Will Scott Peterson becme the latest OJ.....

[Dr Wogga]

.....and get away with murder? Is it me, or does it look like there are some big fat holes in the prosecutors case? This latest search with the police divers appears at 1st glance to be a desperate move by the DA. Some of the blood tests came back with a different result than the prosecutors had led the court to believe in handing down the indictment. There is no doubt in my mind that he did it, but me-also-thinks that proving the case is going to be a longer shot than the slam-dunk originally presented to the public. And one more thing, while no fan of a remorseless scumbag like Scott Peterson, were his rights violated, in what now looks like an apparently pre-mature arrest? He was arrested because they thought he was heading to mexico. And granted, he probably was, but because mexico would not extradite him back to the U.S. because he faced capital murder charges that could bring the death penalty, without hard evidence at the time, it sure does look like an abuse of power.

As for may-hee-co, I continue to boycott their goods and services. Besides being scumbags to our government in times of need, being scumbags where convicted killers won't be extradited because they could face the death penalty, they are also part and parcel to an illogical culture where they look the other way when it comes to coke smuggling and look at fat asses as eye candy?

[Michael Davis]

"look at fat asses as eye candy?"

Yes, those backwards Mexicans...

[andyfox]

"they are also part and parcel to an illogical culture where they look the other way when it comes to coke smuggling and look at fat asses as eye candy?"

What exactly is a "logical" culture? One where they look the other way when it comes to coke usage in Beverly Hills or the Bush family and look at Are You Hot as eye candy?

[MMMMMM]

Actually I think it's rather logical for poor countries to consider allowing the trafficking of drugs (although of course it carries risks and drawbacks).

As for highly illogical cultures I would say look first at the Middle East. After that perhaps look at the gangsta rap morons in this country who have all that money yet they go around shooting each other.

[Dr Wogga]

....you'd rather live in mexico than the U.S.? If the U.S. is so bad, why are a zillion mexicans coming over the border INTO the U.S.? Hmmm? Unless you're into chubby butts too?

[Easy E]

Do a news search on Mike Peterson and Germany....

[Dr Wogga]

....I betcha we'll also find out (probably from some police profiler or psychologist) that both Petersons like taco bell and chicks with horizontally-challenged butts /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[andyfox]

No, I like it better here. Try to understand this: because one criticizes certain aspects of our culture, or our foreign policy, doesn't mean one is anti-American. It doesn't mean one thinks the USA is "so bad."

[Dr Wogga]

.....because reading your anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-republican, anti-Fox News, pro-liberal diatribes, I wudda never thunk it!!!

[Cyrus]

The British are "with us" -- so they are brave, upstanding, solid what!

The French are "against us" -- so they are smelly, scummy, cowards, wimps, eff the frogs.

The Iraqis "we liberated" -- so, with teeth clenched, they're WELLLLLL, alright I guess. (Then they start agitatin' some an' throwin' coupla rocks at U.S. troops so they're back to bein' Ay-rab scum, with a "crap religion", barbarians, dirty towelheads, etc etc.)

I mean, is this great or what?! What you are vis-a-vis the United States, defines what you is!

...Let me wish to all you poker players out there that the next tell you get from your opponent is as blatantly obvious as Wogga's racism.

[andyfox]

I am anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-Fox News, pro-liberal. And pro-American. All of the things from the first sentence do not preclude one from being pro-American.

And I know you wudda never thunk it.

[Jimbo]

Andy just how much money can one make by becoming a " pro-liberal" ? I would consider switching if the profession paid well.

[MMMMMM]

yes but Cyrus some of those things were kinda true even before the Iraq war. Not all but some, and not entirely but kinda. The Iraq war just helped to clarify things a wee bit.

[andyfox]

Depends how well you play the game. You should do well.

[Cyrus]

"Some of those things were kinda true even before the Iraq war. Not all but some, and not entirely but kinda. The Iraq war just helped to clarify things a wee bit."

I will not argue here whether the Brits are eternally brave or the French eternal cowards. I presume we are above such silly and utterly groundless generalizing. That's because I presume we are elementarily versed in History, to say the least.

What I'm amused to see is how this (supposedly) sophisticated audience allows irrational thinking to pass as serious political analysis. I'm not referring to the moral issues of racism, no. But in their racist haste, some people, as notably Wogga, will characterize whole races/groups/nationalities with whatever is currently happening in their lives --- and in the world as they perceive it.

If a guy gets mugged by a Black man, all black men are crminals. If the Brits don't help out in the Iraqi War, they are a faggoty bunch. If the Canadians send a battalion, they are our loyal friends, eh? And so on.

