« May 8, 1945 - A German Dilemma | Main | Brushfires of Freedom: German-Language Blog of the Week »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d83459554269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tagesspiegel on Davids Medienkritik: Beware the Reactionary "Krawallos":

» Shocked from Daily Pundit
Apaprently the German MSM don't have much use for German bloggers, either.... [Read More]

» Shocked from Daily Pundit
Apparently the German MSM don't have much use for German bloggers, either.... [Read More]

» Portland Jazz from Metroblogging Portland
Portland has a reputation amomg jazz artists of being one of the best and most appreciative cities in America when it comes to jazz. I wish I hadn't lost my George Benson and Grover Washington, Jr. tapes. I always wanted... [Read More]

» What the MSM doesn't get all over the world, shees from The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
It is puzzling how badly the MSM understands what it is that conservative bloggers want from them. I first became interested in politics during the disastrous Presidency of Jimmy Carter and what was so darn frustrating for me wasn't that there wasn't... [Read More]

Comments

As Taranto would day, "It's the etymology".

Davids Medienkritik serves two important purposes. First, it provides a window to the English speaking world on the biases of German media. Germans have long hidden behind their language to say things they would never want repeated in the international press or worse, understood by Americans. Second, it has put German media on notice that the medieval guild system has finally come to an end. Congratulations David and Ray. Keep up the good work.

As far as attacks on bloggers go, Malte Lehming's strikes me as one the clumsiest. Medienkritik calls him to the carpet for his shoddy journalistic ethics and he then tries to dismiss the criticism as politically motivated. I strongly suspect Lehming is unused to anyone questioning the basic validity of his sanctimonious writing. Certainly there's no mechanism in the German media to keep his politics out of his reporting.

Remember, you're doing something very right if Lehming has taken the time to try to marginalize you as "Krawallos".

German media = German medium. Who needs multiple publications that all say the same thing?

shouldn't you be proud of the fact that your blog is not ignored but actually read by people like Lemming? And how do you get to the conclusion that he calls you 'Krawallos'? He uses the word in a different paragraph and describes Rush Limbaugh (I think he's got a point).
So well done for the achievement of being a regular read for German America-Correspondents.

I wonder how decent Germans would feel if confronted with the reality of their opinion about the best future for Iraq as stated by Herr Lehming

I think he has an accurate read of the prevailing opinion in Europe by the way - how much of this is natural and how much is fed by the Euro media represented by Lehming is open to debate. I would say its a mix

But to have this ugly truth pointed out in such a way must be disquieting to ordinary nice German people

To understand that you are actually hoping for more death and blooshed in Iraq - dead US and CoW soldier, dead contractors, dead Iraqi's - including women and children

More decapitated hostages - more mosque bombings - more more more

Anything and everything as long as it prolongs the suffering for all involved and on the sidelines of a war you didn't support

I wonder if a pange of concience is felt in the aftermath of the moment of joy such people feel when the news of any particularly bloody event in Iraq takes place -

"66 dead in car bombing - that'll teach em, see I was right" - is that followed by any feeling of remorse for any happiness derived from such an event?

Maybe thats the whole point - maybe the German public deserves some outlet for the feelings that liberating Iraq may not have been such an awful thing - and that even if one can't bring oneself to want to send German soldiers to help the Iraqi people, at least one can want the US led CoW to succeed

That feeling that way is nothing to be ashamed of - quite the opposite

Bon voyage Herr Lehming - I know you will be more comfortable back home insulated from other opinions

HAH! Great. I often get accused of being repulican by my fellow dems, but now I get to be accused of condoning Abu Ghrab, Gitmo and thinking Bush is a super president. All that was mmissing was to be accused of planning 9/11.

Funny, that. I campaigned for Kerry and my previous comment explicitly mentions being "ashamed" of gitmo and Abu Ghrab.

As far as the schadenfreude side of anti-war germany, It's present on the left over here but the loony left here has opposition both inside and outside it's party unfortunately for democracy and the press, the German left isn't so lucky.

That's funny indeed: critics, who can't bear to be criticized.
Hey, you guys are not "Karawallos", you are hypocrites!

Note from David: Check our comment policy (side column).
Yawn.

konrad,

I missed something....

