[quote]Rassmussen, the Danish PM is the first and most right-wing anti-immigrant in Europe. Le Pen and Fortyn came later. Now some color is being added, Denmark and other European countries are experiencing "civil rights" issues. A little hypocritical I think when the US is host to millions from around the globe for two centuries.<hr></blockquote>
Le Pen has been well known nationally for much longer than Rasmussen. And while Pym Fortyn has been characterised as anti-immigrant by the press, his actual statements had called for a public debate on Dutch policy on immigration, not an end to immigration. Hard to paint an openly gay, socially liberal person as right-wing, but the media managed.
While the US is welcoming of immigrants [officially] do not forget that many groups have had to deal with its share of anti-immigrant fervor, ranging from the Irish, Italians and Chinese in the past, the more recent problems with Vietnamese and Somali immigrants. Be different can get you killed no matter where you live.
Le Pen has been well known nationally for much longer than Rasmussen. And while Pym Fortyn has been characterised as anti-immigrant by the press, his actual statements had called for a public debate on Dutch policy on immigration, not an end to immigration. Hard to paint an openly gay, socially liberal person as right-wing, but the media managed.
While the US is welcoming of immigrants [officially] do not forget that many groups have had to deal with its share of anti-immigrant fervor, ranging from the Irish, Italians and Chinese in the past, the more recent problems with Vietnamese and Somali immigrants. Be different can get you killed no matter where you live.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference being is that Rassmussen was elected and Le Pen was not. You are right about Fortyn. The point is that these three politicians were either elected, (murdered:Fortyn) or rose in the polls due their common anti-immigrant sentiments. Rassmussen, being from Denmark, is perhaps the least multi-cultural of France, Holland, etc.
On the "half the popultion in the ME having practically no rights", I was referring to women in the middle east.
Lastly, on China, the original alligation was that yodamaster did not like the civil rights thing in the US. Of course, everyone turns a blind eye to china for the fact of cheap labor and potential large market but their civil rights don't even compare to that of the US. Again, the point is that there are far worse countries with civil rights issues than the US. I'm just putting these into context.
[quote]On the "half the popultion in the ME having practically no rights", I was referring to women in the middle east.<hr></blockquote>
I figured you just got the numbers wrong, as you would be more correct to say that over 80% of the population have no rights. The worst countries are those that are "secular" countries, like Syria and Iraq, where everyone gets persecuted regardless of gender or religion. By your gender standards over 50% of the global population have practically no rights.
[quote]The difference being is that Rassmussen was elected and Le Pen was not. You are right about Fortyn. The point is that these three politicians were either elected, (murdered:Fortyn) or rose in the polls due their common anti-immigrant sentiments. Rassmussen, being from Denmark, is perhaps the least multi-cultural of France, Holland, etc.<hr></blockquote>
Again regarding Fortyn, a debate on immigration does not equal anti-immigration. Fortyn's concern was the future of the Dutch liberalism in the face of an increasing conservative immigrant population.
Denmark? Different place than when I lived there. Though back then, the economy was worse and anti-immigration stirrings just beginning. No excuse for the present.
If you want the nasty local version of anti-immigrant politics check Calif from 94-98. Brings out the best in everyone.
The current conflict started when Sharon decided to go for a walk on the Temple Mount. Its nice that you think that everything revolves around Clinton, but it should be interesting to see how you connect the dots on this one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shame on you if you think that a visit by the head of the opposition of a free country to a religious site is reasonable pretext to the use of violence .. don't forget that the temple mount is just as important to Jews as it is to muslims and that Israel is a free country where anyone can go into any religious site they like !!! there was nothing wrong with Sharon visiting the temple mount !!! when Arafat visited the Wailing wall or the church of the holly sepulchre no christian or Jew started rioting and killing ... that is the most twisted misguided point to take about events in the ME .. to blame sharon's visit for the violence that has ensued since then.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
Not quite so black and white in the Middle East. A portion of those with no rights in the Middle East also reside inside Israel, they just happen to be Israeli Arabs [technically they do have rights, there is just a large gap between theory and practice].</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is that gap exactly ? Israeli Arabs have just the same rights as any Israeli does, in fact Arabs in Israel are the only Arabs in the ME living in a democracy ! there are quite a few Arab MPs in the Israeli Knesset and in some ways they actually have it better then most Jewish Israelis since they don't have to serve in the military ( they can choose to volunteer or not) and many of them don't bother about paying taxes.. a fact which the government basically ignores in order to avoid friction.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
Might be best not to mention China to bolster your argument. Every US president has rolled over on human rights in China, whether Rep or Demo. After all a market of over 1 billion people is just too tantalizing to corporate interests, not to mention all that cheap labor. To be very clear most other--read European--politicians and multinationals feel the same way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you expect the US to do about China ? invade them in the name of human rights ? and give every wooly character like you a chance to jump up and down and blame them for imperialism ? what are you talking about ?
