Comments by JLMC

Amen to that.

"mildly Islamist" means that the current Turkish Government is far from the agnosticism of the Turkish Republic. It also means that the current Turkish Government makes an issue of the religious theme and gives religion a bigger place in the State set than the one it should have in a agnostic state.
«Mildly Islamic» means that there is a bias of the public sphere for the Islamic Religion and against other religions. Isn’t that the case?

I would support the idea that colonialism was good. Thanks to it we now have a bigger world free of the most brutal and diminishing forms of stark oppression and naked violence.
True, some parts of the «conquered» world were already hotbeds of civilization and had their own cultural trends: China, Japan, etc, but also, some of these have never been colonized - Japan.
On the other hand, Turkey was never colonized; at the very contrary Turkey was a colonizer country and a very predatory one at that. Turkey colonized everything from the shores of the Adriatic sea up to the sands of Libya, the Red Sea and Mecca. For centuries people living on the northern shores of the Mediterranean dreaded the Turkish raiders looting the worst form of loot: human beings to enslave.
Now, who has robbed who?

My Dear ana.ana.ana
You are of course quite right, and there are already some wonderful museums in Turkey, not to mention Istanbul (Oh, Topkapi...)
If you want my opinion they don't quite mesure up to the best western museums not because of the contents which are outstanding and unique, but because of the poor management, which - my opinion - is not so good.
Now, you don't create a museum «for the sake of democracy and peace» or whatever, unless you are a Kmer and create a museum of the Kmer Holocaust, or Jewish...
You create a museum to preserve and make accessible to the public a colection of pieces whose intrinsic value outstrips the daily interest. Something meant to endure...
In the Turkish case, excuse me to think that you own asia-minor antiques as much as anybody else, and those who really mean something (e.g. Alexander's sarcophagus) only mean it in their historical context which is surely not yours.
If you have it, you have it. If you don't, it belongs to those who have it. That's it.
Don´t get me wrong, but if you want to create a museum dedicated to peace and democracy, create one dedicated to the Armenian Holocaust. That would be something in Turkey, wouldn't it?

I am so sorry for what I am going to say next and it is not nice to the Turks.
From a cultural point of view why on earth would the Turks think that Alexander’s sarcophagus is theirs? On what cultural grounds has the “Weary Herakles” been «returned» to Turkey? My point is: should not those artifacts be returned to their sole and legitimate owners, the Greek?
Of course Anatolia and the Hellespont are strewn with antiques since late antiquity when most of the artifacts were already antiques. But, what part did the Turks play in the cultural environment in which these pieces were created? Is the fact that there are so many objects there, that part of the world having been Greek and the objects being there, important to constitute title of ownership?
I am not even talking about the dreadful way the Turks have for centuries treated everything Christian, to begin with Hagia Sophia, now a museum, but for centuries plastered all over covering and destroying precious Byzantine paintings, the fact that in Istanbul itself you go on strolling over parts of the Imperial Blachernae Palace without knowing or noticing because it is covered with later Ottoman buildings, most of them of no importance…
The fact is that were it not tourists, the Turks wouldn’t care about «that» past, it is not theirs.
Now, the joke would be that Turkey would demand the return of the lions of St. Mark. After all, they’ve sacked from Constantinople, now Istanbul… After all, I say, what separates that claim from the others mentioned in this article? And probably the best half of the most prized western relics, also sacked from Constantinople…
Now, I say: return the sarcophagus of Alexander to Macedonia; after all the man was not Turk, was he?
When these bizarre cultural wars begin, who can say were they will finish?

It was only in November last that the following events took place: «George Papandreou, the country’s prime minister, hastily announced a plan for a referendum on the new bail-out package that had been approved at last week’s European Union (EU) summit. First Mr Papandreou had to confront a hostile cabinet (although it has since endorsed the idea of a referendum). Then he faced the threat of a rebellion by his Panhellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok). And on November 2nd he will miss the opening session of a three-day confidence debate in parliament: Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, have summoned Mr Papandreou to emergency talks in Cannes. They will try to dissuade him from what one western European observer called “political suicide and financial ruin for Greece”.» (The economist, Nov. 1st)
You can now fully apreciate the depth of Merkozy shortsightness and of the Greek political deciders of the day, thinking of what might have happened if the Papandreou referendum went forward.
The ironic twist id that just when a new French President is emerging and the discussio was going to change the tune in Europe, the Greek drama crept forward again screening any other debate of ideas and mesmerizing Europeans with the high drama that unfolds in Athens. Will there be a Sophocles to write about this tragedy?
The first chapter could be titled «the road to Cannes, or Cannea or Canossa...»