Would you explain please your post of May 9 04:43 PM

Thanks,

Strange, isn't it. We feel sadness, but at the same time, fascination, as we watch Herr Lehming rush towards the cliff with his fellow German media Lehming's. The Lehmings of the world will never grasp the fundamental fact that freedom of opinion does not exist unless it applies to people who don't think just like you. I seldom agree with Rush Limbaugh, and certainly don't see eye to eye with many influential bloggers in the U.S. I'm grateful for every one of them, though. We used to have the same mind-numbing uniformity of opinion in our media that now prevails in Germany. We used to have many sneering, holier-than-thou clones of Herr Lehming. Some of them are still around, but they're not nearly as self-assured now. They're all looking over their shoulders, because they know they will be called to account for every lie, every distortion, every attempt to pass off opinionated spin as "news" in real time. The deflation of one of our most egregious windbags, Dan Rather, is a case in point. Germans today are profoundly ignorant of the U.S. thanks to "objective journalists" such as Herr Lehming. He and his fellow hate peddlers emphasize the negative and blind themselves and their country to the positive. The results of this campaign of vilification are evident on the cover of "Metall's" now infamous "Mosquito Issue." (Did they buy the rights from the estate of Julius Streicher?) Do the German people really need to follow the Lehmings down that path again, and plunge over another cliff? For my part, I think they suffered more than enough in the 20th century. My they come in from the cold in the 21st, and may many more little beacons of light like Davids Medienkritik appear to show them the way home.

@ Phil:

"shouldn't you be proud of the fact that your blog is not ignored but actually read by people like Lemming? And how do you get to the conclusion that he calls you 'Krawallos'? He uses the word in a different paragraph and describes Rush Limbaugh.

Hey Phil, we kind of got the feeling he was lumping us together with Limbaugh and other "Krawallos" when he described our site as follows:

"One of them is "Davids Medienkritik." All those who are convinced that Bush is a super president, Guantanamo is not bad and the German media is very deeply anti-American cavort there."

@ Konrad

First of all...I second David's: YAWN

Secondly, FYI: Most major bloggers don't even allow comments. You will find literally hundreds of critical comments on this site. As I mentioned, we have a very lively and active comments section which is governed by a very clear set of rules.

And we have definitely taken plenty of criticism in the larger media as well, which I think, compared to many in the German media, we have handled with a very good sense of humor.

@ Frank, helian:

What you guys say is fascinating and true. Indeed people of all political leanings, who are anything but "arch-conservative Krawallos," have a problem with much of the German media's coverage of the United States and read this site regularly.

The scary part is that Mr. Lehming has simply written you (our readers) all off wholesale as trouble-making, hard-right neocons even though you are anything but that. In his article he says that he still doesn't understand America. His treatment of the people who read this site is certainly more evidence of that.

Yep. This is exactly the way the MSM in the U.S. started reacting to blogs - dismiss them as ideologues, completely lacking in journalistic ethics/responsibilities blah blah blah.

Then came the deluge and now the MSM is on the run. Big time. But - blog-reading in the U.S. is just about universal outside the over-60 demographic. But I don't know about Germany/EU. If most people are still getting the worldview from the European MSM the deluge for you guys might not happen. Hey! David and Ray, I have an evil American capitalist idea for you. Why don't you take out some adverts in some big dead-tree media? Just a thought.

Lehming=just another clueless jacka**

Note from Ray D.: I'd appreciate it if future commenters refrain from simply calling others names.

Rush, the couple hundred million $ man, we all should be so lucky. Maybe we could join together and finally take on commie Soros and Kerry's ATM.

Jealousy and pettiness, what else can you expect from that side, well, and cluelessness.

Keep up the good work, you are defined by the quality - or lack - of your enemies.

Maybe he really does check Medienkritik to see how often he and others are "beaten up".

they should kindly stay there, preferably a long time, and preferably without achieving success in the near future, as permanent proof, so to speak, of the folly of war.

As for why the U.S. has its troops fighting in Iraq, my answer is here. Not all wars are "folly". The War on Terror can be better fought by killing the enemy, not conquering peoples and territory. As of March, that's roughly 76,000 enemy combatants dead at the hands of the U.S. military.

Today I found and read this blog for the first time. I'm an American living in Berlin. I only occasionally buy and read Der Tagesspiegel (or if while waiting for the U- oder S-Bahn I see it sticking out of a trash bin, I will grab it).

I did not read the full Lehming article. But...

"...house two souls in their hearts."

I largely agree with this sentiment: I do think some Germans/Europeans feel this way. Despite the ugly reality behind this sentiment, which is well explained here. This is a profoundly stupid, and ultimately cruel, emotional reaction, not one based on logic, reason, or what is now best for Iraq and the people there (which would be for the "insurgents" to be crushed ASAP). Just from the excerpt you post, I did not get the feeling Lehming endorses this view -- he just says it is out there. And like I said, I agree.