If anything the US is the only country in the world who dares to stand up against china on issues like Taiwan, North Korea and dodgy arms deals with Iran and other dark regimes... the EU are total sissies when it comes to placating the brutal chinese authorities. nowhere near as upstanding as the US.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
If any doubt that US foreign policy doesn't revolve around the security of petroleum assets should ponder this: a majority of the hijackers on the 9/11 flight held Saudi passports, the leader of Al Qaeda is a Saudi, the Saudi populace is one of the largest contributors to the madrassas, and yet the US maintains fully normalized diplomatic relations with SA and has yet to really raise any significant protest over any of this, besides the usual press releases stating "concern". SA ,of course, has kindly made statements about keeping the oil flowing and has broken with OPEC on production quotas. This not without some self-interest, as oil money keeps the [Islamic] revolutionary friction down to a minimum.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oil is probably the single most important resource in our world today, without it there is no modern economy and technology, no power, no electricity , no plastics ....... no transport.. etc ... even a small rise in the price of oil can cause a serious economic meltdown... considering these facts off course that US foreign policy revolves around the security of petroleum assets... it better be ... but that doesn't mean that the US policy doesn't have other facets to it such as promoting stability and economic advancement , helping many democracies develop and generally doing good stuff that also go hand in hand with the US's core egotistic interests .. what's wrong about that ?
True, the US has a very mixed history with some seriously shady sides especially when it came to fighting the cold war, but then these were different times with different circumstances and the old customs seem generally to have gone away.
so we should judge US foreign policy by what its doing today not what Nixon did in the early 70s..... OK ?
Comments
Le Pen has been well known nationally for much longer than Rasmussen. And while Pym Fortyn has been characterised as anti-immigrant by the press, his actual statements had called for a public debate on Dutch policy on immigration, not an end to immigration. Hard to paint an openly gay, socially liberal person as right-wing, but the media managed.
While the US is welcoming of immigrants [officially] do not forget that many groups have had to deal with its share of anti-immigrant fervor, ranging from the Irish, Italians and Chinese in the past, the more recent problems with Vietnamese and Somali immigrants. Be different can get you killed no matter where you live.
<strong>
Le Pen has been well known nationally for much longer than Rasmussen. And while Pym Fortyn has been characterised as anti-immigrant by the press, his actual statements had called for a public debate on Dutch policy on immigration, not an end to immigration. Hard to paint an openly gay, socially liberal person as right-wing, but the media managed.
While the US is welcoming of immigrants [officially] do not forget that many groups have had to deal with its share of anti-immigrant fervor, ranging from the Irish, Italians and Chinese in the past, the more recent problems with Vietnamese and Somali immigrants. Be different can get you killed no matter where you live.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference being is that Rassmussen was elected and Le Pen was not. You are right about Fortyn. The point is that these three politicians were either elected, (murdered:Fortyn) or rose in the polls due their common anti-immigrant sentiments. Rassmussen, being from Denmark, is perhaps the least multi-cultural of France, Holland, etc.
On the "half the popultion in the ME having practically no rights", I was referring to women in the middle east.
Lastly, on China, the original alligation was that yodamaster did not like the civil rights thing in the US. Of course, everyone turns a blind eye to china for the fact of cheap labor and potential large market but their civil rights don't even compare to that of the US. Again, the point is that there are far worse countries with civil rights issues than the US. I'm just putting these into context.
cheers
I figured you just got the numbers wrong, as you would be more correct to say that over 80% of the population have no rights. The worst countries are those that are "secular" countries, like Syria and Iraq, where everyone gets persecuted regardless of gender or religion. By your gender standards over 50% of the global population have practically no rights.