Both previous answers seemed right to me, but I would add that with the euro Greece undertook to limit its public debet to a manageable 60% do GDP and public deficit to a maximum 3% of GDP (Maastricht rules) which means that either Greece would raise and maximize its tax colection, or lower its expenses and proceed with structural reforms.
Until the mid 10's this dogma held out. With the world crisis lenders started to look more atentively to the public account books and they found out that while certain European countries truly abided by the rules, others took liberties with them, the more so that credit was flowing free and generous. At that point people concluded that the «convergence rules» were not respected and therefore there was no convergence, hence certain countries presented a much higher risk then others. That is when the spreads on the German bonds started to go stratospheric.
Before that it was assumed that holding by the same set of rules euro economies were all set on the same course.

You must be an investor that invests in cheap rhetoric...

Let me contribute with a suggestion: instead of the infamous PIIGS, an acronym with very distinctive negative meaning, why not call us GIPSI's, a more seductive name altogether?
Furthermore, when you say «german people do not like piigs» one asks oneself if Germans turned jews (and orthodox at that) or muslims.
On the other hand, if you say «germans discriminate against gipsi's», that's OK 'cause they’re used to that... and I bet Germans do not like to be portrayed like that, would they?

Remember the bicycle theory? It said that Europe is like a bicycle; If you stop peddling, if fall. There you are.
The Euro project, following the unified market project, implied a euro wide economic policy, based on functioning markets, free transfer of production means and unimpeded competition all over Europe. No one accounted for exogenous and asymmetrical shocks.
The fact of the matter is that with the world crisis the bicycle stood still and no one knows what to do. It is not as if no one knows what should be done, because a lot of clever people know exactly what should be done, but more to the point what can be done. At this point, what can be done falls short of what should be done and that is not going to improve any time in the near future.
There was a bible called «The Maastricht Rules» which pointed to a 60% public debt to GDP ratio, and a top 3% budget deficit. Even in relatively good times that aim was not achieved; Hence when bad times came most European states were not prepared to withstand the tempest.
Most unprotected were those places governed by totally irresponsible governments that spent their path to power like there was no tomorrow. When the thunderstorm fell, their roofs were taken away like straws in the wind (remember the three little pig?...) and those hopeful voters that thought that voting in the most spendthrift was akin to real growth and progress (Portugal was therefore gifted with one of the highest ratios of high-speed motorways in the world) were left without protection to face the rain and the wind. Misery…
On the other hand, structural reforms that might easily have been put in place ten years ago, were once and again postponed. Take the labour market: it is true that you can hardly fire an «old contract» employee but you can treat as a slave the youngster entering the labour pool.
The worst thing is that no one utters the dreaded words. Governments in automatic mode still debit banalities about growth sometime soon.
There is a worldwide adjustment of economic balance of power, but why should that concern me? We face fierce competition from countries that make and sell us real things that we apparently need and they are doing it with a labour pool whose costs are a fraction of ours, but why should that concern us?
Have we not our wonderful «European social protection» schemes to protect us? Are we nor entitled to joblessness protection, early and well provisioned retirement, security of our well paid jobs? Well then, what’s the bother?
Is it not written in our constitutions our inalienable right to free health care and education? Why should we save anything for rainy days (even if we should know that our roof is only straw)?
And now, to our dismay, Greek people are on denial. They want to stay in the Euro (who wouldn’t?), they don’t want the constrictions of the hated troika, they want their creditors to drop dead (the Markets!) but they want also savers elsewhere to continue to lend them money.
It was a pity that last year Mr. Papandreou was not allowed to proceed with his referendum on the second bail out terms; Should have saved us a lot of misery and confusion.
That is the thing you can charge directly to Merkel and Sarkozy. The rest is our doing (or undoing…).