I recall that Mason Mamuth has long ago pointed out the statistical fallacy in drawing general conclusions from limited results. Throw in a hefty dose of biased thinking and you have a God-awful mess...

[MMMMMM]

All right, some good points, but I feel the French have long enjoyed opposing us--it's like their substitute for sport or something;-)

[Cyrus]

"I feel the French have long enjoyed opposing [the U.S.]"

That's a misplaced feeling, I'm afraid. The French, if you want to generalize, have been historically one of the most pro-American nations in Europe, if not the world!

You could explain that to the French being always at odds with the British, and, therefore, instictively supporting anyone opposing the Brits, such as the Yanks. Or you could argue about various other explanations. This doesn't change the fact of France's underlying fondness for Americans and their culture.

Examples abound : the French embraced Jazz before anyone else did; French cinema, especially after the 50s New Wave (Nouvelle Vague), consistently idolized Hollywood movies; American writers chose Paris as their literary haven over any other European capital; the record of French vote in the U.N. has been as consistently pro-U.S. in the last 50 years as any Western ally; etc.

...And don't bring up Jerry Lewis, please!

[Dr Wogga]

....for the sin of being an American student in france? eff your pompous french diatribe. the french are scum. when we went after libya, they were not with us, when we went after saadam, they were not with us, in fact, they openly told the world they would veto ANY RESOLUTION put forth by the U.S. I hate the french and am not afraid to say it. May they rot in hell

[nicky g]

[Dr Wogga]

....but your wife and mother too

[nicky g]

No kids. I'm sorry for your bad experience but one idiot French person does not a whole nation make. In my time I've been threatened, shoved and insulted by Americans, mugged by English people and Belgians, punched by a Morrocan and ripped off by a Serb. I don't hold those things against the entire nations.

[Dr Wogga]

.....but its not about 1 vile french woman - its the non-stop anti-American crap coming out of france. If you really believe the average french man & woman on the street doesn't despise the USA, or that the french gove't are bona-fide American allies, or "Pro-American" as some cyber-sniper posted, you guys are nuts.

[Cyrus]

[MMMMMM]

so then what do you think of De Gaulle's doctrine of playing the USA and the USSR against each other? But that is, of course, old stuff by now.

Yes, France has historically been a pretty staunch supporter of the USA when the chips were really down, BUT they have been morphing recently. Their most recent actions--and not just re. the Iraq affair--indicate a goal of opposing the U.S. on general principle. France longs for its long-lost glory days when it really was one of the biggest players. Now it sees U.S. emergence as the greatest power as something to be actively thwarted. France wants a European Army--apparently, primarily as a counterweight to the U.S. military. France wants to lead the E.U.--but there is no good reason why it should lead the E.U. today. In short, Chirac wants a strong E.U. specifically to provide a counterweight to the USA, and he wants to lead it. But there's more to it than that, and the 'more" runs deeper and is more insidious.

France, some time ago, began to side with the Arab world imany ways. It is no coincidence that the French population is over 10% Muslim today--and growing. France recently allowed that the possibility exists that some regions oFrance may eventually be governed by Shariah. France, in short--for economic gain initially--has become allied in many ways with the Arab world. The French have also not seen fit to sufficiently address the rise in violent street crime in Muslim-dominated areas of France. Among the most disgusting and violent practices which have been gaining popularity in these areas is the notorious tourante--which means 'taking turns'--a practice in which gangs of young Muslim youths rape young women who are not dressed according to Islamic requirements of modesty.

In short, the French are allowing their cultural principles to be increasingly violated by the import of unacceptable customs: the inherent "anti-freedoms" of Islamic tradition. Along with their embrace of the import of backward cultural customs, the French are growing increasingly anti-American. They not only opposed the USA re. the war in Iraq, they
actively lobbied the world against us.

Well...as the violence in Muslim-dominated areas of France continues to increase--as it likely will IMO--and as radical Muslims support for terrorism in France may grow--and as Muslims in France call for being allowed to impose Shari'ah--France will one day wake up to find that it has bred itself quite a problem with no easy solution. And all for short-term gain.

[John Ho]

So you're translating the spitting action of one person on a family member into a hatred of an entire nation.

Hmm...not too logical. It's a wonder the world isn't constantly at war with people like you in existence.

Either that or you hate the French because they never support our wars. I guess that makes them terrible people.

[Cyrus]

"Then what do you think of De Gaulle's doctrine of playing the USA and the USSR against each other?"

