NationStates Jolt Archive

The French Revolution
"The French Revolution of 2007 has not seen heads roll but has involved the destruction of 10 taboos as President Nicolas Sarkozy assumes the role of Europe’s most dynamic leader."

THE AMERICAN TABOO Enthusiasm for the United States was unacceptable for a French political leader because it was always interpreted as an embrace of “Wild West” capitalism, “Anglo-Saxon” hegemony and vulgarity. De rigueur attitudes held sway: patronizing contempt in Paris met macho derision in Washington. Communication suffered. Sarko’s New Hampshire vacation, enthused American dreaming, iPod-accompanied jogging and in-your-face style cleared the air.

THE AGRICULTURAL TABOO No French president could seem uncomfortable patting the backside of a cow. This gesture, at the annual Paris Agricultural Fair, communicated a leader’s link to the land and to deepest France. But the only cows known to Sarko, city dweller par excellence, are on cheese packages. The vache political credential is dead; French urban politicos no longer feel cowed.

THE MONEY TABOO “To live happy, live hidden” goes a French saying. Few things were more hidden than contacts between presidents and the rich. François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac had well-heeled friends, but, knowing that the French tend to think that wealth equals theft, or something close, they kept those ties quiet. Sarkozy, with his Rolexes and penchant for the yachts of millionaire friends, has broadcast that money’s O.K.

THE CULTURAL TABOO To run France, you had to be cultured. Mitterrand’s bookish references and Delphic utterances (“A president must know how to be bored”) positioned him as too clever to contest. Chirac had a recherché passion for Japan. Culture — like cows but on a different level — connected the president to the Gallic eternal. Sarko, an American movie buff, is more at home with Johnny Hallyday than Jean-Paul Sartre.

THE MIDEAST TABOO Strong French ties and traditions in the Middle East dictated coolness toward Israel. Chirac let slip that an Iranian nuclear bomb might be acceptable, before saying he’d misspoken. Now Sarkozy, forthright in his support of Israel, declares that “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran” may be the terrible choice looming; his foreign minister says the world should “prepare for the worst” in Iran, meaning war. Iran is no Arab country, but these utterances betray a changed politique Arabe.

THE RUSSIAN TABOO Moscow was France’s offsetting power to the United States. For many cold-war years, the French left struggled to decide what was worse: Soviet totalitarianism or American imperialism. Some of the French right was undecided, too. Later, Chirac suggested “neo-liberalism” — unfettered market forces — was as much a danger in the 21st century as totalitarianism in the 20th. Weak-kneed moral equivalency often placed Paris in a halfway house between Washington and Moscow. Sarkozy is clear: American democracy beats Russian authoritarianism, just as U.S. freedom beat Soviet enslavement.

THE WORK TABOO Working hard to get rich was un-Gallic. Working less — a 35-hour week — to feel happy (in theory) was French. Sarkozy now praises those who “get up early.” In the land of “I think, therefore I am,” his finance minister declares: “Enough of thought! Let’s roll up our sleeves.” Sarkoland’s slogan: “I work, therefore I am.”

THE FAR-RIGHT TABOO For decades, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s xenophobic National Front prospered on an untouchable flank. Sarkozy has undermined this bigoted party with some bigotry of his own about French national identity and a campaign to deport illegal immigrants. At the same time, he’s been franker than the left about France’s problem with immigrants and named Rachida Dati, the daughter of a Moroccan laborer and Algerian cleaning lady, as justice minister.

THE NATO TABOO There’s talk of France rejoining the integrated military command of the alliance, unthinkable since Charles de Gaulle hauled the country out in a huff in 1966.

THE IVY LEAGUE TABOO The passport to government office was always attendance at the École Nationale d’Administration, where future ministers acquired the mind-numbing skill of saying they had seven points to make and remembering all seven without notes. Sarko loathes such Ivy League clubbiness. He prefers an egghead-lite government.

The bulk of this taboo-smashing is positive because it has stripped away paralyzing French hypocrisy, opened the way for unfettered French-American discussion and cleared a possible path to tackling chronic high unemployment.

The calculated use of anti-immigrant rhetoric is troubling, and I’m worried by the loose talk on Iran. But I’ll go on embracing Sarkozy while waiting to see if he’s a revolutionary in action as well as in words.

Well, what do you guys think? I'd also like if you guys, not only vote in the poll but also explain which you do or do not like. :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/opinion/20cohen.html?ex=1191124800&en=8f89260444500ab2&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Oh and please vote in the poll.

In other words, the New York Times is praising Sarkozy for trying to turn France into an American satellite state.

In other words, the New York Times is praising Sarkozy for trying to turn France into an American satellite state.
Oh yes because convincing your country to work hard, not ally with the Arabs and getting tough on your immigration problems makes you an American satellite.....

What's wrong with allying with Arabs? You could read a lot into that.

I'm against it - for the most part.

Admittedly it's been about 18 months since I was last in france, but the whole being 'lazy' thing seemed to be working out just fine for them. I don't see why that should have to change and anyway the world needs a countering viewpoint to the US/UK apple polisher attitude.

