« Arabs Praise Bush Speech...Ooops...They Don't! / Araber preisen Bushs Rede ...oh...doch nicht! | Main | Michael Moore: Americans are Dumb, Germans Educated / Michael Moore: Amerikaner sind dumm, Deutsche sind gebildet »

Comments

Deutsche Welle: "Und, besonders fatal: Washington lässt bisher keinerlei ernsthafte Anstrengungen zugunsten eines fairen Ausgleichs zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern erkennen. Das aber wäre bitter nötig, um in Nahost wenigstens Offenheit für amerikanische Zukunftsvisionen zu schaffen."

"And, especially bad: Until now, Washington does not show any serious efforts towards a fair deal between Israel and the Palestinians. But that would be most important to create at least (Offenheit?) - willingness to listen - to American visions of future."

Well, here is just another example which shows perfectly that our media, and mainly German journalists, are either unwilling or uncapable to even grab what Bush says. Had they understood or investigated the speech further, they should have run across these points Bush made:

"As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism."

Note, "international terrorism". Can we say groups like Hamas conduct that? Yes. See Munich Olympic Games for example.

"And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people."

"And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people."

Now, above you see some of the points Bush made to show what kind of policies are wrong and indeed incompatible with a freedom / peace in the ME. Take these in connection with one of his closing points:

"*Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom* in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, *stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.* As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain *a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export*. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo."

Empasizes mine. What he says here is what has been done wrong in the past by Western Nations (including the US) towards the situation in the ME. The bottom line here is that appeasement policy ("excusing and accomodating the lack of freedom") is over. It has proved itself unsuccessfull in creating stability and peace in the long run. If you follow this logic, which is actually the bottom line of whole speech, this means there will of course be no "equal playing field" for the current Palestinian Authority (namely Arafat, who is unwilling and incapable of fighting terrorism, but instead spreads hatred against Israel amongst his people) in the eyes of the US, because this would again mean appeasement of an evil (terrorism, either indirect by not-acting- against or direct), stagnative, counter-progressive and freedom surpressive regime which spreads resentments and teaches hatred. The Palestinian Authority has to make up its mind and actually fight terrorism as well as hatred towards Israel if it wants the US to put them on an equal playing field with Israel.

The only reason our journalists couldn't grasp that is because they are still thinking in the old structures of appeasement, which had not only proved itself a mistake in the ME, but also before that, in the 30s concerning Nazi-Germany. I think the reason that they still consider things in that structure is because of their unrealistic pacifism (you might indeed have to go to war, yes) and their unwillingness to believe in good and evil, which indeed exists in the form of bright-grey and dark-grey at least. Because if they did, they would have to get rid of their self-hatred towards their own Western capitalist societies (see leftist media...). They consider that self-hatred healthy and a must-have for a "modern citizen" to prove himself educated / intellectual and independent / not "fool-able". Absolutely moronic. They should tell that those ppl who are not blessed to live in freedom like they do, I'm curious if they would just get laughed at or slapped in the face.

Regards
Alex N.

And I want to add further: While they often blame the Americans and/or Bush of being naive and idealistic, they in fact had to blame themselves for that. They live in a dream world, where without arming oneself no one is gonna shoot you, and where freedom will come by its own and for free, over time. They believe that putting all kinds of regimes, evil and good ones, into one forum to talk all day long, appeasing each other all day long, is done enough to achieve ultimate world peace indeed. Never mind the deads in the mass graves, the ppl who "disappear". They don't hear them, they don't see them - problem solved. They never existed.

The Americans on the other hand are, and always have been, very pragmatic in fact. This talk about freedom which leads to peace and prosperity is not idealistic dreaming. It is based on the experience of history. It has proven itself true in many parts of the world, and I myself, as a German, can only sit here and say my opinion openly and without fear because that concept is true. It works. I myself am the prove. But it requires self-confidence in the first place and willingness to sacrifice, like Bush put it so right. Self-confidence enough to see that your own free society is indeed "the good guys". And there is indeed "the evil" out there. This is not Hollywood, this is not dreaming, this is not idealistic, this is no self-glory - this is REALITY.

Regards
Alex N.

Alex N.

great posts.

Alex: Thanks for all the good work!

Der Dank geht an Euch. Ich möchte EUCH danken für Eure Anstrengungen. Das Problem ist nur, dass diese Blogs in der Öffentlichkeit bzw. breiten Masse natürlich wenig bis gar keine Beachtung finden, anders als z.B. Printmedien. Ich selbst wußte nichts von deren Existenz. Ich wußte nicht mal, dass es in Deutschland überhaupt Medienwerke gibt, die meine Einstellungen teilen. Bis ich eines Abends in einer Buchhandlung auf Henryk Broder's "Kein Krieg - nirgends. Die Deutschen und der Terror." stieß. Sein Buch sprach mir praktisch aus der Seele, und da ich mehr über den Autor erfahren wollte, ging ich im Internet auf die Suche und stieß dabei auf seine Seite. Und dadurch nach einer Weile, über einen Link im Forum, auf diese bzw. Cum Grano Salis. Es war also eine Aneinanderkettung, die aber in erster Linie nur dadurch zustande kam, weil ich eine andere Einstellung schon von vorneherein hatte und dann noch weiter interessiert war. Damit gehöre ich zu einer verschwindend geringen Minderheit. Glaubt man diversen Umfragen (z.B. im Teletext, aber auch Emnid), die sich auf relevante Themen beziehen, sind etwa 10% bis bestenfalls 15% der Bürger "auf unserer Seite". Allerdings ist das nur ein ungefährer Wert, und zumindest bei Teletext Umfragen spielen evtl auch in Deutschland stationierte US Militärfamilien eine Rolle. Das Potential ist sicher viel größer. Aber dazu müßen die Leute erst mal merken, wie einseitig in den dt. Medien berichtet bzw. welch ein Schindluder in der deutschen Außenpolitik getrieben wird. Das ist jedoch sehr unwarscheinlich, wenn man ausschließlich etablierte Deutsche Medien konsumiert. Aus "real life" Diskussionen mit Kollegen und Bekannten weiß ich, dass - sofern einem nicht sofort mit Aggressivität bzw. Desinteresse an einer Diskussion / Belächelung begegnet wird, wie es größtenteils leider der Fall ist - diskussionswillige Leute hinterher eine "neutralere" Ansicht bzgl den USA haben und etwas von ihrer Irrationalität ablegen. Allerdings hält das meist nicht lange an. Viele Punkte, die für eine rationalere Haltung gegenüber den USA sorgen müßten, sind den Leuten einfach nicht bekannt, sie plappern nur das nach, was ihnen täglich vorgesetzt wird. Genau das, was sie von den Amerikanern absetzt, wie sie glauben, Aufgeklärtheit, ist eben damit nicht im geringsten gegeben. Aufklärung kann nur im eigenen Geist entstehen, man kann sie nicht einfach am nächsten Kiosk kaufen. Doch dazu sind viele zu bequem. Und was soll man dann noch in der Warteschlange beim Friseur lesen...?

Grüße
Alex N.

Ha, ich weiß! Praline..."lesen"! Das ist qualitativ weitaus hochwertiger als so manch hassgefülltes Schmierenblatt ;).

Hoppla, Name vergessen.

"synchronization amongst?" - I think the idiom is "in lockstep."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31