| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2004 11:59:40 AM |
| Object: |
No French or German turn on Iraq |
No French or German turn on Iraq
By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in
Washington
Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004
21:13
French and German government officials say they will not significantly
increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the
Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.
Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to
broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations
with European allies and increase international military assistance in
Iraq.
"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to
send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of
parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social
Democratic Party, said in an interview.
"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and
as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German
government's backing in other matters."
Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations
about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there
for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that
France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad
Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".
That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say
the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already
there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel,
regardless of the outcome of the US election.
A French government official said: "People don't expect that much
would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get
better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry
replaces Bush.
"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If
there's change in both countries then it's possible we would
re-examine our position, but I don't expect a massive change either
way."
A German government spokesman declined to comment on the outcome of
the US presidential election. But the feeling in Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder's office is that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather
than more likely to change its mind as security conditions deteriorate
in Iraq.
Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his 2002 electoral
commitment not to send troops as a new general election looms in 2006.
There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US
president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely
seen as Mr Bush's botched war.
In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the
prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change
US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.
Both France and Germany, however, have said they would contribute to
the reduction of Iraq's debt and participate in economic and
environmental development programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi
security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so.
Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of alienating foreign
capitals and undermining US credibility in the world one of the chief
arguments on Thursday night when he confronts the president in the
first presidential debate.
The televised debate, which is expected to be watched by more than the
46.6m people who watched the debate in 2000, will focus on foreign
policy and national security.
In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into
Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our
allies to share the burden."
He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that
when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is
president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I
have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something,
doesn't mean it can't be done."
The German government continues to oppose sending troops to Iraq under
any circumstance.
Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the invasion of
Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the Balkan and Afghanistan, it has
also argued its troops are overstretched.
Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision to start
training inside Iraq, it still thinks the deployment is counter-
productive.
"Nato personnel will become targets for attacks," one official said on
Sunday
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades in
North Viet Nam prison camps took torture to avoid saying." -- Paul
Galanti POW Jan. 1966 - Feb. 1973
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "Letterman" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
27 Sep 2004 12:20:34 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:gjhgl0dve5hfb98p45rpfb2jq3ga3bsukm@4ax.com...
No French or German turn on Iraq
By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in
Washington
Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004
21:13
There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US
president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely
seen as Mr Bush's botched war.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Warren" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
27 Sep 2004 04:29:47 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:gjhgl0dve5hfb98p45rpfb2jq3ga3bsukm@4ax.com...
There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US
president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely
seen as Mr Bush's botched war.
The German public, and that of Europe as a whole, loathes the US, period.
Our high-horsepower economy and unsurpassed military might combined with a
culture of 'thinking outside the box,' coming from a nation less than 300
years old, makes thier socialist systems look weak and ineffective. Of
course, they happily shelve those thoughts when Sugardaddy Sam comes 'round
with the open wallet...
Stuart Warren
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
27 Sep 2004 07:34:11 PM |
|
|
"Stuart Warren" <email@somewhere.com> wrote in
news:cja0dv$hqc$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:gjhgl0dve5hfb98p45rpfb2jq3ga3bsukm@4ax.com...
There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US
president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is
widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.
The German public, and that of Europe as a whole, loathes the US,
period. Our high-horsepower economy and unsurpassed military might
combined with a culture of 'thinking outside the box,' coming from a
nation less than 300 years old, makes thier socialist systems look
weak and ineffective. Of course, they happily shelve those thoughts
when Sugardaddy Sam comes 'round with the open wallet...
Neither of you have any clue about what the average German really thinks
about America. You base your knowledge on foreign cultures on what your
Gauleiter tells you at the weekly pro-Bush rally and not on anything
approximating reality. I can tell you as someone who has traveled to
Germany in the past year that the Germans do not hate us. I have spoken
with Muslims inside of Germany and even they do not hate us. It's a
pernicious lie that Americans are unwelcome in Europe.
There are a lot of people there who don't like President Bush that is true.
Of course, there are also a lot of people _here_ who don't like Bush and I
have found that Germans are generally aware of this. It was my
understanding that Germany is still going through a difficult period and
that all international commitments (Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.) are more or
less unpopular for mostly economic reasons. It's true that Germany will be
reluctant to send troops no matter who is in office, but this has more to
do with economic concerns than feelings about Bush or Americans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Letterman" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 10:08:22 PM |
|
|
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9571C71F5296nopenospamcom@206.66.12.205...
"Stuart Warren" <email@somewhere.com> wrote in
news:cja0dv$hqc$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:gjhgl0dve5hfb98p45rpfb2jq3ga3bsukm@4ax.com...
There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US
president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is
widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.
The German public, and that of Europe as a whole, loathes the US,
period. Our high-horsepower economy and unsurpassed military might
combined with a culture of 'thinking outside the box,' coming from a
nation less than 300 years old, makes thier socialist systems look
weak and ineffective. Of course, they happily shelve those thoughts
when Sugardaddy Sam comes 'round with the open wallet...
Neither of you have any clue about what the average German really thinks
about America. You base your knowledge on foreign cultures on what your
Gauleiter tells you at the weekly pro-Bush rally and not on anything
approximating reality. I can tell you as someone who has traveled to
Germany in the past year that the Germans do not hate us. I have spoken
with Muslims inside of Germany and even they do not hate us. It's a
pernicious lie that Americans are unwelcome in Europe.
There are a lot of people there who don't like President Bush that is
true.
Of course, there are also a lot of people _here_ who don't like Bush and I
have found that Germans are generally aware of this. It was my
understanding that Germany is still going through a difficult period and
that all international commitments (Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.) are more or
less unpopular for mostly economic reasons. It's true that Germany will be
reluctant to send troops no matter who is in office, but this has more to
do with economic concerns than feelings about Bush or Americans.
Economic concerns is what Kerry will approach. Throw them a few contracts.