Now its the «Zionist»'s fault? So, all the Syrians up against Assad are Zyonist stooges? Hum... Clever, isn't it?

Hou-la! What a mistake to make! Religion and the state, that's heavy stuff.
As I see it, from here, Mr. Santorum (what a name, a program in itself...) is erring in the worst of sides: the defence of religion against the state, in a country who puts forward the most strenuous defence of the liberty of faith!
Is that a statement for church going citizens to read - and vote for? As a Catholic, I never enjoy the spectacle of other like minded Christians complaining about the lions. If they don’t like the circus, they should go to the movies instead…
This kind of statements has no point, no point t at all but to attract attention to the fact that those who utter them may not have more valuable things to say that are of concern to everyone and not only the disgruntled minority who thinks it is persecuted in its own country.
As a Catholic, Mr. Santorum should be better off keeping his creed to himself and practice its teachings in the public arena.

I'am just saying that things have a way of sorting themselves out and they don't need the US to happen.
I'm suggesting nothing but a simple truth: the US of A do not have to play sheriff to the rest of the world all the time.
The fact that you guys fought the Korea war does not implie that you will have to babysitter them for the eternity. And, yes, let the Chinese have a say and decide if they want to be a supporter of Kim's and Assads or a serious player in world problems...

Not at all too cynical. Just common good sense, and even making the Chinese pay for it implies it is a common problem, which it is not. it is a Chinese problem.

I must confess I do not understand this. Wouldn’t it be more logical that North Korea be a Chinese problem? After all, those nukes are just astride of China, not the West…
Why on glorious earth would the US of A choose to meddle - again! - in other people’s problems?
Cut them off, cut every contact with them. Let them rot in their abject poverty and, maybe, one day, eat (right, eat!) their forsaken «elites». They must be fat and apetitising.
The food is obviously not going to the needing, it is going to the security apparatus, therefore strengthening it and making the life of the people more miserable still.
On the other hand, why not let the Chinese deal with a rogue nuke state just by it’s door? What a comfortable feeling it must be for Chinese to have nukes on their backyard…
They are so rich now, so full of themselves, why not let them tackle and shoulder the costs of these endeavours?
I do not think Mr. Obama has anything to gain by meddling in NKorea or AfpaK. Just a thought…

Dear Sir, from experience which I am glad to share, a carry-on luggage suit won’t get wrinkled behind salvation. A check-in luggage suit can get pretty messed up. Mostly if it is a long journey and you arrive in a damp climate.
In this case, the shower steam should work small wonders. In the worst case scenario you can ask the hotel staff to steam press your suit (not dry clean, unless it is soiled...).
Best of all is to carry at least the jacket in a suit bag in your hand if by all means you need to present yourself to a demanding audience.

Do they? I'd say it is exactly the contrary...

Dear Friend, just a thought: legalistic bullshit is what separates us from barbarism. I really am not familiar with the details, as you seem to bem. Best

«Ms Siddiqui is serving an 86-year prison sentence in Fort Worth, Texas, after being convicted of shooting at the American officers detaining her in Afghanistan.»
This is indeed extraordinary and speaks volumes about what is indeed going on. Not to say that the lady would have had a better treatment in Afghanistan proper, but imprisoning someone for resisting arrest in her Home Country against foreign occupation forces is kind of strange.
The better part of the story is that apparently she has not even been on trial! This should be the stuff of law schools case studies.
Do American realise that what they are subjecting these people to is pure and simple political justice and political trials? Do they realise that these Guantanamo and Fort Worth gaols are indeed political imprisonment?
By doing this, USA is not actually contributing a iota to enforce the idea of any kind of western moral stance but, quite the contrary, to debase its own moral stance.
You can object very strongly to Islamic fundamentalism (I do), but you cannot imprison adversaries because they think differently and dislike being arrested in their own house by occupation forces.
And it is not even a story of conquering hearts and minds, it is a story of mutual respect that is lacking here…

Oie, chico, el toro turco no es tan guapo asi...vaya!