Nor is there anything wrong with expecting senior government officials to be able to remember stuff without referring to notes. (Though that little snipe is probably more a function of the clear inadequacy of the US university system than an actual criticism of France).

I can see why there has been a shift in policy in respect of the M.E. However, I would imagine that is more because of domestic politics rather than a desire to accommodate the US.

What's wrong with allying with Arabs?
Uh.....Howww much time yaaa got?

Uh.....Howww much time yaaa got?

A lot.

What's wrong with allying with Arabs? You could read a lot into that.

America already is allied with many Arab states including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. I see no reason why France shouldn't also.

A lot.

now watch him say "they are brown" reeeeaaaaaaalllyyy reeeeaaaalllyy slowly.

now watch him say "they are brown" reeeeaaaaaaalllyyy reeeeaaaalllyy slowly.

I was hoping for something like that.

Actually, it's a lack of marmite that causes the problems in the middle east.

It has nothing to do with being brown. However your PC humour has made me change my ways, and I will henceforth refer to all arabs as brown.

America already is allied with many Arab states including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. I see no reason why France shouldn't also.
America shouldn't be "allied" with any Arab nations and neither should France. I hate that about America's addiction to oil.
A lot.
The Arab nations are culturally backwards, socially oppressive, tend to be fanatical, have a barbaric religion that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has not gone through it's reformation/enlightenment, are anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, participate in inhuman actions against converters, women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals or breaks of religous laws.......ect ect ect. I could go on forever, and while I'm sure you can pick out some that don't apply to country Arab A, but then they do apply to Arab country B.

The Arab world is a shithole and the Western World should not make alliances with Arab countries until they civilize themselves.

Actually, it's a lack of marmite that causes the problems in the middle east.

What an amusingly nonsensical statement! Please follow up with a series of non-sequiturs to maximise the hilarity.

America shouldn't be "allied" with any Arab nations and neither should France. I hate that about America's addiction to oil.

The Arab nations are culturally backwards, socially oppressive, tend to be fanatical, have a barbaric religion that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has not gone through it's reformation/enlightenment, are anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, participate in inhuman actions against converters, women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals or breaks of religous laws.......ect ect ect. I could go on forever, and while I'm sure you can pick out some that don't apply to country Arab A, but then they do apply to Arab country B.

The Arab world is a shithole and the Western World should not make alliances with Arab countries until they civilize themselves.

you really are an exceptionally arrogant little toerag aren't you.

What an amusingly nonsensical statement! Please follow up with a series of non-sequiturs to maximise the hilarity.

It's actually true. Though I'm not surprised you aren't aware of it. It's a well known fact that diet influences behaviour - a point I think no one will gainsay - and the introduction of marmite to the middle eastern diet would facilitate the uptake of zinc from their otherwise impoverished diet: thus reducing the well known aggression levels of middle eastern men.

An arab "knock knock" joke:

"Knock knock"

"Who is there?"

"NO! IT IS YOU WHO ARE WRONG!!!!"


Of course they could just stop eating unleavened bread too. But that's a bit of a cultural imposition.

you really are an exceptionally arrogant little toerag aren't you.


Oh was that a flame? I should report you. Perhaps you should behave yourself and make debate instead of calling names. How mature of you.

Oh was that a flame? I should report you. Perhaps you should behave yourself and make debate instead of calling names. How mature of you.

Your post did radiate strong A-rays.

Your post did radiate strong A-rays.
Yes, that's fascinating, however...mind returning to the actual discussion instead of whatever exactly it is you're doing?

At this point discussion will be reduced to: 'arabs suck' 'NO U'.

At this point discussion will be reduced to: 'arabs suck' 'NO U'.

Well you failed to address my marmite point. So I don't think you have a particular moral high ground from which to make these statements.

America shouldn't be "allied" with any Arab nations and neither should France. I hate that about America's addiction to oil.

.........I'll make no comment on this part.

The Arab nations are culturally backwards, socially oppressive, tend to be fanatical, have a barbaric religion that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has not gone through it's reformation/enlightenment, are anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, participate in inhuman actions against converters, women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals or breaks of religous laws.......ect ect ect. I could go on forever, and while I'm sure you can pick out some that don't apply to country Arab A, but then they do apply to Arab country B.

The Arab world is a shithole and the Western World should not make alliances with Arab countries until they civilize themselves.

And where would your proof be located? I want to see your proof that these nations in the Middle East are backwards. Until then, i'm going to consider that comment one of a person who doesn't really know what they are talking about.

Until I can see proof of this little 'oppinion' of yours, then I'm going to take that little ramble of yours as pure crap.

Well you failed to address my marmite point. So I don't think you have a particular moral high ground from which to make these statements.

What point?

America shouldn't be "allied" with any Arab nations and neither should France. I hate that about America's addiction to oil.


Reasonable...

The Arab nations are culturally backwards, socially oppressive, tend to be fanatical, have a barbaric religion that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has not gone through it's reformation/enlightenment, are anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, participate in inhuman actions against converters, women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals or breaks of religous laws.......ect ect ect. I could go on forever, and while I'm sure you can pick out some that don't apply to country Arab A, but then they do apply to Arab country B.