[quote]The difference being is that Rassmussen was elected and Le Pen was not. You are right about Fortyn. The point is that these three politicians were either elected, (murdered:Fortyn) or rose in the polls due their common anti-immigrant sentiments. Rassmussen, being from Denmark, is perhaps the least multi-cultural of France, Holland, etc.<hr></blockquote>
Again regarding Fortyn, a debate on immigration does not equal anti-immigration. Fortyn's concern was the future of the Dutch liberalism in the face of an increasing conservative immigrant population.
Denmark? Different place than when I lived there. Though back then, the economy was worse and anti-immigration stirrings just beginning. No excuse for the present.
If you want the nasty local version of anti-immigrant politics check Calif from 94-98. Brings out the best in everyone.
<strong>
The current conflict started when Sharon decided to go for a walk on the Temple Mount. Its nice that you think that everything revolves around Clinton, but it should be interesting to see how you connect the dots on this one.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shame on you if you think that a visit by the head of the opposition of a free country to a religious site is reasonable pretext to the use of violence .. don't forget that the temple mount is just as important to Jews as it is to muslims and that Israel is a free country where anyone can go into any religious site they like !!! there was nothing wrong with Sharon visiting the temple mount !!! when Arafat visited the Wailing wall or the church of the holly sepulchre no christian or Jew started rioting and killing ... that is the most twisted misguided point to take about events in the ME .. to blame sharon's visit for the violence that has ensued since then.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
Not quite so black and white in the Middle East. A portion of those with no rights in the Middle East also reside inside Israel, they just happen to be Israeli Arabs [technically they do have rights, there is just a large gap between theory and practice].</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is that gap exactly ? Israeli Arabs have just the same rights as any Israeli does, in fact Arabs in Israel are the only Arabs in the ME living in a democracy ! there are quite a few Arab MPs in the Israeli Knesset and in some ways they actually have it better then most Jewish Israelis since they don't have to serve in the military ( they can choose to volunteer or not) and many of them don't bother about paying taxes.. a fact which the government basically ignores in order to avoid friction.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
Might be best not to mention China to bolster your argument. Every US president has rolled over on human rights in China, whether Rep or Demo. After all a market of over 1 billion people is just too tantalizing to corporate interests, not to mention all that cheap labor. To be very clear most other--read European--politicians and multinationals feel the same way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you expect the US to do about China ? invade them in the name of human rights ? and give every wooly character like you a chance to jump up and down and blame them for imperialism ? what are you talking about ?
If anything the US is the only country in the world who dares to stand up against china on issues like Taiwan, North Korea and dodgy arms deals with Iran and other dark regimes... the EU are total sissies when it comes to placating the brutal chinese authorities. nowhere near as upstanding as the US.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
If any doubt that US foreign policy doesn't revolve around the security of petroleum assets should ponder this: a majority of the hijackers on the 9/11 flight held Saudi passports, the leader of Al Qaeda is a Saudi, the Saudi populace is one of the largest contributors to the madrassas, and yet the US maintains fully normalized diplomatic relations with SA and has yet to really raise any significant protest over any of this, besides the usual press releases stating "concern". SA ,of course, has kindly made statements about keeping the oil flowing and has broken with OPEC on production quotas. This not without some self-interest, as oil money keeps the [Islamic] revolutionary friction down to a minimum.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oil is probably the single most important resource in our world today, without it there is no modern economy and technology, no power, no electricity , no plastics ....... no transport.. etc ... even a small rise in the price of oil can cause a serious economic meltdown... considering these facts off course that US foreign policy revolves around the security of petroleum assets... it better be ... but that doesn't mean that the US policy doesn't have other facets to it such as promoting stability and economic advancement , helping many democracies develop and generally doing good stuff that also go hand in hand with the US's core egotistic interests .. what's wrong about that ?
True, the US has a very mixed history with some seriously shady sides especially when it came to fighting the cold war, but then these were different times with different circumstances and the old customs seem generally to have gone away.
so we should judge US foreign policy by what its doing today not what Nixon did in the early 70s..... OK ?