Oh well, I tried and you failed. Such is life.
 
So, I guess it's back to ridicule the fool treatment for you m'lady.
 
 "Verba volant, scripta manent" and all that.

I suppose you see in the Israeli occupation of Palestine a (new) Genghis Khan style and I agree with you. As Israel is exploiting natural resources (water) in Palestine and has no intention of any compromise, the role of a peace broker (e.g. UN) is extremely weak. Conclusion: without peaceful intention, culture A and culture B are suffering. But I do not see Mr Netanyahu or Mr Abbas repeating the words of 'G-man'.

I suppose you see in the Israeli occupation of Palestine a (new) Genghis Khan style and I agree with you. As Israel is exploiting natural resources (water) in Palestine and has no intention of any compromise, the role of a peace broker (e.g. UN) is extremely weak. Conclusion: without peaceful intention, culture A and culture B are suffering. But I do not see Mr Netanyahu or Mr Abbas repeating the words of 'G-man'.

Let's cut to the chase. Culture A wishes to dominate and/or eradicate culture B because it can. Culture A covets culture B's land and other natural resources and has no intention of seeking peaceful compromise.
 
Q: How would your alliance/coalition of the non killing deal with a latterday Genghis Khan for example?
 
The G-man once said, "It is not sufficient that I succeed - all others must fail". He also claimed that "the greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wife and daughters". How would YOU suggest a threatened culture should deal with an enemy like that?

PS To make this question more interesting for you, let culture A = Israeli and culture B = 'Palestinian'.

My humble opinion does not interest at all, nor is it your concern what I might consider happiness (see my last post). The use of military force reduces humans to fools (or animals, in the degrading Christian sense), so my answer is obviously: no.

Ok, allow  me  to slightly modify  that question. What do  YOU consider to be "the greatest happiness" any human being could experience? And would that 'alliance theory' of yours allow for the use of military force, even as a last resort? Yes, or No?
 
Thank you.
 
 

Difficult to answer as it depends on each individual. Some people may achieve extase (as supreme physical/mental form) with food or sex or football, others with contemplation and spirituality. As definition of 'happiness' we should value the well-being of the protagonist AND her/his surrounding (which may be persons, animals or nature).

@ kappert
 
Before I respond to your last post perhaps you would be kind enough to provide me with an answer to the following question.
 
What do you consider to be "the greatest happiness" any human being can experience ?
 

Btw: Would your 'alliance theory' allow for the use of military force, even as a last resort?

Thank you.

Let me first reply to the Russian-European question. Of course, Russia is an European country (majority in population), even if it is three times larger than the tiny European continent. Many scandinavians, german, french influences in Russian history (Putin wrote a book: A German in the Kremlin). But: Russia never succumbed to 'European policies', due to its geography and ethnical/cultural mixture. In my opinion, Russian politicians have more training/knowledge/insight on people's interests than 'Western' 4in4-years-to-vote politicians. That's why I separate 'Russia' from 'Western Europe'.
"And when a culture is confronted by another culture which refuses to "let them be", what should the aggrieved party's appropriate response be to that unsolicited attention". Why the other party is 'aggrieved' should be answerewd by their own intelligentsia (normally black/white, good/bad prejudices prevail instead of an analysis). On a world-wide scale, we may look out for alliances (e.g. United Nations) in order to convince the opponent, or opt for withdraw (which I prefer). The difficulty lies in a neutral and equilibrated avaliation of the 'cultural conflict'. As we saw in European dominance in their colonies, this approach was not taken by any Western country in the XIX, XX century.

Ok neighour (I thought that was what I was attempting to do), let's discuss it. What's your answer?

Your question is very interessting. Try to discuss it with your neighbour!!

@Kappert
Russia is non-european? So is just a little bit european comparable to being a little bit pregnant?
Please, keep the Eurasianist drivel to yourself, nothing more than warmed over German Romanticism, which infected the Russian mind by exposure to messy, muddled German thinkers, which brings us back to whatever you were saying.
@atlanticist
Sorry to interrupt .

And when  a culture is confronted by another culture which refuses to "let them be", what should the aggrieved party's appropriate response be to that unsolicited attention (i.e. meddling) ? 

"European culture has meddled in other cultures and has historically considered itself to be superior to those other cultures" - yes, since 400 BC, at least.
"you fail to find similar fault in non-European cultures" - no, Arabian, Chinese, Japanese and Russian cultures meddled with their neighbour cultures, too.

You have just stated that " Europeans have had centuries of involvement in other ...cultures" and have expressed the opinion that Europeans should "focus on their own stable and let other cultures be what they want to be". Doesn't that statement itself suggest to the reader that you believe European culture has meddled in other cultures and has historically considered itself to be superior to those other cultures? Doesn't it also suggest to the reader that you fail to find similar fault in non-European cultures?  