The Arab world is a shithole and the Western World should not make alliances with Arab countries until they civilize themselves.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/Syphus/HowSmart.jpg

What point?

That eating marmite would make them more peaceful. Honestly, you are such a product of the western education-industrial complex.

I think France, America and Canada should all form one huge nation. We can call it 'The United Republican Dominions of Mexico and the Middle East Suck.'

Well you failed to address my marmite point. So I don't think you have a particular moral high ground from which to make these statements.

Let's see, with The Atlantean "Yay Pinochet!" island's "Muslims are backwards barbarians" rant on this thread which reads a lot like your sentimental posting history, Mr. "I Declare a Fatwa on Michael Moore because I want everyone to really think I'm a true Muslim and that all Muslims are Al Qaeda Operatives" He's got some ground. You're walking on air like Wile E. Coyote.

:rolleyes:

It's actually true. Though I'm not surprised you aren't aware of it. It's a well known fact that diet influences behaviour - a point I think no one will gainsay - and the introduction of marmite to the middle eastern diet would facilitate the uptake of zinc from their otherwise impoverished diet: thus reducing the well known aggression levels of middle eastern men.
First of all, I seem to have missed anything "well known" about aggressive middle eastern men.

Secondly, there is of course some grain of truth to every story: http://www.foresight-preconception.org.uk/booklet_zinc.htm

Thirdly, what are you gonna feed those types in the west who think they're the faultless victims of aggression?

Fourth: you're funny. I loled.

Fourth: you're funny. I loled.

The proper term is Lol'd.

Let's see, with The Atlantean "Yay Pinochet!" island's "Muslims are backwards barbarians" rant on this thread which reads a lot like your sentimental posting history, Mr. "I Declare a Fatwa on Michael Moore because I want everyone to really think I'm a true Muslim and that all Muslims are Al Qaeda Operatives" He's got some ground. You're walking on air like Wile E. Coyote.

:rolleyes:

The Micheal Moore thing had nothing to do with Al Queda. As you well know.

In some ways, I have a lot of sympathy for Al Queda. We should stop messing with their business. At the same time, western liberal values are incompatible with islam. So muslims should live in the muslim countries, and everyone else should live in the non muslim countries.

But I digress. I was at least offering a possible solution to the cycle of violence.

What's wrong with allying with Arabs? You could read a lot into that.

There is nothing wrong with allying with Arab allies. A nation needs to make sure they are allies with the right ones. The US is allied with many arabic nations as well as France.

Thirdly, what are you gonna feed those types in the west who think they're the faultless victims of aggression?


Vegemite obviously.

The proper term is Lol'd.

Hey, I made a german laugh. That's like getting a gold medal in the Olympics or something.

I consider myself tolerant and progressive, yet I will step in here to back up AI in that the Arab nations, like most of the world's nations outside the priveliged few in the developed sphere, are inhospitable shitholes.

This doesn't directly reflect on Arabs solely, as it has much more to do with economic factors than social ones (i.e. their social backwardness stems from their economic development, and not the other way around).

Now, that being said, I do not agree that this means we should not ally with them (economically or otherwise). Transparency in freedom in our dealings with the lesser developed will allow the flow of capital and ideas neccesary to naturally bring development and trade.

It seems that America have a problem with Arab countries. First Iran is not only non-arab but is more or less the ennemy of some arab countries, mainly because of religion or the persian sea. Chiism is not sunnism.
Sarkozy is an arrogant stupid person (my opinion) and Kouchner his puppet. I'm French, if I need to clarify this point. France doesn't need to be the little dog of Republicans from the US. And our relations with Arab countries are essential because of the huge population from Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan origin (don't know how many, maybe more than 10% of the population, but here there's no segregation about what Americans called 'race') . And people from Lebanon where a lot of people speak French. And Libyan... huh... forget it.
We don't need to be allied with one instead of another: the Cold war is over ! You were afraid of russian communists, they disappeared. Do we need to find another ennemy ?


At the same time, western liberal values are incompatible with islam. So muslims should live in the muslim countries, and everyone else should live in the non muslim countries.
The first sentence is false. I know many muslims, who prayed five times a day, that are liberal. Islam has many aspect and most of the people are not extremists.
But I agree: Americans should live in American countries and stop being ignorant about the world (that's a way of speaking, I like many things in America, starting with peanut butter and blaxploitation, but I digress :) )

We don't need to be allied with one instead of another: the Cold war is over ! You were afraid of russian communists, they disappeared. Do we need to find another ennemy ?

But I agree: Americans should live in American countries and stop being ignorant about the world (that's a way of speaking, I like many things in America, starting with peanut butter and blaxploitation, but I digress :) )

Actually, the Russian Federation has quite a strong Communist presence, along with some 'communists' of the Soviet strain.
An enemy is always nice to have. It helps keep everybody in line. We've always been at war with East Asia, etc.