Let them have a share of the pie in exchange for flesh and blood.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tobias knittel" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 01:29:36 AM |
|
|
Hi
There are a lot of people there who don't like President Bush that is
true.
Of course, there are also a lot of people _here_ who don't like Bush and I
have found that Germans are generally aware of this. It was my
understanding that Germany is still going through a difficult period and
that all international commitments (Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.) are more or
less unpopular for mostly economic reasons. It's true that Germany will be
reluctant to send troops no matter who is in office, but this has more to
do with economic concerns than feelings about Bush or Americans.
Partly. Most German and French (public) just think,
that this war isn't justified. Iraq had nothing to do with
Bin Laden or Al Kada. Iraq was a dictatorship, but not even an
Islamistic. The Baath-party was originaly socialistic.
Why to take part in a war, that isn't justified - and
was justified by the government of the US with
lies. Further the French did warn Bush about what the US will
face, going to Iraq, as their friend. Why? They know what the are speaking
about. Bush didn't want to listen. He has a mission ...
let him run. There is no reason to follow such prohets :-)
We had prophets enough in Europe - and people just can't
hear them anymore ... let them run. They all leave the same
mess afterwards. Kick him out of office, ot live with him.
It is up to you, but most of French and German just don't
want to have to do anything with him ...
Best regards
Tobias
(Germany)
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 10:10:35 AM |
|
|
"tobias knittel" <tokni@tokni.de> wrote in
news:cjb0cg$kfa$02$1@news.t-online.com:
Hi
There are a lot of people there who don't like President Bush that is
true.
Of course, there are also a lot of people _here_ who don't like Bush
and I have found that Germans are generally aware of this. It was my
understanding that Germany is still going through a difficult period
and that all international commitments (Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.)
are more or less unpopular for mostly economic reasons. It's true
that Germany will be reluctant to send troops no matter who is in
office, but this has more to do with economic concerns than feelings
about Bush or Americans.
Partly. Most German and French (public) just think,
that this war isn't justified. Iraq had nothing to do with
Bin Laden or Al Kada. Iraq was a dictatorship, but not even an
Islamistic. The Baath-party was originaly socialistic.
That's what many of us here think as well (and thought all along). However,
Bush and his puppet Alawi have created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq that
future American administrations will have to fix. In that time, the
reconstruction effort will have to be transformed from a profit-taking
venture by multinational corporations into something that helps and employs
the Iraqi people. Also, the CIA must be reigned in from influencing the
Iraqi elections and legitimate UN oversight must be established over the
use of foreign military force in Iraq.
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we manage to
do these things, do you think that Europe will be more inclined to assist
us in rebuilding Iraq?
Why to take part in a war, that isn't justified - and
was justified by the government of the US with
lies. Further the French did warn Bush about what the US will
face, going to Iraq, as their friend. Why? They know what the are
speaking about. Bush didn't want to listen. He has a mission ...
let him run. There is no reason to follow such prohets :-)
We would probably be in Iran right now if it weren't for Europe. In six
months from now, maybe North Korea. A year from now we would be in Cuba,
Venezuela, or Syria. However, Europe's lack of complicity only set back the
time table- it was only a minor inconvenience for Bush. He's already
planning more invasions for his second term.
We had prophets enough in Europe - and people just can't
hear them anymore ... let them run. They all leave the same
mess afterwards. Kick him out of office, ot live with him.
It is up to you, but most of French and German just don't
want to have to do anything with him ...
I wish European leaders would come out and say that a condition of their
assistance is the absence of a President Bush. Our administration thinks
nothing of saying that leaders like Arafat and Chavez should be overthrown.
Richard Perle even declared that Gerhard Schroeder should resign. It would
be nice if Schroeder and Chirac would return the favor and offer help to
the USA on the condition that Bush and his administration leave power.
Europe really has nothing to lose at this point. Bush has shown that he
will not abide by any international agreements so long as perceived
national interests (mostly personal business interests) are in conflict.
Some Americans may resent Europe's interference, but I'm sure that most
will eventually see that America has to work with the rest of the world if
she wants to survive in the long run. Bush simply isn't a team player, so
he has to go.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jürgen Hubert" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 02:32:25 PM |
|
|
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957267890F7E7nopenospamcom@206.66.12.201...
That's what many of us here think as well (and thought all along).
However,
Bush and his puppet Alawi have created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq that
future American administrations will have to fix. In that time, the
reconstruction effort will have to be transformed from a profit-taking
venture by multinational corporations into something that helps and
employs
the Iraqi people. Also, the CIA must be reigned in from influencing the
Iraqi elections and legitimate UN oversight must be established over the
use of foreign military force in Iraq.
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we manage to
do these things, do you think that Europe will be more inclined to assist
us in rebuilding Iraq?
I would be. But it's hard to say what others would do.
And it also depends on the form of assistance. It is exceedingly unlikely,
for example, that Germany will send soldiers to Iraq. But humanitarian
assistance or debt relief? Especially from a democratically elected and
legetimate Iraq government? That's much more likely...
--
- Jürgen Hubert
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
29 Sep 2004 01:27:13 PM |
|
|
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhubert@gmx.de> wrote in
news:2rtsk8F1ct6pvU2@uni-berlin.de:
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957267890F7E7nopenospamcom@206.66.12.201...
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we
manage to do these things, do you think that Europe will be more
inclined to assist us in rebuilding Iraq?
I would be. But it's hard to say what others would do.
And it also depends on the form of assistance. It is exceedingly
unlikely, for example, that Germany will send soldiers to Iraq. But
humanitarian assistance or debt relief? Especially from a
democratically elected and legetimate Iraq government? That's much
more likely...
AFAIK, Germany and NATO countries are already providing some assistance in
these areas. In your opinion, assuming such a scenario was possible, what
if a democratically elected Iraqi government appealed for foreign military
aid to help stabilize the country? Would you tell them to ask the United
States instead?