Hey Solomon2, thanks for the explanation about why the US is in Iraq. But I think we all remember the specific reason: to eliminate WMDs and the facilities and programs for their development. Nominally, and more generally, as a part of the the 'War on Terror', true, but it was the WMD issue that was the focus of the runup. Why you personally feel it is necessary to make any other ex post facto justification for the war on behalf of Bush et al is a more interesting question. But let's be honest here and admit there's a reason why the 'democratization' of Iraq (an ongoing project) is now being celebrated rather than the elimination of WMDs: there never were any. And while you may feel 'democratization' is worth the death of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who've died to date (in this aspect the "insurgents" have a lot of catching up to do, by any reckoning), and that the US had the moral (and legal) authority to make this judgement, perhaps you can also see how others may have reasonable doubts about this.

GEZ my ass, Mr. Lehming, GEZ my ass.

Yours Sincerely,

Krawallo

http://www.rundfunkgebuehrenzahler.de

Nominally, and more generally, as a part of the the 'War on Terror', true, but it was the WMD issue that was the focus of the runup. Why you personally feel it is necessary to make any other ex post facto justification for the war on behalf of Bush et al is a more interesting question.

Very perceptive of you. It has been nearly a year since my "explanation" so I plan to deal with this question in an "anniversary" post.

I hope Mr. Lehming is happy back in Germany. I hope he continues to read this Blog. He might learn something. I know I have learned from reading this Blog.


When anti-americans are forced to examine thier own bias they, unlike most of us here, rant instead of adapt and accept that they are wrong. ( Most idealogues have this problem.)

@eh

Go back and read Bush's speech to the UN. The media say it's is all about WMD. Bush never said that was the only reason, the MSM did. The WMD bunk is getting old. The discovery of the mass graves completely removed any claims that this was not a just action. Genocide and mass murder trumps WMD. The left never has a problem with mass graves for some reason. I can never figure out why they expect the rest of us to ignore them?

@ eh

"But let's be honest here and admit there's a reason why the 'democratization' of Iraq (an ongoing project) is now being celebrated rather than the elimination of WMDs: there never were any."

That has not been conclusively proven. And if that is true, as it now appears it is, that means most of the European governments intelligence agencies were just as wrong about WMDs as the CIA was, because many of them (including those in France and Germany) believed Saddam had WMD's.

Secondly, the statement that "there never were any" is dubious because we know that Saddam had WMDs earlier and even used them to massacre over 5,000 Iraqis at Halabja. The question now is, when did Saddam actually eliminate his WMD program (if at all)? We know that he still had WMDs into the 1990s.

Of course it is easy to sit back now and play Monday morning quarterback after the fact. But many "old" Europeans as well as Clinton backers seem to have amnesia about their leaders' position on Saddam's WMD's before the war now that no WMDs have been found. Again, if you look at the record, most of them viewed Saddam as a grave threat with WMDs. But it is much easier now to forget that and exploit the issue to score points against Bush. It may not be a fair tactic, but you have to admit that it has been a highly effective one for Bush foes...

What bothers me most, however, is the way that people in Germany, who have directly experienced the results of appeasement of dictators, could really have cared less about Saddam Hussein until the US forced the issue and actually did something about Saddam's unwillingness to abide by and obey international law. Saddam was going to do what was necessary to weather the storm of international scrutiny, hoping to play Europe and the US against each other until they lost interest in him and the inspectors left. What would he and his sons have done then??? That is the question the anti-war crowd can't and won't answer. Based on Saddam's history, it would not have been anything good...

"Just from the excerpt you post, I did not get the feeling Lehming endorses this view -- he just says it is out there. And like I said, I agree."

Did you read the entire article? It is literally oozing with Schadenfreude and vindictiveness at American difficulties and problems in Iraq. Claiming that Mr. Lehming is just a passive observer reporting on European attitudes in his article is absolutely ludicrous. Here is the final paragraph, make up your own mind whether Mr. Lehming is just the passive observer or not:

"This realization is sobering for the U.S. government. In Iraq it must continue to shift for itself. With or without a new resolution in the U.N. Security Council: there will be no relief for U.S. soldiers. The only country that has offered to send troops is Turkey. But the U.S. installed Iraqi governing council, of all people, is vehemently opposed to a stationing of Turkish soldiers in Iraq. And the money? That too is being denied. With or without a new U.N. resolution: the international donor conference that is scheduled to take place in Madrid on October 23rd and 24th will fail. At most a fraction of the necessary reconstruction aid will be collected there. Punish, ignore, forgive: the U.S. government is loath to be reminded of this triad of its exuberantly announced alternatives, which are now turning against itself. Other administration slogans too suddenly don't sound as pithy anymore but rather defensive. Those who aren't with us are against us. Hm, that could be right. We don't need UN, NATO and EU - we have a coalition of the willing. That is correct. Only it's not very big."