Americans should live in American countries...well, 'Americans' are almost all Europeans. Does that mean Europe is composed of American countries?
As to ignorance...I can list, from memory, the Tsars of Russia, starting with Ivan III, who wasnt technically a Tsar but liked to call himself as such when he thought he could get away with it.
I can also swear in seven languages. Its a very useful skill.

The first sentence is false. I know many muslims, who prayed five times a day, that are liberal.

Same here. The two Muslims I know well (unrelated to each other) are highly educated (both teaching and currently preparing doctoral theses), very intelligent, and very progressive (feminist, in favour of gay marriage, etc...).

They would be very surprised to hear that their religion is incompatible with their own values, and that, therefore, they themselves presumably don't exist.

All the ignorant little twerps who keep on ranting about "all teh Muslims are ebil!!" have usually never talked to a Muslim. But then it's so easy and comforting to make ridiculous generalisations on a topic they know nothing about.

As you quite rightly say, Butumbu, a lot of people in the US (and elsewhere) seem to have this desperate need to identify some enemy they can spew their hate and fear at.

As for Sarkozy doing away with the well-established image of the French President being highly cultured... How exactly can that be a good thing?

THE AMERICAN TABOO Enthusiasm for the United States was unacceptable for a French political leader because it was always interpreted as an embrace of “Wild West” capitalism, “Anglo-Saxon” hegemony and vulgarity. De rigueur attitudes held sway: patronizing contempt in Paris met macho derision in Washington. Communication suffered. Sarko’s New Hampshire vacation, enthused American dreaming, iPod-accompanied jogging and in-your-face style cleared the air.

Personally, I view any improvement in US/French relations as a good thing...the two nations have much more in common than either would care to readily admit, and they face many similar obstacles. They work better together than in opposition.

THE AGRICULTURAL TABOO No French president could seem uncomfortable patting the backside of a cow. This gesture, at the annual Paris Agricultural Fair, communicated a leader’s link to the land and to deepest France. But the only cows known to Sarko, city dweller par excellence, are on cheese packages. The vache political credential is dead; French urban politicos no longer feel cowed.

Politicians ignore farmers at their own peril.

THE MONEY TABOO“To live happy, live hidden” goes a French saying. Few things were more hidden than contacts between presidents and the rich. François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac had well-heeled friends, but, knowing that the French tend to think that wealth equals theft, or something close, they kept those ties quiet. Sarkozy, with his Rolexes and penchant for the yachts of millionaire friends, has broadcast that money’s O.K.

Flashy people don't impress me...

...if he's good at his job, then that's something else.

THE CULTURAL TABOO To run France, you had to be cultured. Mitterrand’s bookish references and Delphic utterances (“A president must know how to be bored”) positioned him as too clever to contest. Chirac had a recherché passion for Japan. Culture — like cows but on a different level — connected the president to the Gallic eternal. Sarko, an American movie buff, is more at home with Johnny Hallyday than Jean-Paul Sartre.

*shrugs* Does it really matter? Again...is he good at his job?

THE MIDEAST TABOO Strong French ties and traditions in the Middle East dictated coolness toward Israel. Chirac let slip that an Iranian nuclear bomb might be acceptable, before saying he’d misspoken. Now Sarkozy, forthright in his support of Israel, declares that “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran” may be the terrible choice looming; his foreign minister says the world should “prepare for the worst” in Iran, meaning war. Iran is no Arab country, but these utterances betray a changed politique Arabe.

Iran is one thing...Israel/Palestine is something else.

France is important in the diplomatic process with Iran. If diplomacy should fail, what will France do?

I don't fault France their decision, but I would be curious as to the reasoning.

THE RUSSIAN TABOO Moscow was France’s offsetting power to the United States. For many cold-war years, the French left struggled to decide what was worse: Soviet totalitarianism or American imperialism. Some of the French right was undecided, too. Later, Chirac suggested “neo-liberalism” — unfettered market forces — was as much a danger in the 21st century as totalitarianism in the 20th. Weak-kneed moral equivalency often placed Paris in a halfway house between Washington and Moscow. Sarkozy is clear: American democracy beats Russian authoritarianism, just as U.S. freedom beat Soviet enslavement.

If Russia still floats your boat, then fine...but Russia's been an autocrats dream since about 900 AD, so if that works for you...

THE WORK TABOO Working hard to get rich was un-Gallic. Working less — a 35-hour week — to feel happy (in theory) was French. Sarkozy now praises those who “get up early.” In the land of “I think, therefore I am,” his finance minister declares: “Enough of thought! Let’s roll up our sleeves.” Sarkoland’s slogan: “I work, therefore I am.”

I equate this to the 2nd amendment in the U.S. You automatically piss off half the population by placing yourself in anything resembling an opposing position.

THE FAR-RIGHT TABOO For decades, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s xenophobic National Front prospered on an untouchable flank. Sarkozy has undermined this bigoted party with some bigotry of his own about French national identity and a campaign to deport illegal immigrants. At the same time, he’s been franker than the left about France’s problem with immigrants and named Rachida Dati, the daughter of a Moroccan laborer and Algerian cleaning lady, as justice minister.