Not an accurate description of what De Gaulle was about. De Gaulle was a staunch anti-communist, maybe the most anti-communist European leader, of the 50s and 60s. (His famous putdown is still relevant : "France will never be socialist. How can a country with 212 types of cheese be socialist?")

De Gaulle was for a united Europe, and, therefore, far ahead of his time when he was pressing aggressively for a more European-focused NATO, instead of an American-led NATO. This is why he took out France from the military organisation in the early 60s but kept it in the political structure of NATO. And this is why he opposed the British (not the Americans, per se) because he knew that the British policy of the last 500 years, i.e. to oppose any attempt at European unification, would be still operative for decades to come.

He was proven right.

"France wants a European Army--apparently, primarily as a counterweight to the U.S. military.Chirac wants a strong E.U. specifically to provide a counterweight to the USA."

All perfectly legitimate objectives. And , given the absence of any extrenal military threat whatsoever, now that the Cold War is over, they will be achieved without a doubt, sooner or later. The U.S. should learn to live with the new reality.

"France wants to lead the E.U.--but there is no good reason why it should lead the E.U. today."

On the contrary, France has been "leading" the E.U. for the past decades, in more ways than one, and it has been "leading" it quite successfully too. "Leading" the E.U. in the sense that France has facilitated and pushed through measures of integration that have transformed permanently deep-rooted notions in the Old World.

However, there is no single country in Europe that "leads" it today. Just the way it should be. No supreme countries, but an organisation that works by consensus. Slow yes, bureaucratic yes, frustrating sometimes yes -- all preferable to the "speed" and "efficiency" of any autocratic alternative, such as a Europe "led" by a single country.

--Cyrus

PS : France, historically, deserves all the credit for the E.U. itself, having kick-started it in the 1950s in partnership with West Germany (!), only a few years after the two countries were involved in their third bloody war in 8 decades! Without France and the farsightedness of De Gaulle we might not have a European Union at all. The world, or at the very least Europe, is so much better, safer and peaceful for the E.U.

[nicky g]

I don't really understand what you mean by France allying itself with the Arab world. Most Arab governments' closest ally is the US - all the Gulf States, Egypt, Morroco, Saudi etc. Syria and Libya are exceptions, and Saddam's Iraq is gone. Do you mean the Arab "street"?
Most European countries have large Muslim populations, (though largely sub-continental rather than Arabic in the UK). There are certainly problems resultng from the fact that they tend to be stuck at the bottom of the economic pile, but they aren't particularly different from the sorts of social problems the US has ghettoised Hispanic populations, for example. Poorly managed immigration always causes social ills; and it usually is poorly managed. The idea that it's because they're Muslim is absurd - most of them have little or no interest in religion, in line with most young European people.

France may or may not want to lead the EU, but c'mon; the US wants to lead not only NAFTA but the whole "free" world. The Bush administration openly states that it wants America to remain an unchallenged superpower and to shape the rest of the world in its image. France was pretty far from being the only country to disagree with the US over Iraq; don't you think there's a chance it did it for other reasons, good or bad, than just opposing the US "on principle"?

You know, dear M, one of these days I'm going to convert to Islam just to see what you have to say...

[MMMMMM]

nicky, I agree that many of the social problems are rooted in economics, but not all. The more you learn about Islam, the more you will see how it is inherently intolerant in scripture as well as in practice. There are certain fairly widespread customs in the Islamic/Arab world which are simply unacceptable in civilized Western society: "honor killings," female circumcision, the illegality of leaving Islam for another religion on pain of death, and extreme second-class citizenship for women. When France admits Muslims, France should tell them in no uncertain terms that certain such customs cannot be brought with them...period...as should all Western freedom-loving countries.

As for shaping the world in the U.S. image, is there any document in history more dedicated to the championship of individual rights and liberties, and representative government, than the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? (not that we always follow it, and I believe we should largely revert to a more Constitutionalist government).

In my opinion it would be literally impossible for you to convert to Islam. I've interacted enough with you on this forum to know that you are too educated, open-minded and tolerant for that.

[Parmenides]

You obviously qualify. Matt Sklansky should delete your French are skum posts. He will delete anyone that correctly observes that you are a bigoted ignoramus.

If you wish to see scum, look in the mirror.

[MMMMMM]

Well first off, I'm far from convinced that the E.U. has been good for the individual European countries, and I don't see why it makes the world any better or much more secure. I'm not against the existence of the E.U per se, I just don't see why it's such a great thing.