I'm keeping in mind that the American political angle is that we want less
Americans to die in Iraq, presumably to be replaced by soldiers from other
countries. My personal position is that I don't think it's fair to expect
other countries to sacrifice their people for our illegal war. However, it
wouldn't be the first time America withdrew because of a no-win insurgency
and there are the Iraqis to think of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jürgen Hubert" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 09:34:21 AM |
|
|
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957388E02D5A7nopenospamcom@206.66.12.201...
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhubert@gmx.de> wrote in
news:2rtsk8F1ct6pvU2@uni-berlin.de:
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957267890F7E7nopenospamcom@206.66.12.201...
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we
manage to do these things, do you think that Europe will be more
inclined to assist us in rebuilding Iraq?
I would be. But it's hard to say what others would do.
And it also depends on the form of assistance. It is exceedingly
unlikely, for example, that Germany will send soldiers to Iraq. But
humanitarian assistance or debt relief? Especially from a
democratically elected and legetimate Iraq government? That's much
more likely...
AFAIK, Germany and NATO countries are already providing some assistance in
these areas. In your opinion, assuming such a scenario was possible, what
if a democratically elected Iraqi government appealed for foreign military
aid to help stabilize the country? Would you tell them to ask the United
States instead?
The current German government is exceedingly unlikely to send soldiers to
Iraq - Schröder has made a promise too big to break here. If a conservative
government gets elected in two years and _if_ it looks like the situation in
Iraq is improving, things might become different. Or they might not -
sending German soldiers is currently an extremely unpopular idea, and it
won't become much more popular within the next two years...
It might help a bit if Kerry gets elected - no one in Germany is currently
in the mood to do Bush any favors. But it probably won't make enough of a
difference to send troops.
--
- Jürgen Hubert
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tobias knittel" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 11:55:03 AM |
|
|
Hi mikeg,
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we manage to
do these things, do you think that Europe will be more inclined to assist
us in rebuilding Iraq?
I can't speak for Europe, But for myself :-)
They already do so, often "behind the closed door". But it is difficult to
rebuild a country without any concept. The people in the country
must assist, or at least want to support the rebuilding. You cannot
rebuild a county by making a lot of the inhabitants your enemy. The
situation is quite fucked up in the moment. Rebuilding can only work
by respecting the traditions of a people and their religious habits and
beliefs, otherwise it won't work. A democratic change can only come
out of themselves. This is a slow process. It did take hundred of
years in Europe ...
We would probably be in Iran right now if it weren't for Europe. In six
months from now, maybe North Korea. A year from now we would be in Cuba,
Venezuela, or Syria. However, Europe's lack of complicity only set back
the
time table- it was only a minor inconvenience for Bush. He's already
planning more invasions for his second term.
This will not work, and has never worked, see history, on the
long run.
I wish European leaders would come out and say that a condition of their
assistance is the absence of a President Bush. Our administration thinks
nothing of saying that leaders like Arafat and Chavez should be
overthrown.
Richard Perle even declared that Gerhard Schroeder should resign. It would
be nice if Schroeder and Chirac would return the favor and offer help to
the USA on the condition that Bush and his administration leave power.
"Old" Europe said "no" to this war. They said yes to assist in the
war against terrosism. So a part of the German army is in Afghanistan.
Bush (and the thinktank behind him) fucked up this war against
terror by invading Iraq. There they took this "war against terror"
as excuse.
Europe really has nothing to lose at this point. Bush has shown that he
will not abide by any international agreements so long as perceived
national interests (mostly personal business interests) are in conflict.
Some Americans may resent Europe's interference, but I'm sure that most
will eventually see that America has to work with the rest of the world if
she wants to survive in the long run. Bush simply isn't a team player, so
he has to go.
One difference is, that Schroeder was a worker, before he came
to politics. Fischer was for a long time taxi-driver. They might have
problems to understand a democracy, where only the rich can afford
to become president. To understand their different viewpoints it might be
helpfull too.
Best regards
Tobias
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
29 Sep 2004 08:31:56 AM |
|
|
"tobias knittel" <tokni@tokni.de> wrote in
news:cjc517$trb$03$1@news.t-online.com:
Hi mikeg,
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we
manage to do these things, do you think that Europe will be more
inclined to assist us in rebuilding Iraq?
I can't speak for Europe, But for myself :-)
They already do so, often "behind the closed door". But it is
difficult to rebuild a country without any concept. The people in the
country must assist, or at least want to support the rebuilding. You
cannot rebuild a county by making a lot of the inhabitants your enemy.
Well, Bush never really had a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq before he
invaded. We had a notorious lack of human-level intelligence in Iraq prior
to the war that probably hampered the planning process. Admittedly the
whole thing was done rather thoughtlessly. Unfortunately, it is the Iraqis
who suffer the most for this.
The situation is quite fucked up in the moment. Rebuilding can only
work by respecting the traditions of a people and their religious
habits and beliefs, otherwise it won't work. A democratic change can
only come out of themselves. This is a slow process. It did take
hundred of years in Europe ...
America is in the very difficult situation of imposing something on the
Iraqi people that they may not want. If we were to allow the Iraqis to
freely choose, today, what their government will be the result may be
something that America doesn't want. Possible scenarios are a pro-Iranian
Islamic Socialist government, an independent Kurdistan, a return to
Baathism, or even a divided Iraq with all three in place.
I don't see any American administration now or ever allowing this to
happen. It would be viewed as a failure. So many Americans have died in
Iraq that it is already an escalating commitment, a situation from which we
cannot comfortably withdraw. In all likelihood the USA will continue to
manipulate elections in Iraq and control the country covertly for the
foreseeable future, such as we do now through Alawi (our "Iraqi face" on
the occupation). As long as we continue to do so, even out of necessity,
there will never be a true democracy in Iraq.