France's immigrant problems are their own...but anything that undermines a nut like Le Pen is OK in my book.

THE NATO TABOO There’s talk of France rejoining the integrated military command of the alliance, unthinkable since Charles de Gaulle hauled the country out in a huff in 1966.

de Gaulle irritates me...like a fly cleaning a wound.

France has made it clear they'll do what they like in regards to NATO. If they want to make things work more effectively, working more closely with their neighbors through NATO is just one good way to help go about it.

THE IVY LEAGUE TABOO The passport to government office was always attendance at the École Nationale d’Administration, where future ministers acquired the mind-numbing skill of saying they had seven points to make and remembering all seven without notes. Sarko loathes such Ivy League clubbiness. He prefers an egghead-lite government.

I prefer my government to be made up of eggheads.

The bulk of this taboo-smashing is positive because it has stripped away paralyzing French hypocrisy, opened the way for unfettered French-American discussion and cleared a possible path to tackling chronic high unemployment.

The calculated use of anti-immigrant rhetoric is troubling, and I’m worried by the loose talk on Iran. But I’ll go on embracing Sarkozy while waiting to see if he’s a revolutionary in action as well as in words.

I feel pretty 50/50 on the guy so far...but time will indeed tell.

Actually, the Russian Federation has quite a strong Communist presence, along with some 'communists' of the Soviet strain.

They are more like Imaginary Friends from "Foster's Home" (great cultural reference). Other soviet communists in the world ? Fidel "80 years old but still very healthy" Castro ?


Americans should live in American countries...well, 'Americans' are almost all Europeans. Does that mean Europe is composed of American countries?

You didn't have to take it seriously. I wanted to underline the nonsense of what was said. Americans are American, not European, not African and have to live without always refering to a golden age or a lost paradise. Some are coming from Europe, so, in their case, your sentence is incorrect, it will be quite the opposite. But it still not true: you forget people from African origin (don't stop me here, I didn't say they were Africans) South American, Chinese, Japanese, Indian origins... oh... and of course Amerindians. And of cours you don't have to be from only one origin.
Lacadaemon, about the religious issue, it seems that you forgot what secularism is all about: most American and European countries are secularists and some even laic (First amendment for the USA). So your solution will not work.

Of the taboos, and I do feel this is a somewhat simplistic compartmentalisation of Sarkozy's politics, I must take issue with many. France should not embrace the USA, and, for that matter, neither should the UK. Equally, the gleeful anti-intellectualism of the "cultural taboo" is vexing; given a choice between Proletarian, Plebian Gordon and a more cultured, academic PM, I'd take the latter.

The imposition of a protestant work ethic is frankly moronic; French culture, community, and general happiness, the migrant and banlieu population notwithstanding since the former don't matter and the latter exist in a similar state worldwide, are far more admirable than that of the US.

I can't deny I admire Sarkozy for doing his utmost to rid France of its migrants though. Thoroughly decent chap, wot.:)

The article exaggerates the extent of which Sarkozy represents a break with the past.

1) Sarkozy might improve the relationship between USA and France, but France will never be as close with USA as Britain for example. The French people doesn’t want a so close relationship with USA, and Sarkozy knows that.
2) Sarkozy might deregulate the economy somewhat, reduce the power trade unions wield over the economy, cut taxes and cut public spending, but he wont break completely with the French Social Model.
3) Sarkozy is a very educated man, even though he isn’t educated at the exact same schools as former French presidents.

I welcome Nicolas Sarkozy. He is just what France needs. He probably will reform and change the country, and the country needs change after so many years of stagnation. He also has a clear mandate from the people. However, Sarkozy doesn’t represent a revolution in ideas and attitudes, like Thatcher. But that is also because France doesn’t need a revolution. Most French have it very well, even though the countrys economy isn’t as competitive or well-functioning as that of Britain or USA.

Oh yes because convincing your country to work hard, not ally with the Arabs and getting tough on your immigration problems makes you an American satellite.....America already is allied with many Arab states including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. I see no reason why France shouldn't also.America shouldn't be "allied" with any Arab nations and neither should France.welcome to the Race based Foreign Policy.

where US will decide who to ally or who to invade based on Race.. bringing Racism to a whole new level.

They are more like Imaginary Friends from "Foster's Home" (great cultural reference). Other soviet communists in the world ? Fidel "80 years old but still very healthy" Castro ?
Uhhh, not really. They've got %10-30 of the vote in various oblasts (which is quite a lot for a Communist party.), and Putin is really working the 'glories of the Soviet Union,' and you know what? A lot of Russians support him, because they want Russia to be a superpower, to be respected.
Im not a Russophobe, quite the opposite, I love Russian history, culture...I cant say I really like the food, but the language is cool. I just dont think anybody should be forced to speak it.


You didn't have to take it seriously. I wanted to underline the nonsense of what was said. Americans are American, not European, not African and have to live without always refering to a golden age or a lost paradise. Some are coming from Europe, so, in their case, your sentence is incorrect, it will be quite the opposite. But it still not true: you forget people from African origin (don't stop me here, I didn't say they were Africans) South American, Chinese, Japanese, Indian origins... oh... and of course Amerindians. And of cours you don't have to be from only one origin.
Lacadaemon, about the religious issue, it seems that you forgot what secularism is all about: most American and European countries are secularists and some even laic (First amendment for the USA). So your solution will not work.