This article is completely negative towards the US. I can't find anything positive at all...so much for balanced journalism...

The same old same old Ray - it seems too many people cannot let go of this "WMD" fixation

To explain, for the 10,000th time personally, that it was never ONLY about WMD ( and post the links to numerous speaches by Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice and President Bush to back this up ) seems rather a waste of time

One cannot argue people with this fixation out of it - at least I have learned that much

They are impervious to facts

What I can say is this - living in London during the leadup to the wars start in 2003 it was clear to me that the Europeans were DEMANDING some legal rationale for going after Saddam

Put simply - it HAD to be about WMD for it to have any support in Europe

I can't say I blame Europeans, and many Americans, for thinking it was ALL about WMD

This was the main focus point for some very good reasons ( Wolfowitz put it best - Google it yerself ) but really it comes down to this...

It could never have been sold as a Democratization and tyrant toppling exercise because

a) the regional despots would be very alarmed

b) the europeans really didn't give a shit how many dead arabs it would take to keep the oil flowing to their volvo's and opels - and besides, as many Europeans "explained" to me - "Arabs are different, they can't live as democracies"


Finally EH, the liberation of Iraq has SAVED tens of thousands of lives - and will save countless more in the future

The nihlism of the Saddam dynasty and an eventual nuclear exchange in the ME and beyond may have been averted from my sons life thanks to the actions of this "Cowboy" President

On one level you see it is truly about WMD - not the warehouses you yearn to see on Tee-Vee but the larger picture of eventual spread and use

But the reason Colin Powell had to go to the UN and wave that vial of baby powder around is this - too many people in the world frankly didn't care to liberate anyone

Just tell me if Bush had framed the call for action as one for liberation and democracy in Iraq we would see German troops there today?

Answer that question and you will learn a lot

Okay, I thought I posted this already, but this is an update on the German Charm offensive, wrt the florida newpaper ads.

Saw a Bus decked out here in DC, it's called the german friendship Bus, article here

http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/culture/new/cul_Friendship_Bus_2_2005.html

It leads you to a website (www.germany.info) that I find highly misleading, in particular, it gives the impession that Germany stands with america on Iraq. Weird

Look on the bright side, David and Ray: He said you have one of the few interesting German blogs. And gave you some free publicity to boot! I imagine at least a few Tagesspiegel readers have googled "Davids Medienkritik" by now and checked out your weblog as the result of his article. Hopefully, at least some of them will be able to see how unfair his characterization of you and your readers is.

Exactly my thoughts, kid. When you are not yet popular but instead need to get known in the first place, there is no such thing as bad PR. :-) The agenda of those who brought you to attention though is a different story alltogether. Obviously Lehman doesn't yet understand the concept of backfiring. ;)

--But I think we all remember the specific reason: to eliminate WMDs and the facilities and programs for their development. Nominally, and more generally, as a part of the the 'War on Terror', true, but it was the WMD issue that was the focus of the runup---

only to those who weren't paying attention.

OT: You have got to be kidding me. Just watching History Channel, you ticket tailgaters??

My husband didn't know you levy fines according to the perp's means.

Lehming was right about one thing:

"The liberals, by comparison, seem uninspired and uninspiring."

Davids- Bravo and Congratulations! It is no accident that a "Mr. Lehming" is the one attacking you. Aren't lemmings the creatures that follow eadh other to their doom? ...He and his comrades are taking their walk off the plank of liberalism into fantasy land. But, not without a fight. Davids, you are an adventurer and your days of fame are just beginning. Bless you on your way.

Ray, what eh needs to see is the actual aftermath of the WMD that wasn't there. Halabja

David & Ray,

This sure sounds as if you guys are taking the cab uptown..

@ eh

When all is said and done it will be the Iraqis themselves that will decide if "democratization" was "worth the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians". Will the Left accept their verdict if it is politically inconvenient?