The insurgency is an even more complicated issue. We will never pacify Iraq
while so many are unemployed and our control over the country is so
transparent. It's vital that we police the border regions to prevent
foreign fighters and weapons from entering the country, but whenever our
troops leave their safe areas they are attacked and more die. Equipping
Iraqis to police themselves apparently only funnels more weapons into the
hands of insurgents.
This is the sad reality in Iraq. Unfortunately, we don't have hundreds of
years. Too many of our soldiers have died already in this folly.
I wish European leaders would come out and say that a condition of
their assistance is the absence of a President Bush. Our
administration thinks nothing of saying that leaders like Arafat and
Chavez should be overthrown.
Richard Perle even declared that Gerhard Schroeder should resign. It
would be nice if Schroeder and Chirac would return the favor and
offer help to the USA on the condition that Bush and his
administration leave power.
"Old" Europe said "no" to this war. They said yes to assist in the
war against terrosism. So a part of the German army is in Afghanistan.
Bush (and the thinktank behind him) fucked up this war against
terror by invading Iraq. There they took this "war against terror"
as excuse.
Well, if you asked Bush and his supporters they would tell you that he
"created a new front" on the War on Terror. This much is true: more
Americans are dying as a result of Iraqi terrorists than ever before the
war. Of course, our actions in Iraq directly created a lot of these
terrorists. According to the official line, this keeps America safer
because world terrorist networks are so consumed with killing our soldiers
in Iraq that they don't have the time to plan attacks against us here in
the USA... as if Al Qaida is so stupid that it can't walk and chew gum at
the same time. Meanwhile, Al Qaida does have the capacity to attack allied
countries like Spain.
Germany helping us in Afghanistan is both good and bad, it frees up that
much more capacity for the United States to use. Also, Germany is attacked
by the Bush administration as a country that refuses to help us _period_,
so why not threaten to withdraw your soldiers unless Bush leaves power? Why
risk Germany as a possible terrorist target for an ally who doesn't
appreciate you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jürgen Hubert" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 09:43:14 AM |
|
|
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957356D04BBBBnopenospamcom@206.66.12.203...
Germany helping us in Afghanistan is both good and bad, it frees up that
much more capacity for the United States to use. Also, Germany is attacked
by the Bush administration as a country that refuses to help us _period_,
so why not threaten to withdraw your soldiers unless Bush leaves power?
Why
risk Germany as a possible terrorist target for an ally who doesn't
appreciate you?
Meddling in the elections of allied nations is _never_ a good idea. All it
will create is resentment without having anything to show for it.
Besides, it is vital to show even in these times of strained relationships
that yes, Germany _is_ an ally of the USA. Sure, the current government
won't thank us for it, but future governments might remember.
Breaking of all cooperation with the USA just because Bush is a jerk won't
help anyone - least of all Germany.
--
- Jürgen Hubert
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 10:15:02 PM |
|
|
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhubert@gmx.de> wrote in
news:2s81opF1h0at6U7@uni-berlin.de:
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957356D04BBBBnopenospamcom@206.66.12.203...
Germany helping us in Afghanistan is both good and bad, it frees up
that much more capacity for the United States to use. Also, Germany
is attacked by the Bush administration as a country that refuses to
help us _period_, so why not threaten to withdraw your soldiers
unless Bush leaves power? Why
risk Germany as a possible terrorist target for an ally who doesn't
appreciate you?
Meddling in the elections of allied nations is _never_ a good idea.
All it will create is resentment without having anything to show for
it.
If Bush manages to hold Iraq talks with the EU _before_ our election in
November and Germany fails to appease him in his insane agenda, he'll
accuse you of trying to influence the election anyway. The man is wholly
without shame.
Besides, it is vital to show even in these times of strained
relationships that yes, Germany _is_ an ally of the USA. Sure, the
current government won't thank us for it, but future governments might
remember.
Breaking of all cooperation with the USA just because Bush is a
jerk won't help anyone - least of all Germany.
Well, Bush is far worse than being just a jerk- you're being diplomatic.
Still, as an American I appreciate your sentiment. Certainly without the
Germans our mission in Afghanistan would be that much harder. I just
hope that we can defeat this madman in November for the sake of the Free
World. However, German-American relations are only a very small part of
what is at stake here. IIRC, they weren't all that great before
President Bush anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andreas" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
03 Oct 2004 06:48:44 AM |
|
|
mikeg <nope@nospam.com> wrote:
"Jürgen Hubert" <jhubert@gmx.de> wrote in
news:2s81opF1h0at6U7@uni-berlin.de:
"mikeg" <nope@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns957356D04BBBBnopenospamcom@206.66.12.203...
Germany helping us in Afghanistan is both good and bad, it frees up
that much more capacity for the United States to use. Also, Germany
is attacked by the Bush administration as a country that refuses to
help us _period_, so why not threaten to withdraw your soldiers
unless Bush leaves power? Why
risk Germany as a possible terrorist target for an ally who doesn't
appreciate you?
Meddling in the elections of allied nations is _never_ a good idea.
All it will create is resentment without having anything to show for
it.
If Bush manages to hold Iraq talks with the EU _before_ our election in
November and Germany fails to appease him in his insane agenda, he'll
accuse you of trying to influence the election anyway. The man is wholly
without shame.
Defering talks after US elections can well be justified: Nobody knows
the result of these elections and keeping talks twice is double work.
EU governments have enough work to do by themselfes.
Besides, it is vital to show even in these times of strained
relationships that yes, Germany _is_ an ally of the USA. Sure, the
current government won't thank us for it, but future governments might
remember.
Breaking of all cooperation with the USA just because Bush is a
jerk won't help anyone - least of all Germany.
Well, Bush is far worse than being just a jerk- you're being diplomatic.