All cultures are different and have their tiny singular achievements (see Welsh, Scots, English, Irish, only to mention a small European archipel). Difference is quite another thing than 'superiority' you used to speak about.

Two brief comments:

i  If there is no difference between cultures, how does one even begin to objectively differentiate between "them" and "us"?
 
ii Doesn't that last statement of yours suggest that you DO see a difference between an as yet undefined European culture and other cultures?

... a website to illustrate:
http://whitehaven01.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!5F6420EE601C6B21!4283.entry

As Europeans have and had centuries of involvement in other countries/cultures (Roman Empire, 'discoveries', missionary and slavery, World Wars, etc.), they should focus on their own stable and let other cultures be what they want to be. European cultures bases on monotheism, a strong statehood, machoism and puppy mentality.

If you genuinely believe that no culture is better or worse than another, how then to explain a previous statement you made, and I quote " We (i.e. "us Europeans") should molest less other countries and cultures. Unfortunately it's only continent with that pattern"?
See: britsfree node/31919.

I can quote back to you any number of similar statements you have made in the past that suggests you DO consider other cultures superior to your own. Explanation, please. 

Btw: You still haven't provided me with a definition of what YOU mean by the term " European culture".

How about human trafficking? The Norks are among the most prolific in that endeavor, while, let's say Ireland, has less.

But that makes N. Korea no worse than Ireland, right?

Doh!

Sorry for the delay, other duties. I think, superiority of one culture vs other culture does simply not match. As a German you drink beer, as a French wine, it's different without any conotation of superiority.

You wrote that you would be "curious" to learn MY definition of the term "stupidity", and when I provided you  with MY definition you criticised me for doing so. Just how stupid is that? 
 
Btw: I'm still waiting for YOUR response to MY question(s).

@ Monarchist
 
Get ready. You're on next.   ;-))

In anticipation of (at best) a nebulous response to  Anything (3), please tell me ANYTHING  about ANY culture other than your own that is SUPERIOR to your own culture and WHY that is so. And while you are in such a relatively responsive mood, perhaps you could also provide me with YOUR definition of the term, "European culture".Thank you.

Progress indeed. Now tell me, however briefly, ANYTHING you find about YOUR culture that is SUPERIOR to any other culture on the planet and WHY that is so.

No, I do not hate European culture and I am far from imposing anything on other people. The rest 'pride', 'champion for the cause' etc. belongs to your definition of 'stupidity'.

I didn't ask you if there was anything you disliked about Western  culture (i.e. "us Europeans"), I asked you if there was anything YOU DIDN'T HATE ABOUT IT.
 
Please, allow me to make this simple question even simpler for even the simplest among us to understand.Do you understand it now? (There, I do believe that I've broadly defined for you what I mean by the term "stupid"). Read the following statement then tell me if it is BROADLY IN LINE with YOUR feelings on this issue.
 
I, KAPPERT, HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN WESTERN CULTURE (i.e. "us Europeans"), AND WOULD MUCH PREFER THAT THE REST OF YOU WOULD IGNORE ALL THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF CULTURES OTHER THAN OUR OWN, AND WOULD BE PROUD TO BE IDENTIFIED AS  A WESTERN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS  A CHAMPION FOR THE CAUSE  OF ANY AND ALL CULTURES OTHER THAN MY OWN.
 
I'll take a simple answer from you, Yes, or No.

Anything I don't dislike? Of course there is.
Stupidity as a gift of God???? That is funny, as you (or JPII) have to define stupidity and what might be considered the contrary, I'm curious to hear that. Obviously the Middle Age Popes weren't in that 'stupidity' category, they misused the law without any mondane or heavenly punishment, as far as I know.

You haven't, so I will do it for you.
 
@ kappert
 
"Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it".
 
- Pope John Paul II.

Thank you. And the answer to my question is?

If anybody is interessted in the sex life of famous people, I rather prefer 'us Europeans'. That the Popes had a vivid sex life IS part of the Western culture, and certainly a candidate for best-seller.

To rework my original question, is there ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING about your own Western culture (i.e. "us Europeans" ) you don't hate? I'm sure that even Monarchist is starting to wonder why you refuse to address this basic question.

Sex and violence sells. I would prefer a fictional softporn on the medieval Popes, much more interessting for us Europeans.

...and watching the dhimmis cower.

@ Amazon

What's to censor here? The book title is "The Jewel of Medina" and the subject of the book is  one of Muhammed's many wives, Aisha.
 
http://jewelofmedinabook.com/
 
Had the subject of the book been Safiya Bint Huyay, one of Muhammed's many other wives, and the title of the book  " The Jew of el Medina", I could begin to understand what all the fuss is about.