How many lives was it worth to end slavery (i.e. the preservation of a geopolitical Union)? or fascism (paving the way for American global ascendency)? Do the raped and butchered hundreds of thousands in Darfur find comfort in the fact that some lilly-white assed leftists obsess (or abscess) over the fine points of International Law. Would you in their place? Please, do tell. So no WMD? Therefore what?! apologize for puting the rape rooms out of commision? Name one war that has had ONE cause and ONE outcome.

Sorry but the No-WMD-Bush-lied-so-the-Americans-lose arguement is wearing thin.

ray relax, this is not ment to be balanced journalism. it appears in the "editorial opinion" section.

I see the revisionists are out in full force again.

WMD were the primary justification for going to war. Intelligence services worldwide believed Saddam had them, sober-minded statesmen discussed the inherent dangers of him having them, and reputable media acknowledged that removing him was a better option than allowing him to keep (and eventually use) them.

I'm no Bush supporter, but the evidence was compelling. Other, lesser factors contributed to my decision, but I supported the war on the basis of the dangers presented by WMD.

Now we find out that the WMD threat was nothing like we thought. It certainly makes me wonder whether or not I'd been had. My conclusion is no, the evidence we had at the time was convincing. The evidence was, however, inescapably wrong.

And while it galls me that some try to make the post facto point that they 'knew' WMD weren't there in the first place (puh-leese), it galls me even more that some try to make the post facto point that WMD weren't the driving reason we needed to invade.

As if we didn't know for years that Saddam was evil - during the 2000 election campaign, for example, when we heard zero about invading Iraq.

As if some connection existed between Saddam and Al Queda.

As if 'democratization' is enough justification to go around invading sovereign nations.

So, revisionists, reasonable people could evaluate the situation and conclude that WMD provided justification for the war. Reasonable people did just that.

Now that we know that the evidence was misleading, it seems to me that we should figure out where the process short-circuited to get us to that point. We should also devote our energy to improve the process going forward.

Reinventing the past to win debating points doesn't contribute to either of those goals.

Cheers,

Rofe - the whole problem with your otherwise good analysis is how exactly the actions of early 2003 could have resulted in anything other than the removal of Saddam and the creation of a democratic Iraq

If it was ALL about WMD these actions make no sense

I'm not saying that this wasn't the main focus put forth for public consumption - it certainly was and for several very good reasons

What I am saying is that an educated person like yourself simply had to know all along that it was more than WMD and that the real effort was toward political transformation of the swamp of ME society

A swamp that bred the 9-11 monsters and was breeding more of the same

A 100% certainly that Saddam had no WMD would accomplish little

He could get them later - and continue to foster terrorism at the same time

What strikes me as odd is how so many claim to have supported the action in Afghanistan as a just response to 9-11 but find the liberation of Iraq to have been uncalled for.

Does it seem strange that NONE of the 9-11 murderers were Afghans?

So why are dead Afghans ok in response to 9-11?

But dead Iraqi's are a crime against humanity?


Frankly anyone carping on about WMD at this stage, and there are plenty, just doesn't get 9-11 and never will

Its not about getting one person, or one group of terrorists

Its about a change in the status quo of the ME

A change that is taking place today because "Cowboy" Bush didn't listen to the European's

Let us imagine that the german newspaper and tv stations are anti american because of their coverage about Bush and the war in Iraq.

Should they print papers for the 30 people that were a part of your tiny demonstration in Mainz or for the 80+% of the germans who oppose the war and do not like Bush. They have a job and they have to sell their papers and news that´s capitalism.
Come over it germans oppose the war and they don´t like Bush. We have (because of our history) good reasons for that and Bush with it´s attidute and belivings is for a european at least hart to understand.
Times will change in some years nobody will talk about that anymore and Bush is a page in the history books perhabs with a good story perhabs with a bloody and expansive one.
Just a matter of he perspective and oppinion as your blog shows.

@ Stefan:

You are right: It is all about selling newspapers and making a profit. And sadly, ignorant America-hate sells quite well in Germany right now. We are trying to change that here.

Secondly, German history should teach you that the international community must NEVER appease dictators or allow them to repeatedly violate arms treaties. Where has that lesson gone off to? If anything, Germans had good reason to SUPPORT the United States on Iraq, not oppose it.

Thirdly, why do you (and many other Germans) assume you speak for ALL Europeans? Isn't that just a little bit arrogant? I hate to break this to you, but Germany does NOT represent all of Europe...und das ist auch gut so!