Still, as an American I appreciate your sentiment. Certainly without the
Germans our mission in Afghanistan would be that much harder. I just
hope that we can defeat this madman in November for the sake of the Free
World. However, German-American relations are only a very small part of
what is at stake here. IIRC, they weren't all that great before
President Bush anyway.
I keep my thumbs pressed for you over there.
Regards,
Andreas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tobias knittel" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
29 Sep 2004 11:07:36 AM |
|
|
Hi mikeg
Well, Bush never really had a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq before he
invaded. We had a notorious lack of human-level intelligence in Iraq prior
to the war that probably hampered the planning process. Admittedly the
whole thing was done rather thoughtlessly. Unfortunately, it is the Iraqis
who suffer the most for this.
(...)
Well, if you asked Bush and his supporters they would tell you that he
"created a new front" on the War on Terror. This much is true: more
Americans are dying as a result of Iraqi terrorists than ever before the
war. Of course, our actions in Iraq directly created a lot of these
terrorists. According to the official line, this keeps America safer
because world terrorist networks are so consumed with killing our soldiers
in Iraq that they don't have the time to plan attacks against us here in
the USA... as if Al Qaida is so stupid that it can't walk and chew gum at
the same time. Meanwhile, Al Qaida does have the capacity to attack allied
countries like Spain.
There have been 2368 attacks in Iraq within 30 days (up to New York Times).
I don't know if you can just call all "terrorist attacks". It sounds more
like
"resistance" by a good part of the population.
Spain withdraw its troops from Iraq, as soon as the government
changed. More than two third of the Spanish population always
have been against this war. I don't remember the exact numbers, but
I remember even up to 80% against this war.
Germany helping us in Afghanistan is both good and bad, it frees up that
much more capacity for the United States to use. Also, Germany is attacked
by the Bush administration as a country that refuses to help us _period_,
so why not threaten to withdraw your soldiers unless Bush leaves power?
Why
risk Germany as a possible terrorist target for an ally who doesn't
appreciate you?
It was the so called "war against terrorism". But there is no more war
against terrorism. Just the word "terrorism" is used, but more and more
abused, either for political matters, or for cutting down civil rights and
establish total control
I can only give my opinion. My opinion is also somehow influenced by
the newer history of Germany. It reminds me somehow to a period
in the first half of the 20 th century. Thing often don't come suddenly,
but step by step. You have just to be aware what changed since 9/ 11,
and than decide, if you are not on the way to loose your freedom step by
step.
In the end that would be a victory for Bin Laden, or Al Kaida.
My feeling is, that politics abuse you as the population of the US,
by creating an national issue, where civil rights hav to be sacrificed.
But have to know an find find out yourself.
Best regards
Tobias
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
30 Sep 2004 07:41:20 PM |
|
|
"tobias knittel" <tokni@tokni.de> wrote in
news:cjemk7$p6j$01$1@news.t-online.com:
Well, if you asked Bush and his supporters they would tell you that
he "created a new front" on the War on Terror. This much is true:
more Americans are dying as a result of Iraqi terrorists than ever
before the war.
There have been 2368 attacks in Iraq within 30 days (up to New York
Times). I don't know if you can just call all "terrorist attacks". It
sounds more like "resistance" by a good part of the population.
I agree that our president made a big mistake by generalizing all Iraqi
insurgents as terrorists. Still, many of them aren't exactly the nicest
guys. There's a huge gray area between terrorists and the resistance at
this point. I hear that France has stipulated that the upcoming EU
negotiations concerning Iraq (the one Bush insists must be held before
our elections) should include representatives from the armed Iraqi
resistance. I have to admit I was somewhat amused by this.
I think sooner or later we'll have to open a dialog at least with the
Iraqi groups who are against the socio-economic problems caused by the
US occupation- the moderate Shia, Sunnis, and Nationalists. The only
real solution to fighting the insurgency is to decrease the abysmal
Iraqi unemployment rate and negotiate with the less terroristic groups.
Germany helping us in Afghanistan is both good and bad, it frees up
that much more capacity for the United States to use. Also, Germany
is attacked by the Bush administration as a country that refuses to
help us _period_, so why not threaten to withdraw your soldiers
unless Bush leaves power? Why
risk Germany as a possible terrorist target for an ally who doesn't
appreciate you?
It was the so called "war against terrorism". But there is no more war
against terrorism. Just the word "terrorism" is used, but more and
more abused, either for political matters, or for cutting down civil
rights and establish total control
I can only give my opinion. My opinion is also somehow influenced by
the newer history of Germany. It reminds me somehow to a period
in the first half of the 20 th century. Thing often don't come
suddenly, but step by step. You have just to be aware what changed
since 9/ 11, and than decide, if you are not on the way to loose your
freedom step by step.
I hope I've made myself clear that I do not support Bush or his
policies. Our situation is not similar to Germany's in the early 20th
century- we have a large percentage of the population that is anti-Bush.
While Bush arrested thousands of protesters in NYC and his followers are
prone to revel in their thuggery, there are still open protests. The
most effective means we have of combating Bush is, of course, to vote
against him.
I want to mention that the American people will not suffer tyrants in
the long run. If Bush moves to suspend the elections- his people hinted
they might just a few months ago when he was down in the polls- history
has demonstrated that he will pay dearly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 10:04:15 AM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2004 00:41:20 GMT, mikeg <nope@nospam.com> wrote:
I agree that our president made a big mistake by generalizing all Iraqi
insurgents as terrorists.
He didn't. He was accidentally right.
Still, many of them aren't exactly the nicest
guys.
A freedom fighter is by definition a guy who fights
for _freedom_.
Those "insurgents" that fight there - I dread to call
those fighters literally as insurgents without quotation
marks, I don't want to dishonor the memory of the
true, honorable insurgents fighting for freedom of
their countries this way - fight for enslaving the
people with theocracy.
