What is the best country to visit in Europe?

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:11:20 +0100, David Horne wrote:

AJC wrote:

Oh,you can keep your *** restaurants. Eating out in France is often at
its best in unprepossesing restaurants in the most unlikely places.

On recent visits (or is that 'occasional' visits?) I've actually been
quite impressed with some of the 'French' restaurants run by immigrants-
Algerians, Morrocans etc. I say this only because in the 80s and even
most of the 90s, they seemed to me to be a cheap alternative, but
weren't very good. (For residents, preferably those of you used to
mid-lower priced establishments, does this ring true, or is it just the
opinion of a visitor?) This is purely unscientific, mind you- just my
impression. I think another problem is that most of my visits in the 90s
to France were with a US pricing perspective. Now I live in the UK,
everything in France seems like excellent value!

No argument on prices.

OTOH, our few recent experiences with Chinese restaurants in France were a
total disaster. Which contrasts with 20, 30 years ago, when Chinese
restaurants in Europe were pretty good.

Nowadays, it seems they mostly belong to/are operated by folks who came
from (mainland) China as grad students and found a way to stick around.
And, not uncharacteristically, who have no idea about what Chinese food is
supposed to be like. Works on the belief that if they are Chinese, then
the junk they serve you got to be Chinese cooking.

Oh well.

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

In article 1gbyes9.ileutc912lgaN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.co.uk,
David Horne wrote:

I was initially pro-war. I really did believe the hype (now, convincly
disproved) that Iraq had weapons of mass distr^h^h destruction. I knew
the war would be bloody, but I felt- hey, in the long term, it would all
be OK.

I personally never cared much about weapons of mass destruction.

You may not have, but without _that_ argument, Blair would not have felt
he had parliamentary authority to get involved. While the UK forces do
not match those of the US, this would still have been a symbolic blow,
had the UK not been involved.

People
like Saddam have no right to rule countries, WMD or no WMD.

Indeed, but it's one thing to believe it- another to fight for it. War
is horrific, people die- their limbs are smashed into bits, their guts
spill out on the floor, they bleed to death- and that's just the
children... I can't bring myself to say it's worth it now.

I was more
concerned about his threat to his own people than to his neighbors.
As I said many times, I wish Mugabe and Castro sat on a bucket of oil,
so the US would have the incentive to do something about them.

The problem is- look at a list of various countries, and have a look at
their death/murder rates. It gives a sense of perspective. The US
obsession with Cuba really embarrases non-Americans, and some
_Americans_ too. OK, so he thumbed his nose at the US, and he runs an
oppressive failed communist state. The people are very poor there. Big
deal, get over it. Do you seriously suggest a war? There are regimes in
the Americas with worse human rights records, and the US supported them.
Do you have any leftist (indeed, centrist) Chilean friends?

Basically, I'm unconvinced that life for Iraqis _under_ Saddam Hussein
is any worse than life after his deposal.

Everything I hear suggests that, by and large, Iraqis are very happy
to be rid of Saddam, the current troubles notwithstanding.

That's the problem. I'm beginning to question how 'notwithstanding' they
really are.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:01:45 +0000, Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

In article ,
devil wrote:

Too bad none of this applies to France. Well, I suppose French
countryside has a couple of nice spots here and there, but you are
surely joking about the rest.

What will it take to convince you that they were right on the Iraq lunacy?

What will it take to convince you that Shrub & Co did a Good Thing (TM)
in ridding Iraq of Saddam?

My guess is, they must now be desperately trying to reinvent a new Saddam.
Getting rid of one Saddam to replace him by another one. Remember that
the US more or less invented him in the first place anyway.

Not to mention that the French government is a particularly bad choice
of a posterboy for sensible Iraq policy, considering that they tried
their darnedest to keep Saddam in power not of out any noble
sentiment, but purely out of anti-American spite and the desire to
keep their quasi-state oil companies profitably engaged in the Iraqi
oil scam.

Putting words in their mouth? Who knows, who cares, they were right. And
BTW, it was pretty obvious. One scary thing is that the Shrub club
apparently had no clue as to what they were dealing with.


(And while they are indeed losing ground, they still have good wine.)

At the top end, undoubtedly. But for those of us who can't afford to
drink top-notch Burgundy every night, middle-of-the-road French wines
are simply not competitive, dollar for dollar, with the stuff that
comes out of places like Chile, South Africa and California these
days.

I would not include California on that list. I would hesitate to touch
California stuff that's not high end. Which is about as overpriced as the
French stuff.

OTOH, I would include some Italian stuff, both affordable and at the high
end. Also, some interesting wines from Spain.

If you know of any good French wine under $30 (preferably something
that would be available in the US), please share the wisdom, I promise
I'll give it a try.