Yes, more are migrants are coming from places other than Europe, but the majority of Americans are of European descent. You did notice the 'almost' part, rigth? I myself am English, Irish, and Native American. Not evenly distrubited of course, but I'm quite aware of the other nationalities present in the US.

African Americans are apparently about %12 of the population.Asians dont even appear, as theyre only ~%7 of the population. There are various native populations who make up less than a percentage point. Jews and Middle Eastern races apparently dont even figure.

White and Hispanic (IE: 'European') people make up something like %87 of the population. That means the US is chiefly populated by persons of European descent, which means that people from America are, for the most part, 'European'.

Oh yes because convincing your country to work hard, not ally with the Arabs and getting tough on your immigration problems makes you an American satellite.....

Yeah! Why don't we just gather up all those bastards, and gas their brown asses! And after that, let's nuke all those fuckers in the Middle East!

Breaking the American and NATO taboos is good, as cooperation is better than competition. I have no opinion on the Agricultural taboo, so I'll go with being neutral on that. He is wrong on the other seven points, though.

From the description of this article, it seems like the French elected their version of George W. Bush.

America shouldn't be "allied" with any Arab nations and neither should France. I hate that about America's addiction to oil.

The Arab nations are culturally backwards, socially oppressive, tend to be fanatical, have a barbaric religion that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has not gone through it's reformation/enlightenment, are anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, participate in inhuman actions against converters, women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals or breaks of religous laws.......ect ect ect. I could go on forever, and while I'm sure you can pick out some that don't apply to country Arab A, but then they do apply to Arab country B.

The Arab world is a shithole and the Western World should not make alliances with Arab countries until they civilize themselves.

Well tough, we need oil, trade and we need diplomacy in the east.

Ahh crap I miss voted.

Well tough, we need oil, trade and we need diplomacy in the east.

Oil, yes. Trade, for the moment, but quite what diplomacy brings beyond nominal allies whose citizens loathe the west is beyond me.

If there is to be a genuine conflict, it will be with Russia and China, neither of whom will give the middle east a moment's consideration; it is irredeemably against the west already.

Oil, yes. Trade, for the moment, but quite what diplomacy brings beyond nominal allies whose citizens loathe the west is beyond me.


But the problem is, it's too late to back out now, we have already interfered and fucked around with the middle east a little bit so they will loathe us whatever course of action we partake in. It might not end up so bad if we at least try to make friend out of foe, and not alienate ourselves from them, making it more obvious that we don't care.

But the problem is, it's too late to back out now, we have already interfered and fucked around with the middle east a little bit so they will loathe us whatever course of action we partake in. It might not end up so bad if we at least try to make friend out of foe, and not alienate ourselves from them, making it more obvious that we don't care.

I'd rather force the Middle East into either state sanctioned terror, which the west would invariably discover, or outright diplomatic and military opposition, thus forcing a confrontation that we would undoubtedly win.

I would suggest that short of constructing Minarets upon St.Pauls, declaring a national Osama day and imposing shariah law, the UK will never effect any enduring rapprochement with the Middle East, hence, why bother trying?

I'd rather force the Middle East into either state sanctioned terror, which the west would invariably discover, or outright diplomatic and military opposition, thus forcing a confrontation that we would undoubtedly win.

The whole "Deport the Brownskins" approach isn't enough for you, you also advocate deliberately pushing for a 21st Century Crusade as well?

Brilliant.

I would suggest that short of constructing Minarets upon St.Pauls, declaring a national Osama day and imposing shariah law, the UK will never effect any enduring rapprochement with the Middle East, hence, why bother trying?

And here you buy into the American "Evil Moslem Hivemind" talking point by declaring every Middle Eastern State is a Wahhabist Theocracy which cannot be negiotiated with short of complete capitulation or blowing the shit out of them in forementioned 21st Century Crusade.

Again, Brilliant.

:rolleyes:

The whole "Deport the Brownskins" approach isn't enough for you, you also advocate deliberately pushing for a 21st Century Crusade as well?

Brilliant.

I advocate forcing a reckoning. See below.

And here you buy into the American "Evil Moslem Hivemind" talking point by declaring every Middle Eastern State is a Wahhabist Theocracy which cannot be negiotiated with short of complete capitulation or blowing the shit out of them in forementioned 21st Century Crusade.

Again, Brilliant.

:rolleyes:

I don't subscribe to such a belief at all. Any fool can discern that the various polities of the middle east are inclined, to varying degrees, to coexist with the west. However, it is equally evident that nothing the west does will convince the Arabic peoples of the middle east to follow their leaders into coexistence; whilst Israel exists, and the west remains the great corruptor, the majority of the middle east will remain irreconcilable to the west.

In light of this, and the inevitable terror this will induce, is it then better to wage a war against terror, or, by diplomatic means, allow it to escalate into a military engagement which the west can, and would, win?