Even if they are significant faction in this society,
they still fight just for establishing yet another
tyrannical regime. Not for anything that could
be called freedom, for anything that would allow
the self-determination of the nation. They just
want to subdue the rest of the nation. Even
if the tyrannical faction of this 27 million people
nation counts 4 million people, that is still
just a tyrannical faction.
There's a huge gray area between terrorists and the resistance at
this point. I hear that France has stipulated that the upcoming EU
negotiations concerning Iraq (the one Bush insists must be held before
our elections) should include representatives from the armed Iraqi
resistance. I have to admit I was somewhat amused by this.
France is playing totally cynical game.
---
The comical value of sheer, pure absurdity of Mr. Chomsky
describing himself as "The American Dissident" can be
fully appreciated only by a person who lived under under
the Soviet system. It is the claim that is almost as
tragi-farcical as life under the Soviet system itself was.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John of Aix" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
01 Oct 2004 12:53:22 PM |
|
|
mikeg wrote:
"tobias knittel" <tokni@tokni.de> wrote in
news:cjemk7$p6j$01$1@news.t-online.com:
Well, if you asked Bush and his supporters they would tell you that
he "created a new front" on the War on Terror. This much is true:
more Americans are dying as a result of Iraqi terrorists than ever
before the war.
There have been 2368 attacks in Iraq within 30 days (up to New York
Times). I don't know if you can just call all "terrorist attacks". It
sounds more like "resistance" by a good part of the population.
I agree that our president made a big mistake by generalizing all
Iraqi insurgents as terrorists. Still, many of them aren't exactly
the nicest guys. There's a huge gray area between terrorists and the
resistance at this point. I hear that France has stipulated that the
upcoming EU negotiations concerning Iraq (the one Bush insists must
be held before our elections) should include representatives from the
armed Iraqi resistance. I have to admit I was somewhat amused by this.
I think sooner or later we'll have to open a dialog at least with the
Iraqi groups who are against the socio-economic problems caused by the
US occupation- the moderate Shia, Sunnis, and Nationalists. The only
real solution to fighting the insurgency is to decrease the abysmal
Iraqi unemployment rate and negotiate with the less terroristic
groups.
It's a pity your leaders don't have a clear a view of reality as you.
You are right in all you say. It is time for the US to eat a bit of
humble pie and let everyone approach this now very difficult situation
from a new direction. It must clearly be seen and shown that
international effort has become one of reconstruction, not occupation
but I think this will be difficult if the USA stays involved and
probably impossible if Bush remains.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 12:18:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:55:03 +0200, "tobias knittel" <tokni@tokni.de>
wrote:
situation is quite fucked up in the moment. Rebuilding can only work
by respecting the traditions of a people and their religious habits and
beliefs, otherwise it won't work.
You mean like respecting certain Saudi Arabian tradition of beheading
people converting from Islam to another religion and resulting
from their religious beliefs?
How tolerant. I wonder if you're going to be equally tolerant if
I tried to behead someone for not following my faith, whatever
it is.
I faintly remember something about European tradition of
working for separation of state and church. Or smth
like Peace of Augsburg, some 1555 IIRC.
But maybe that's just my illusion.
Get real, man - sometimes there is no way to reconcile the
universal values with the local culture and "religious habits".
And I argue those universal values have the preference
over that local culture and religious habits, even if it smacks
of imperialism.
A democratic change can only come
out of themselves. This is a slow process. It did take hundred of
years in Europe ...
Hmm and I thought in Western Germany after WWII it took
just a few years.
---
Remember, this is for your own good. You cannot
argue against it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jürgen Hubert" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 09:43:26 AM |
|
|
<bulba@bulba.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cn6jl0hl3urdvj3fesspsq7m8627qmdcnp@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:55:03 +0200, "tobias knittel" <tokni@tokni.de>
wrote:
situation is quite fucked up in the moment. Rebuilding can only work
by respecting the traditions of a people and their religious habits and
beliefs, otherwise it won't work.
You mean like respecting certain Saudi Arabian tradition of beheading
people converting from Islam to another religion and resulting
from their religious beliefs?
I think he meant things like not doing strip-searches of women by male
soldiers...
I mean, yes, you _can_ tell the citizens of countries you have invaded:
"Your whole culture and society is <bleep>, so you'd better adopt the
culture, society, and religion of my country!"
But you probably won't make any friends with this attitude.
--
- Jürgen Hubert
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 11:25:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:43:26 +0200, "Jürgen Hubert" <jhubert@gmx.de>
wrote:
You mean like respecting certain Saudi Arabian tradition of beheading
people converting from Islam to another religion and resulting
from their religious beliefs?
I think he meant things like not doing strip-searches of women by male
soldiers...
I mean, yes, you _can_ tell the citizens of countries you have invaded:
"Your whole culture and society is <bleep>, so you'd better adopt the
culture, society, and religion of my country!"
Not as much as adopt your culture, (see the following link), as
_drop_ certain pieces of their culture, and not very many
and not particularly civilized pieces to begin with.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bliraqmcdonalds.htm
But you probably won't make any friends with this attitude.
SOME people can't be made friends with. It's a cliche about
"it takes two to tango", but it's very true cliche.
You're German. Why don't your politicians try to get PDS,
to, say, become the genuine democrats? Change their
mentality from the old times? If those guys have been
trying to get the undemocratic rule over Germany, would
you try to make "friends" with them? Do you think they
would amend their political culture and beliefs if you
asked them nicely to?
You don't make "friends" with totalitarians. You shoot them,
while trying to cause as little collateral damage and possible,
but you stil just shoot them.
---
The comical value of sheer, pure absurdity of Mr. Chomsky
describing himself as "The American Dissident" can be
fully appreciated only by a person who lived under under
the Soviet system. It is the claim that is almost as
tragi-farcical as life under the Soviet system itself was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John of Aix" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
04 Oct 2004 12:39:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You don't make "friends" with totalitarians. You shoot them,
while trying to cause as little collateral damage and possible,
but you stil just shoot them.