Now, just to demonstrate with one example: Bush certainly receives a much different, far more positive reception whenever he travels in eastern Europe. Just look at Slovakia during his February visit or the current Baltic states/Georgia visits. Bush has been treated like a superstar in those countries. The last time I looked, they were a part of Europe as well...and, as you pointed out, they have a very different perspective from that of many Germans.

---Ray D.

@Stefan

Even Kohl said that he would have supported the USA were he still PM.

What was Germany's plan for dealing with Saddam? Nothing...

So, it seems pretty stupid to complain about the actions of the US, when the German government hasn't even suggested an alternative means in dealing with him.

Furthermore, it's hypocritical to stop attempts to halt an evil man like Saddam, when Germany has historically supported non-UN actions like Kosovo, Bosnia... But, I guess impotent Germany had the benefits in letting America solve ANOTHER European problem...

It's one thing to sell newspapers and honest balanced journalism. It's another thing to incite volksverhetzung and play on people's ignorance.

What's clear to me is that no-one in Germany remembers the things that America did for your country. What have you ever done in the world?

Lastly, how will history remember Schröder? The looser who made deals with every non-democratic country in the world (China, Saudi Arabia)? Stood for nothing, did nothing, destroyed relationship with the USA and blamed everyone else for his failings? He should be put in the garbage can along with Münterfuring and the rest of the communist garbage...

Germany is in an irreversable decline, thanks to their laziness and diffussion of responsibility in addressing their most obvious of problems...

Stefan,

Why not be clear and just say you do not like Ameicans.

It would seem the majority of Germans don't like capitalism either. I guess that is why you have the social welfare state you so enjoy. I believe it is called the European model.

Ray,

You are being most unfair to Stefan about asking for a German plan for Saddam.

Next thing you are going to do is start asking about a German plan for Germany.

Now that is a difficult question. These things are best ignored and maybe in time they will just go away.

Ray,

Sorry.

My comment should have been directed to James.

James be kind and be nice. We all just want to get along.

I am sure we all can once the EU constitution goes into effect.

@ Ray D

1. I wrote for a european and i am a european perhabs i should wrote for a german or for me.
I don´t belive that germans speak for Europe or that general comments or statements show a real picture but that´s more your profession isn´t it.

2. In terms of europeans backing Bush and the Iraq war.If you look at the polls in the several countries you will not find many countries in favor of that war or Mr. Bush and you know that ( even in those where the government backed the war). But i am not here to defend the Bush bashers. He (and the US) is not causing all the evil in this world and germany is not a place of glory.

3. You got a great argument with this brutal dictator out of office. Who should disagree here.
I am looking forward to see all this brutal dictators gone even in countries beeing not strategical important as Iraq or Iran.
Other people whould talk about WMD and the rule of law beeing hurt by violating international law but that´s a useless debate of the past.

4. Because it´s up to the history books and to the americans to judge Bush in the comming years and not to a german like me. It is their party. They wanted it now they got it and they pay the price with money and blood.

Niko,

How did you become so well connected with the UN to get an oil voucher?

@ Stefan

OK, if you are so concerned with international law:

Can you name another dictator who has violated 17 UN Security Council resolutions over the period of a decade?

I really love this argument of the Left: Well, the US invaded Iraq but supports Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, (despite the fact that the US has repeatedly criticized those countries for their lack of human rights.) Well, as far as I can tell, those countries regimes have NOT invaded two neighbors, have not committed mass genocide on their peoples, have not violated over a dozen UN Security Council resolutions on arms, have not repeatedly failed to cooperate with UN inspections, etc. So why are they being compared to Saddam Hussein's Iraq? This is all about attacking Bush, not about making fair and valid comparisons. That is why the left is failing today. It's arguments lack intellectual validity and are easily exposed as politically motivated harangues.

As far as North Korea goes: War is simply not an acceptable option because of the geographical situation. Seoul, a city of millions, is within artillery range of the North. Unlike Iraq, any war there would mean millions of casualties. I believe that containment and talks are the only possibility.

As far as money and blood go, appeasement of dictators who violate international law has historically always been a far more costly and deadly policy than early military intervention. Again, Germans ought to know that and should support the United States. But they don't. Too bad for them.

And oh yeah, I could say the same about the German government. Germans wanted Schroeder and Fischer and now they have to pay for it. Hopefully that will change in 2006.

---Ray D.

@ Ray D.

This total discussion is useless and childish and over.