I don't subscribe to such a belief at all. Any fool can discern that the various polities of the middle east are inclined, to varying degrees, to coexist with the west. However, it is equally evident that nothing the west does will convince the Arabic peoples of the middle east to follow their leaders into coexistence; whilst Israel exists, and the west remains the great corruptor, the majority of the middle east will remain irreconcilable to the west.

In light of this, and the inevitable terror this will induce, is it then better to wage a war against terror, or, by diplomatic means, allow it to escalate into a military engagement which the west can, and would, win?

In other words, you're getting a stiffy in the pants at the thought of pushing for a 21st Century Crusade with the ideal goal of obliterating and/or subjugating the Middle East as a whole minus Israel, who can be a partner in said obliteration/subjugation. It's precisely that Western attitude that the Jihadis are using as a bogeyman to the masses to attract sympathy and support.

In other words, you're getting a stiffy in the pants at the thought of pushing for a 21st Century Crusade with the ideal goal of obliterating and/or subjugating the Middle East as a whole minus Israel, who can be a partner in said obliteration/subjugation. It's precisely that Western attitude that the Jihadis are using as a bogeyman to the masses to attract sympathy and support.

Misinterpretation, or outright evasion, of my post notwithstanding, do you have the slightest notion of what the crusades actually constituted, or do you simply use the term in the same fashion as the Jihadists you deplore?

Misinterpretation, or outright evasion, of my post notwithstanding, do you have the slightest notion of what the crusades actually constituted, or do you simply use the term in the same fashion as the Jihadists you deplore?

I know what I'm doing. The original Crusades were about reclaiming the Holy Lands from the Muslims but since then the word has taken on much more significance than that relatively straightforward mission. I'm using the word "Crusade" in the context of itching for a conflict with the Arab Middle East as a whole even if there's no religious context involved simply because the Jihadis will paint such a conflict as being religiously motivated i.e. with the purpose of destroying or enslaving all Muslims.

And do you deny you're pushing for a confrontation with the Middle East minus Israel as a whole for the purpose of putting the Muslim states in them down like rabid dogs?

I know what I'm doing. The original Crusades were about reclaiming the Holy Lands from the Muslims but since then the word has taken on much more significance than that relatively straightforward mission. I'm using the word "Crusade" in the context of itching for a conflict with the Arab Middle East as a whole even if there's no religious context involved simply because the Jihadis will paint such a conflict as being religiously motivated i.e. with the purpose of destroying or enslaving all Muslims.

And do you deny you're pushing for a confrontation with the Middle East minus Israel as a whole for the purpose of putting the Muslim states in them down like rabid dogs?

No, they were not. Nothing in history is as moronically simple as "let's go and reclaim the Levant for Christendom"; the interaction of factors that led to the Clermont address owe more to a papal desire to acquire the armed force requisite to the power Urban II sought than to a desire to reclaim the Levant. Urban had also, from the start of his pontificate, sought to reestablish a cordial relationship with the eastern church in Byzantium; a military response to Byzantium's request for aid would aid Urban in this end.

And, no, I don't, for that matter. I see little oppurtunity for changing the minds of the Arabic peoples, hence, I see a dilemma; either we allow them to continue to attack the west through terror, or we alter the battlefield to one where we will win.

the gleeful anti-intellectualism of the "cultural taboo" is vexing


For once, I agree with you.


I can't deny I admire Sarkozy for doing his utmost to rid France of its migrants though.

This, of course, is where we disagree.

For the record, his stated policy is to restrict immigration by implementing "immigration choisie" - i.e., making immigration mostly skills-based.

Also, of course, almost every French person in major urban areas is either an immigrant, the child of an immigrant or the grandchild of an immigrant. Myself and every one of my close friends included. Remove us, and Paris would be a very empty place...

Plenty to disagree with here, but I'll stick to the money / work ethic taboos. Exactly why is it a bad thing to have a relaxed work ethic and a correspondingly modest income? I'm surely not alone in not wanting to work all the hours god sends simply in order to trouser a fat pay cheque that will mean I can buy shit I don't want. The French (and the Norwegians, and the Lao, etc.) favour a mellow life style. Why should they change this?

Plenty to disagree with here, but I'll stick to the money / work ethic taboos. Exactly why is it a bad thing to have a relaxed work ethic and a correspondingly modest income? I'm surely not alone in not wanting to work all the hours god sends simply in order to trouser a fat pay cheque that will mean I can buy shit I don't want. The French (and the Norwegians, and the Lao, etc.) favour a mellow life style. Why should they change this?
Frankly, I like the French lifestyle (from what I've seen of it) compared to the UK. Any country that needs a day after a bank holiday off to recover from a bank holiday must be doing something right.;)

And, no, I don't, for that matter. I see little oppurtunity for changing the minds of the Arabic peoples, hence, I see a dilemma; either we allow them to continue to attack the west through terror, or we alter the battlefield to one where we will win.

So you've mutated from a BNPer who's happy to merely banish all the darkies from the Isles into a full fledged candidate for the NationStates Deep Kimchi Club with your interest in glassing the Middle East minus Israel.