You have mental problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
04 Oct 2004 01:44:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:39:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
<j.murphy@nospamlibertysurf.fr> wrote:
You don't make "friends" with totalitarians. You shoot them,
while trying to cause as little collateral damage and possible,
but you stil just shoot them.
You have mental problems.
Nope. I have just lived under the Soviet system and
experienced first-hand that when dealing with _some_
people, fortunately few, but still some, there is no
negotiation possible. "It takes two to tango" is an
obvious cliche, but it's very true cliche.
---
The comical value of sheer, pure absurdity of Mr. Chomsky
describing himself as "The American Dissident" can be
fully appreciated only by a person who lived under under
the Soviet system. It is the claim that is almost as
tragi-farcical as life under the Soviet system itself was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John of Aix" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
04 Oct 2004 03:56:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:39:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
<j.murphy@nospamlibertysurf.fr> wrote:
You don't make "friends" with totalitarians. You shoot them,
while trying to cause as little collateral damage and possible,
but you stil just shoot them.
You have mental problems.
Nope. I have just lived under the Soviet system and
experienced first-hand that when dealing with _some_
people, fortunately few, but still some, there is no
negotiation possible. "It takes two to tango" is an
obvious cliche, but it's very true cliche.
I couldn't give a ***** where you've lived or under what system, you have
mental problems if you are capable of making a remark like the above in
seriousness..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 12:08:19 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2004 15:10:35 GMT, mikeg <nope@nospam.com> wrote:
Iraqi elections and legitimate UN oversight must be established over the
use of foreign military force in Iraq.
UN is a cruel joke. Don't count on it. Wherever it goes, from
the Rwanda to Balkans (it is the UN that ignited the war
by refusing to recognize independence of Croatia
and Slovenia) to Afghanistan (US has given UN $1.4 bln for
rebuilding Afghanistan - UN used up $900 mln for building
its offices in Kabul, small wonder now Bush trusts corporations
to rebuild Iraq more than UN) it just makes the situation even
worse.
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we manage to
do these things, do you think that Europe will be more inclined to assist
us in rebuilding Iraq?
Don't count on it. Here people want social spending above all.
So everything else is cut, from R&D to military.
This is very short-sighted, obviously. But the middle age and
older Europeans are so thoroughly brainwashed that there is
no way to talk them out of it using rational argumentation.
We would probably be in Iran right now if it weren't for Europe.
That would be much better option than Iraq: It is Iran that
is really funding intl terrorism. Shatter the states that
sponsor terrorism for their political goals, the terrorism
ends.
In six
months from now, maybe North Korea. A year from now we would be in Cuba,
Venezuela, or Syria.
I don't think so. The biggest problem now, after the demise of
Soviet Union is islamic theocracy. Once the void happened
after SU, theocratic mentality stepped in to fill the ideological
void, as there is no other dominant worldview like communism
once was.
Europe really has nothing to lose at this point. Bush has shown that he
will not abide by any international agreements so long as perceived
national interests (mostly personal business interests) are in conflict.
Oh please, just watch what the French are doing if you want
to get the real cynicism... Fortunately the rest of Europe
isn't that bad.
Some Americans may resent Europe's interference, but I'm sure that most
will eventually see that America has to work with the rest of the world if
she wants to survive in the long run. Bush simply isn't a team player, so
he has to go.
Bush is the one-person team, as there is nobody else having guts to
play - well, Tony Blair maybe - everybody is just a panicky observer
hoping it all will work out by itself. Somehow.
---
Remember, this is for your own good. You cannot
argue against it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jürgen Hubert" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 09:18:05 AM |
|
|
<bulba@bulba.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:036jl0d7dm7vgo7ehve26ilpoj81036s5m@4ax.com...
On 28 Sep 2004 15:10:35 GMT, mikeg <nope@nospam.com> wrote:
Iraqi elections and legitimate UN oversight must be established over the
use of foreign military force in Iraq.
UN is a cruel joke. Don't count on it. Wherever it goes, from
the Rwanda to Balkans (it is the UN that ignited the war
by refusing to recognize independence of Croatia
and Slovenia) to Afghanistan (US has given UN $1.4 bln for
rebuilding Afghanistan - UN used up $900 mln for building
its offices in Kabul, small wonder now Bush trusts corporations
to rebuild Iraq more than UN) it just makes the situation even
worse.
I'm wondering if the American corporations currently operating in Iraq are
_that_ much more efficient than the UN. You do hear stories, after all...
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we manage to
do these things, do you think that Europe will be more inclined to assist
us in rebuilding Iraq?
Don't count on it. Here people want social spending above all.
So everything else is cut, from R&D to military.
Actually, social spending is being cut radically as well. Haven't you heard?
--
- Jürgen Hubert
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
02 Oct 2004 11:31:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:18:05 +0200, "Jürgen Hubert" <jhubert@gmx.de>
wrote:
UN is a cruel joke. Don't count on it. Wherever it goes, from
the Rwanda to Balkans (it is the UN that ignited the war
by refusing to recognize independence of Croatia
and Slovenia) to Afghanistan (US has given UN $1.4 bln for
rebuilding Afghanistan - UN used up $900 mln for building
its offices in Kabul, small wonder now Bush trusts corporations
to rebuild Iraq more than UN) it just makes the situation even
worse.
I'm wondering if the American corporations currently operating in Iraq are
_that_ much more efficient than the UN. You do hear stories, after all...
No doubt. Seen here a lot during transformation. But it _does_
work out in the end. Unlike in case of UN it is not totally
wasted money.
US State Department should believe more in the principles
of the country it supposedly represents and make sure what
happens in Iraq is a free market with as little corruption as
possible. That would civilize Iraqis much faster than anything,
just like it happened in the former Soviet countries (except
Russia and Ukraine, but those just returned to their
traditional ways).