Allways the same arguments on both sites.
Both sites have their problems and advantages in the argumentation and you know that.
If you are such a true beliver good for you i can not share your advantage.
I did not vote for schröder but i don´t belive that he has any problems with the germans because of his foreign policy. This is his last pro at the moment.
And for the US friends here responding to me( because of the names). Calling my post anti american is a at least a little bit offensive given the fact that the Us is nearly split on Mr bush and Iraq. You should not forget the 48% of americans that really hate him and i know some of those people. What do you call these people?

So if you do not vote for someone you must hate them.

Using this logic then is it possible that gerhart will be the most hated man in Germany.

Oops, forgot you don't actually vote for him, you get to vote for his proxies.

Stefan, and it is you and those who think like you about Iraq who are bankrupt. It you who lack any sensible explantion other than to go back to WMDs, or oil, or international law whatever that might you feel justified at the moment.

This might be acceptable if it were not you change these positions when they are of benifit to those who share your position.

@stefan,

I did not vote for schröder but i don´t belive that he has any problems with the germans because of his foreign policy.

If this is true, it is even more scary as most Germans are not even aware of the underhandedness of Schröder. If you have the patience, I suggest you read the following analysis on the reasons for Germany's cosing up to China:

My 2cents, is that Germany is a country who defines itself as an ethnic group. Whereas, the US defines itself as an idea. Therefore, Americans tend to see the world and henceforth, foreign policy, through these ideas and Germany as where it is in their interest (a nation hasn't allies, it has only interests). I really question the wisdom of Clinton having let China into the WTO.

You should not forget the 48% of americans that really hate him and i know some of those people.

Hmmm, I also know of some 48%er Americans who voted for Kerry, but weren't so hostile as you suggest. Sounds like you're using that "either with us or against us" kind of languague.

########################################

China, Germany: Forging a Long-Term Alliance

Stefan wrote -

1. I wrote for a european and i am a european perhabs i should wrote for a german or for me.
I don´t belive that germans speak for Europe or that general comments or statements show a real picture but that´s more your profession isn´t it.

BUT Chirac, with his toy boy Gerhard, did think he was speaking for Europe - didn't he say those other countries should know when to shut up?

2. In terms of europeans backing Bush and the Iraq war.If you look at the polls in the several countries you will not find many countries in favor of that war or Mr. Bush and you know that ( even in those where the government backed the war). But i am not here to defend the Bush bashers. He (and the US) is not causing all the evil in this world and germany is not a place of glory.

BUT which is the chicken and which is the egg? Do most Europeans hate Bush - yes Do they ever hear or read or see anything positive about him in their mainstream media - NO
Thats the main point of this site if I understand it correctly

3. You got a great argument with this brutal dictator out of office. Who should disagree here.
I am looking forward to see all this brutal dictators gone even in countries beeing not strategical important as Iraq or Iran.
Other people whould talk about WMD and the rule of law beeing hurt by violating international law but that´s a useless debate of the past.

WHO should disagree? Well - you, Kerry, Schroeder, Chirac - all of those who were against taking action to oust Saddam
Those who bring up the "other dictators" - like you - these are the folks who apparently have some issue with getting rid of Saddam

4. Because it´s up to the history books and to the americans to judge Bush in the comming years and not to a german like me. It is their party. They wanted it now they got it and they pay the price with money and blood.

OF COURSE - you are happy that a dictator is gone - but even happier that its done with American money and blood

That about sums it up doesn't it

Guess you don't care too much about getting rid of dictators after all

This site is total garbage. The last time I heard such shallow arguments and convoluted logic was at the Bush yearly lies to the Nation. You guys have star spangled wool pulled so far over your eyes i'm not surprised you write the way you do.

First off, at the Anti-American protests in Mainz, perhaps you would like to mention the relative numbers of Anti-Bush protesters to pro-Bush rallyists. Did the wool covering your eyes make you forget to mention that?

Secondly, Ray D, you say you the US has not done anything about Saudia Arabia and Pakistan because they were not as bad as Saddam. I am sure the people who have been burned with acid for commiting adultery would disagree with you. Also, The US State Department has issued a report noting the prevalence of torture in Uzbekistan and pointing to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture’s conclusion ” that torture or similar ill-treatment was systematic.” The previous british govt representative there was, I believe, removed from his post for publicly drawing attention to torture cases (including boiling people alive). Of course – these are ‘good guys’ because they’re on your side in the War on Iraq. They help spruce up the number, and probably donated a few helper monkeys as well. Why is the US accepting the help of someone it itself mentions as a state that systematically carries out torture?

