BTW - Clinton in 1998 stated that "unquestionably" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. UN reports a year or so after that 1999-2000 made the same claim. Maybe Hussain had fooled all of them. Maybe he had destroyed them all. Maybe - given the several months of delay imposted by UN shilly-shallyiing - he was able to destroy, bury, or send them from the country. But it was only after the war that people dared to started claiming Bush made it all up.
Post Reply