Well, not in the $30 range. Can't afford that on an everyday basis, more
lie $10. But one of my everyday choices, besides Nipozzano chianti and
some Chilean, including Santa Rita Medalla Real, includes a fairly decent
Cotes du Rhone from these guys in Ampuis, Guigal, a glass of which I
happen to have here at this very moment.

True that drinkable Burgundies and Bordeaux are overpriced and that cheap
ones are undrinkable. But you get well-priced stuff from Cotes du Rhone
and even Alsace. While on the whole I am no great fan of Loire stuff, I
don't mind some of their pinot noir once in a while. Menetou-Salon, for
instance; although hard to find on this side of the pond.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:46:40 +0100, Padraig Breathnach wrote:

The only good French wines I know cost far less than $30 (I take it we
are dealing in price per bottle, not per case).

It's wonderful having a palate which has no pretensions.

Tomorrow: Sautéed scallops; Poached Brill with Beurre Blanc;
Roquefort.

Washed down with Pouilly Fuissé. perhaps some vintage port with the
roquefort.

Neither being particularly cheap though.

I prefer my scallops grilled, I confess.

devil wrote:

OTOH, our few recent experiences with Chinese restaurants in France were a
total disaster. Which contrasts with 20, 30 years ago, when Chinese
restaurants in Europe were pretty good.

I haven't been to a Chinese restaurant in France for about a decade, and
I don't think I was impressed then. 30 years ago, I would have been 3,
so I don't know about that far back!

My impression has always been that Chinese food in Europe in general is
not that great. There are a few restaurants, especially in chinatowns,
which I think are quite good- that said, I limit that to the UK. If it's
a transatlantic comparison, then I'd say I prefer US chinese food- ho
doubt.

Nowadays, it seems they mostly belong to/are operated by folks who came
from (mainland) China as grad students and found a way to stick around.
And, not uncharacteristically, who have no idea about what Chinese food is
supposed to be like. Works on the belief that if they are Chinese, then
the junk they serve you got to be Chinese cooking.

I hear what you're saying, but I have a different opinion- I've wondered
if euro-Chinese food wasn't based on a certain understanding that
'that's what the customer wants'- greasy, salty, instantly 'gratifying'
but ultimately not very tasty.

As with the US, I tend to judge a good chinese restaurants by the number
of chinese people dining there. Arbitrary, I realise, but often useful.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:53:50 +0000, Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:


Everything I hear suggests that, by and large, Iraqis are very happy
to be rid of Saddam, the current troubles notwithstanding. Of course,
I have no first-hand evidence. If someone has been to Iraq lately,
I'd love to hear their impressions.

The Iraqis I have spoken to would in other circumstances have been happy
to get rid of Saddam. They do however invariably pick Saddam over the
current mess.

The one thing worse than Saddam is US occupation apparently. The one
thing the US apparently are succeeding at is building a consensus. About
wanting them out.

David Horne wrote:

I was initially pro-war. I really did believe the hype (now, convincly
disproved) that Iraq had weapons of mass distr^h^h destruction. I knew
the war would be bloody, but I felt- hey, in the long term, it would
all be OK. Now, I have quite a contrary view. I feel lied to, conned,
by my own (UK) government. In addition, more and more, I'm coming to
the view that Bush is a frighteningly out of control powermonger.

Intelligent people may have different opinions but eventually
they'll reach the same conclusions... Racist idiots like zbzbzb
think they can solve all problems by nuking the entire Middle
East.

I'm now of the view that the allied forces should
now withdraw, and let Iraq fall to bits.

That's EXACTLY what's going to happen from July 1st on...
So, Bush broke all international laws and agreements, fabricated
evidence and lied to the American people, made a mokery of the
UN, made the US the most hated country in the world, spat on
our oldest allies, got us in the first war the US actually STARTED,
killed thousands of innocent civilians, got 600 of our soldiers killed,
raided the treasury and dug the biggest hole in US economic history
FOR WHAT? Well, of course to help Halliburton and the other
crooks make BILLIONS from the war and those will gladly
contribute tens of millions to the Bush campaign...

BUSH-CHENEY, working to save American jobs: theirs.

Basically, I'm unconvinced that life for Iraqis _under_ Saddam Hussein
is any worse than life after his deposal. Lots of people are being
killed. If we saw the real mutilation of innocents on TV, the allied
forces would withdraw in an eyeblink.

Yeah, but since the US has basically become a police state, we're
not going to see anything they don't want us to see...

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

Everything I hear suggests that, by and large, Iraqis are
very happy to be rid of Saddam, the current troubles
notwithstanding.

Maybe because everything you hear is censored bull****...

devil wrote:

The one thing worse than Saddam is US occupation apparently.
The one thing the US apparently are succeeding at is building a
consensus. About wanting them out.

Bush has managed to do the impossible: he got
the Sunis and Shiites allied against the invaders.

Now the **** will really hit the fan...

Go to Britain,they're civilised, speak English, and make the best fish and
chips. As a bonus the scenery is beautiful in parts. Guess where Icome from.