Third, I love how you like to brush away Abu Ghraib by always comparing it with the actions of terrorists. This is moral reasoning of the lowest level. I guess Saddam could compare himself with Hitler, and come off shining.

Lastly, it IS important for a President to be able to speak CORRECTLY the language of his country.

Jason - where to begin

This site is total garbage. The last time I heard such shallow arguments and convoluted logic was at the Bush yearly lies to the Nation. You guys have star spangled wool pulled so far over your eyes i'm not surprised you write the way you do.

ITS clear you are in high school - sophmore?

First off, at the Anti-American protests in Mainz, perhaps you would like to mention the relative numbers of Anti-Bush protesters to pro-Bush rallyists. Did the wool covering your eyes make you forget to mention that?

YOU Have some details on these relative numbers do provide them. Bet ya a case of pimple cream you don't come back with a single source.

Secondly, Ray D, you say you the US has not done anything about Saudia Arabia and Pakistan because they were not as bad as Saddam.

THATS not what was said - but what YOU say is that we shouldn't do anything about Saddam ( or Kim, or the Iranians Mullocracy ) because we are not doing something about "insert name of other dictator, trouble spot here"
Of course you are not advocating doing anything about this other thing - you just want to make a point of some kind

I am sure the people who have been burned with acid for commiting adultery would disagree with you.

SO Muslim tribal practices are the same as state run mass murder? One staggers at the idea of such relatavism in a youn mind


Also, The US State Department has issued a report noting the prevalence of torture in Uzbekistan and pointing to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture’s conclusion ” that torture or similar ill-treatment was systematic.” The previous british govt representative there was, I believe, removed from his post for publicly drawing attention to torture cases (including boiling people alive). Of course – these are ‘good guys’ because they’re on your side in the War on Iraq. They help spruce up the number, and probably donated a few helper monkeys as well. Why is the US accepting the help of someone it itself mentions as a state that systematically carries out torture?

DO you advocate a militaty intervention in Uzbeckistan to put an end to these practices?

Third, I love how you like to brush away Abu Ghraib by always comparing it with the actions of terrorists. This is moral reasoning of the lowest level. I guess Saddam could compare himself with Hitler, and come off shining.

ABU GHRAIB - ah how sweet it must feel every time you say the words. Tell ya what - if this is the big "crime against humanity" ( panties on the head! ) that you end up with to try Bush in the Hague - I couldn't be happier.
Try to understand something - AG was not Auschwitz or the Gulag or even AG as run by Saddam in 2002 ( I doubt you gave a shit for whatever torture was meted out under the previous management )


Lastly, it IS important for a President to be able to speak CORRECTLY the language of his country.

THIS is the proof you are in High School ( or a Howard Dean supporter ) - talk about childish

@ Jason,

Wow. You give new meaning to the term "Angry Left." That was truly a harangue of the first order. Congratulations.

First of all, the United States and this web-site do NOT condone the bad things going on in countries like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc. Just to be even more clear, we do NOT condone bad things happening anywhere. That point is self-evident, but I guess for folks like you it is necessary to make it. And, (as you yourself point out) the US has repeatedly condemned human rights violations in those nations and rightfully so. We support that completely.

So, again, to repeat myself, my point was that: "those countries regimes have NOT invaded two neighbors, have not committed mass genocide on their peoples, have not violated over a dozen UN Security Council resolutions on arms, have not repeatedly failed to cooperate with UN inspections, etc." That is why they are different from Iraq.

As far as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo go, we also condemn abuses there as well. That is obvious. We just happen to think that the problems there are being exploited for political gain by people like yourself to score political points, not because you genuinely care about torture or abuse, but because it is a useful weapon with which to attack Bush. If you and your compatriots on the Angry left REALLY did care about torture or abuse, you would be out protesting Chechnya and China, but you aren't. Why not? Is an abuse only worth protesting and getting outraged over if it is perpetrated by Americans under a Republican President? Looking at the Angry Left, you would think so.

Anyway, I think you've got the Michael Moore wool pulled down so far over your eyes that you can't even read and understand basic comments.

@ Stefan:

You know, you are right, 48% of Americans didn't vote for Bush and therefore "really hate him" if we are to accept your logic. And what is the SPD's current rating? 30%? That means that 70% of Germans must also "really hate" the SPD. I'm willing to accept your logic if you are willing to accept mine...

---Ray D.

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