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we manage to
do these things, do you think that Europe will be more inclined to assist
us in rebuilding Iraq?
Don't count on it. Here people want social spending above all.
So everything else is cut, from R&D to military.
Actually, social spending is being cut radically as well. Haven't you heard?
No, not really? I've heard it was more or less frozen, but not
that it was being cut? Have any links?
Makes you wonder that if the things like R&D are cut or
at least frozen (they are, Europe is far behind US in
terms of scientific research expenditures and this
trend worries me a lot personally) where all the
money goes..
---
The comical value of sheer, pure absurdity of Mr. Chomsky
describing himself as "The American Dissident" can be
fully appreciated only by a person who lived under under
the Soviet system. It is the claim that is almost as
tragi-farcical as life under the Soviet system itself was.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John of Aix" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
28 Sep 2004 01:42:53 PM |
|
|
mikeg wrote:
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we
manage to do these things, do you think that Europe will be more
inclined to assist us in rebuilding Iraq?
Hypothetical questions are rather silly but I must say, I doubt it. Bush
and his band of thieves and liars have been so disparaging to Europe and
the UN, have shown such inhumanity in their actions that I think
something has been broken that will never be repaired. I for one
consider that a good thing. I think there are very few views we really
hold in common and it is time for Europe to go its own way completely.
The US and its lackeys have made such a mess in Iraq that I don't
beleieve any solution can be found if they remain involved.
It is up to you, but most of French and German just don't
want to have to do anything with him ...
I wish European leaders would come out and say that a condition of
their assistance is the absence of a President Bush.
So do I, but that's diplomacy for you.
Our administration thinks nothing of saying that leaders like Arafat
and
Chavez should be overthrown.
The little guys, they don't count.
Richard Perle even declared that Gerhard
Schroeder should resign. It would be nice if Schroeder and Chirac
would return the favor and offer help to the USA on the condition
that Bush and his administration leave power.
They should send over Oskar Fischer (sp), he know how to talk to the
yanks ;-)
Europe really has nothing to lose at this point. Bush has shown that
he will not abide by any international agreements so long as perceived
national interests (mostly personal business interests) are in
conflict. Some Americans may resent Europe's interference, but I'm
sure that most will eventually see that America has to work with the
rest of the world if she wants to survive in the long run. Bush
simply isn't a team player, so he has to go.
100% in agreement
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikeg" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
29 Sep 2004 09:54:18 AM |
|
|
"John of Aix" <j.murphy@nospamlibertysurf.fr> wrote in news:4159b09a$0
$30693$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr:
mikeg wrote:
As an American, I must ask this question of you Europeans: If we
manage to do these things, do you think that Europe will be more
inclined to assist us in rebuilding Iraq?
Hypothetical questions are rather silly but I must say, I doubt it.
Hypothetical questions are all we have at this point since the
transatlantic meltdown of last year. Even John Kerry's position on the
subject of European assistance reeks of conjecture, and he's a US
presidential candidate.
Bush and his band of thieves and liars have been so disparaging to
Europe and the UN, have shown such inhumanity in their actions that I
think something has been broken that will never be repaired.
Sadly, for the most part, I agree. I would like nothing more than to see
the Bush administration stand trial in The Hague like Slobodan
Milosovic.
I for one consider that a good thing. I think there are very few views
we really hold in common and it is time for Europe to go its own way
completely.
I think this is really at the heart of the issue. Before Bush, Europe
and the USA may have disagreed on trade and political issues, but now
it's a question of self-preservation. Iraq clearly demonstrates that
the political leadership of the USA have gone insane.
The US and its lackeys have made such a mess in Iraq that I don't
beleieve any solution can be found if they remain involved.
The more I examine this issue the less I think that America will stay in
Iraq in the long run. More than likely we'll have a rigged election in
January that will give Bush the pretense to declare "mission
accomplished", whatever sham government we install at that point will
be overthrown, and Iraq will basically disintegrate into factional
warfare.
The level of human suffering will be staggering. Bush will declare it a
victory, through his cunning he's managed to convince the terrorists and
insurgents to attack each other. Now, instead of having our soldiers
fight terrorists so our cops and firemen don't have to, terrorist will
fight terrorist and the USA can bravely bow out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No French or German turn on Iraq |
29 Sep 2004 11:13:29 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2004 14:54:18 GMT, mikeg <nope@nospam.com> wrote:
The more I examine this issue the less I think that America will stay in
Iraq in the long run. More than likely we'll have a rigged election in
January that will give Bush the pretense to declare "mission
accomplished", whatever sham government we install at that point will
be overthrown, and Iraq will basically disintegrate into factional
warfare.
That's always a danger, but historical track doesn't show much
evidence for this - Japan, Germany, South Korea, recently
Afghanistan that so far has not transformed into another
Vietnam/Soviet Afghanistan.
The level of human suffering will be staggering.
You have no idea of the level of human suffering from
the POV of insider living under the system like maintained
by Hussein.
Bush will declare it a
victory, through his cunning he's managed to convince the terrorists and
insurgents to attack each other.
He definitely should declare victory in Iraq. I say that in spite
of all the trouble that happens in Iraq. It still is incomparably
better to whatever was taking place before.
Now, instead of having our soldiers
fight terrorists so our cops and firemen don't have to, terrorist will
fight terrorist and the USA can bravely bow out.
You can't have soldiers fighting terrorists. A conventional army
is not an effective force against terrorism.
You can only do one or two things of the following:
1. establish the police state in your own country trying to protect
the population against terrorists
2. invade a country that for some reason is important to terrorists
If you don't do #2, you have to do #1. If you do #2, you do not
necessarily have to do #1.
---
Remember, this is for your own good. You cannot
argue against it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