Europe seemed to operate fairly well before the E.U., and it doesn't seem to operate a whole lot better now. Additionally, some of the member states haven't been all that crazy about some inherent loss of economic autonomy.

A common currency, too, does increase efficiency of transactions, but aren't there also some drawbacks to a common currency?

France may have led Europe diplomatically in many ways years ago, but today it's economy is not the largest in Europe, and I just don't see any reason it should lead today.

You seem almost obsessed with the idea of bureaucratic consensus. How about damn the bureaucratic consensus in favor of simple natural business and market
efficiencies? There doesn't have to be an autocratic leader as an alternative to ponderous bureaucratic consensus--free enterprise and markets do a pretty good job of sorting out most stuff anyway if left alone. Actually, they do a pretty good job of sorting things out eventually in spite of bureaucratic interferences.

Inefficiency may also be more of a major issue than you might think. I'm not advocating autocracy, but inefficiency harms almost everyone. Removing impediments to natural efficiency is generally a good thing. If the U.S. system works better than other countries' systems, then it should eventually become the dominant world model, whether called "U.S. System" or whether merely adopted over time by others. So I'm sort of saying a lot of this diplomacy stuff is for the birds. The best and most efficient models will eventually spread and dominate--which, by the way, is apparently just what has been happening, albeit slowly. And some are upset that the U.S. was first to get there, instead of realizing that imitation would serve them well too. Growth is for all who choose to remove the impediments to growth.

France appears to be mired in the past, longing for glory-days and holding to a socialistic, bureaucratic view which at most encourages slow growth and stagnation. Add the rise of Islamism in France, and in many ways France is actually marching backwards. Viewing the world as a problem to be solved primarily through diplomacy rather than through innovation, growth, improvement and increased efficiency is misguided IMO. Yes there is a role for diplomacy, but there is an even bigger role for progress.

(And today the French idea of progress seems to be the sport of trying to thwart the U.S. However they will not only reap negative reaction from this, but their energies would be better spent trying to improve their own system and country.)

[Cyrus]

"I'm far from convinced that the E.U. has been good for the individual European countries."

Well, it has been, sorry! It's not just that for the first time ever, Europe is at an extremely stable and peaceful condition. Peace is something deeply appreciated in war-weary Europe, my man. But all the economic indicators also show that the Union has been good to every E.U. country. Everyone is better for it. And the European citizens seem to agree as well -- they are all in favor of the general arrangement of the E.U. as the polls show.

Now, about "bureaucracy" : You misunderstood what I wrote.

I am not a fan of the slow, and indeed sometimes frustrating, process of the E.U. bureaucracy. I wrote that the tedious process of consensus is absolutely preferable to the "speed" and "efficiency" we would have if a single country, any country, was "leading" Europe -- as you accused France of wanting to. (Hint : No country can "lead" Europe on its own and they all know it.)

As to market efficiencies : It is obvious that you are not familiar at all with the E.U.'s workings and objectives ! The E.U. as a matter of fact is all about free enterprise. E.U. regulations and authorities are about enforcing a level playing field for the private sector. All the E.U.'s actions are pointed towards dismantling monopolies, privatising state-owned enterprises, liberalising intra-European trade, freeing up every country's market, unifying the tax & customs system across the borders, laying down trade barriers, promoting competition, and so on, and so forth. This is now by far the biggest market in the world and it has been firmly on the free enterprise road from the start. (It's just not on the same wavelength as the idiotic practices of the environmentally disastrous and socially unconscionable policies of the American Right. Sorry about that, George.)

You have a very inaccurate and facile picture of the European Union. It's now how you describe it at all! I think you mistake the defensive actions that the E.U. takes to protect its members from outside threats, for actions that also take place inside. Nope...

"France appears to be mired in the past, longing for glory-days."

Sorry, but you must be talking about Great Britain there. France has no military bases outside the country, as far as I remember, I mean not in places such as Cyprus, Gibraltar, etc, where the Union Jack still flies needlessly.
France has been behaving much more responsibly than the U.K. ever since the World War ended, with the exception of the 1956 Suez debacle.

"Add the rise of Islamism in France, and in many ways France is actually marching backwards."

The rise of Islamism in France is proportional precisely to the rise in Arabs coming into France as migrant workers. There is no rise of Islamism outside that sector of the population. Indigenous French are not suddenly starting to wear turbans! (If anything, the French are becoming more secular or atheistic.) Moreover, those Arab migrant workers are slowly but surely being absorbed by the advanced political culture of Europe. After one generation, their kids are rapping in street corners.

[MMMMMM]

Ok let's see...you've partially convinced me the E.U. is a good thing.