I also note your continued subscription to the American "Evil Moslem Hivemind" talking point with words like "Them," doing jack shit to differentiate the many sects of Islam who are in fact at each other's throats rather than joining forces against the West and implying that every single Middle Eastern state minus Israel sponsor or launch terror attacks against the Western nations. And of course conveniently overlookinh little details like Iranians being Persian rather than Arab.

Brilliant.

If Brown or Bush was stupid enough to go along with your wet dream wishes and provoke a fight with the Middle East minus Israel as a whole (and the latter would be the most likely of the two, even though Cheney's the closest to pulling this off) then you would definitely show your worthiness of being a Kimchiteer by handing Osama Bin Ladin a lifelong orgasm by proving his rants about the West trying to destroy Muslims correct and finally getting all the different sects to stop blowing the shit out of each other and focus on the West as a single Islamic entity. In effect engineering a self-fulfilling prophecy of the Evil Muslim Hivemind which will of course blow up in the West's face big time as moderates are alienated and the radicals gain influence in more Islamic nations on top of the United States and other Coalition nations being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A regular Duke of Wellington you are, bud.

I'd rather force the Middle East into either state sanctioned terror, which the west would invariably discover, or outright diplomatic and military opposition, thus forcing a confrontation that we would undoubtedly win.

I think it was Machiavelli who noted that if a war is inevitable and you are ready to fight, putting it off is a dumb move. It just lets your opponent prepare for the inevitable confrontation. So, if a clash of civlilizations between the West and the Muslim world is inevitable, let's crush them now and avoid the chance that they will be better armed down the road.

I would suggest that short of constructing Minarets upon St.Pauls, declaring a national Osama day and imposing shariah law, the UK will never effect any enduring rapprochement with the Middle East, hence, why bother trying?

I agree completely, the groups we are fighting have a long-term goal: the establishment of Islam as the ruling religion and political system in the entire world. They are happy to take any concessions we give them in the short-term, but that will not make them back off of their long-term goals.

Like the Nazis and Imperial Japanese, the only way to deal with radical Islamists in the long-term is to humiliate and destroy them on the battlefield.

I also note your continued subscription to the American "Evil Moslem Hivemind"
1. It's not an American concept, it's very very well present in Europe as well....or have you been closing your eyes and singing "La-La-La-La-, I can't hear/see you" to the various Right Wing European political parties and politicians?

2. I don't beleive in eternal war with the Middle East. I beleive in ignoring the Muslim world, getting off oil and letting them all die out once they have no one to buy their oil.

I think it was Machiavelli who noted that if a war is inevitable and you are ready to fight, putting it off is a dumb move. It just lets your opponent prepare for the inevitable confrontation. So, if a clash of civlilizations between the West and the Muslim world is inevitable, let's crush them now and avoid the chance that they will be better armed down the road.
However, we can, instead of fighting them, simply ignore them and don't buy their oil. This, quite literally, DESTROYS their economies. Much more effective than ground troops or so.


I agree completely, the groups we are fighting have a long-term goal: the establishment of Islam as the ruling religion and political system in the entire world. They are happy to take any concessions we give them in the short-term, but that will not make them back off of their long-term goals.
Totally agreed, but unlike the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese, we are not fighint on a battle field yet. The first blow we can strike to them is a restriction of immigration and then a total review of the state of our multicultural societies.

However, we can, instead of fighting them, simply ignore them and don't buy their oil. This, quite literally, DESTROYS their economies. Much more effective than ground troops or so.

I'd love to see that happen. I think we are slowly getting there. American corporations aren't stupid- they can see that oil is going to remain in the $70+ per barrell range. This has made other forms of energy commercially viable.

Hopefully, within our lifetimes, we'll see the Muslim world become as marginal to the rest of the world as Africa is today.

Totally agreed, but unlike the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese, we are not fighint on a battle field yet. The first blow we can strike to them is a restriction of immigration and then a total review of the state of our multicultural societies.

We're absolutely on the same page here. The first thing that should have been done post 9/11 in the US should have been a total stop to all visas to predominantly Muslim countries.

However, we can, instead of fighting them, simply ignore them and don't buy their oil. This, quite literally, DESTROYS their economies. Much more effective than ground troops or so.
Wouldn't change anything for Syria. Or Dubai.

And if the Saudis have no more oil income, the religious importance of Mecca and Medina will still give them income. The House of Al Saud will probably fall (to be replaced by something more more theocratic, most likely) and living conditions for the common man won't change that much either, since income distribution is very skewed already.

Plus, let me just think...Saudi citizens own investments in the US probably worth hundreds of billions or more. I'm not quite sure you understand just what would happen to the US economy without the inflow in oil money.

So think before you make up plans to "let them all die out". And think about what exactly you're saying while you're at it.

Most of what Sarkozy is saying I am not horribly opposed to. What I am opposed to is calling this "The French Revolution." It's more than a little too self-important. (It's not even that hard to have a real French revolution. This is the country on its Fifth Republic.)