Now: the European market is the largest in the world, and they're well on their way. So they should eventually outstrip us in prosperity, growth and influence, right? I wouldn't bet on it. As long as they continue to encumber themselves with high taxes and socialism, they just won't be able to, because those are incredibly inefficient devices with profound influence.

As for France acting responsibly, again, I'm not talking about the last 50 years; I'm talking about much more recent times--say the last decade or so and especially very recently. And I don't believe the new French Arab population is assimilating nearly as well as you portray. Heck even in this country the so-called "moderate" Islamic organizations are generally anything but. Fundraising for terror groups is rife among Muslim charities. A recent keynote speaker at a university Muslim Student Association meeting told students they should listen to only the "true" Islamic teachings--not watered-down "moderate" Islam-- and when the students pressed him for an example of who to listen to, he finally said "Al-Mahajiroun." This advice was coming from a speaker from one of the most politically active Islamic organizations in the USA today and this organization is generally thought of as "moderate." In case you don't know, Al-Mahajiroun is a worldwide jihadist organization. I seriously doubt that Muslims in France are any more moderate than Muslims in the USA. Besides, part of Islamic creed is the goal of taking over the world by Islam--by force if necessary. There is a death penalty for conversion out of Islam (apostasy) and today many former Muslims have had to change their names and live underground or else be killed--yes, in Western countries. Traditions like these don't just assimilate away in one generation. If Islam didn't have such a huge following it would be classified as a cult not a religion. Islam has always been at war with the outside world--indeed the Islamic view is that there is the House of Peace (the world under Islamic rule) and the House of War (the world outside of Islam). It's true, as Samuel Huntington says, that "Islam has bloody borders." Of something like 30 regional wars or conflicts in the world recently (2 years ago might have been the time frame), 28 involved Muslim countries. It's not just a coincidence. You can look up the exact stats if you're so inclined. The Islamic worldview is irreconcilable with any and all other belief systems and also with no belief system. Assimilation and reform of Islam is going to be one of the biggest and most dangerous necessary processes humankind will ever face. And Islam is inherently, ideologically, less amenable to reform than was Christianity.

[Cyrus]

"The European market is the largest in the world, and they're well on their way. So they should eventually outstrip [the United States] in prosperity, growth and influence, right?"

No, I didn't say nor imply that. The size of the E.U. is just a fact. The Union's future depends on a lot of things but it should not be necessarily on a collision course with the rest of the world's economic powers. (Gradually, Japan will be partaking in a E.U.-like Asian zone. The developping African countries jostle around a Union with apartheid-free South Africa. The U.S. tries its own hand in the American continent version through NAFTA. Huddling together is the future and going it alone is the past : see what that spells for the unilateralism in American policy ! /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif )

"As long as [the European Union] continue to encumber themselves with high taxes and socialism, they just won't be able to [supass the USA], because those are incredibly inefficient devices with profound influence."

1. The E.U. does not have to surpass the U.S. in anything, economically-wise. This should be a "competition" about standards of living rather than abstract numbers such as GDP per capita. And, in terms of living standards, Europe is advancing very rapidly and soon, if not already, may surpass the U.S. (But I would be very satisfied if Europe would adopt more of the libertarian laws of the U.S. ! Ummm, before they are discarded by the U.S. that is. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif )

2. You are mistaking protectionist policies for "socialism". Those protectionist policies aim at protecting European industries, sectors or countries from undue or unfair outside competition and threats. As you very aptly put it, there is no real free trade in the world, just degrees of protectionism. And as to the benefits of protectionism, well, they can be dramatically good : Witness the emergence of high-tech industries in India and China, after decades of their governments tariffing away the competition and frustrating cut-price invasions. A success story, now feeding millions of workers, educated and not, and taking away jobs from American workers!

"Islam ... France.."

Those fanatical Muslims promoting terrorism inside France have at worst the impact the Black Panthers had during their heyday in the United States. The French gov't doesn't worry excessively about that threat, the E.U. doesn't either. Neither does Germany, with its three million Turkish immigrants. You would be interested to know that the European Union members have taken their own and very strong anti-terrorist measures much, much earlier than 9/11 (viz. Sengen Agreement) and those measures seem to be working very well.

Europeans are just not so easily overtaken with paranoia as the U.S. is. (Plus, the E.U. is not exposed to resentment, hatred and beligerence. ...Ah, the perils of being a superpower. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif )

"You've partially convinced me the E.U. is a good thing."

You should be absolutely convinced by now! What am I doing wrong? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif