« Iranian Humor: Possesses a Distinct Flavor... | Main | Gedmin on Anti-Americanism at the Berlinale »

Comments

You have to wonder about the alternate reality of the Transnational Socialists and muslims. This is just one instance where their interests don't completely converge but there is some intersection. Do you think the TRANZIs are really waking up to what their anti-US progrom has created? I think it's just some fear starting to kick in as they grap a brief view of reality. In a world of "islamic" values their is no room for them.

One has to wonder if this has to do with the rioting and burning that has gripped the Muslim world. Perhaps they're finally figuring out that they are in big trouble, and appeasement has only made them look like bigger targets, and now that America is sick of the bashing and is deciding to pack up and leave, suddenly they are afraid to face the hordes alone?

"Perhaps they're finally figuring out that they are in big trouble, and appeasement has only made them look like bigger targets, and now that America is sick of the bashing and is deciding to pack up and leave, suddenly they are afraid to face the hordes alone?"

Not at all. The film depicts American soldiers killing Iraqis to steal their organs to sell to a Jew doctor. Even this sick, debased, unstainable story-line is unsellable to leftist Anti-American, Jew hating propaganda rag like "Spiegel." The "Spiegel" faithful would simply have a strectch even believing that agit-prop.

Donald Rumsfeld has already stated a year ago that the reduction of US Army posts in Germany, Italy and South Korea would commence to the point that only a combat brigade would remain in each country. To give you perspectivce, there were 300,000 US troops (over 15 divisions) stationed in West Germany alone in 1989. Most western European countries do not have have military capabilities to defend their own borders in the event of attack.

This film does not surprise me. It just feeds off the trend of anti-American bashing that has taken place over the years in Europe. The fact that Gary Busey and Billy Zane are in it does. Times must be tough in Tinsletown that these scum bags had to lend there "acting" to this film.

I do wonder however if this give US citizens the right to burn Turkey's flag, riot in the streets, and attack there Embassy in DC.

I guess not -- we're too civilized.

If this film cost $10 million I would love to see who put up such funds. Does the Government of Turkey put up any money towards films? If so I say cut off all funds taxpayers send over to this country.

Yes compare the movie in Turkey to THIS

"This seemed like the moment to ask the question, “What do you think of the United States?”

“We cry when America loses one soldier. We pray for the soldiers every night.”

Many Kurds had expressed the same sentiment. One had said poetically: “For every drop of American blood, we shed one thousand Kurdish tears.”

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/lost-in-translation.htm

Although I had only known him for a few short hours, it was clear that Mr. Qatou liked to talk about the future.

“My life is nearly finished,” he said, almost wistfully. “But will be good for my children and my children’s children.”

“Yes,” I said. “It was worth it, no?”

“What?” he asked, confused at my meaning.

“Your struggle,” I said. “Now you are free.”

Mr. Qatou smiled and disappeared into his memories briefly, then he spoke:

“My life was mostly soldier and prisoner. My children are free.”


P%^$ on Turkey, we need to back these folks to the hilt.

This reminds me of an old old quote, by whom I forget, but it as appropriate today as it was back in the 30s.

"The dark cloud of fascism always seems to be coming down on the United States, but only seems to fall in Europe."

There seems to be a big effort to change this media slant, and just the overall bad quality of news today. I just came across it: makethenewsbetter.com

by an agreement with US, Turkey grows poppies to harvest opium, which is then turned into legal drugs in US. why not dump them & award same contract to Afghanistan? Afghans need & deserve our support more than Turks do. for many of them , opium is the only cash crop available. 50M spent in Turkey, would be like 500M in 'stan.

I like it dries, poetic justice.

I never thought of this before, but .... Maybe the USA is dealing a little payback to their "betters" in Europe. You know, those vastly superior beings that gave us TWO World Wars, bent their knees (and sucked major cock) to the Soviet Union, trying to thwart Reagan's efforts. And now doing the same for the "religion of peace".

Yea. Right on. Full EU membership for Turkey. Let all those "good Muslims" enter Turkey, then dissipate throughout Europe. Old Europe's days are numbered. Between a lack of will, a decreased sperm count and inclusion of non-reproducing gay relationships (declining demographics)- it's over pal!

Will the USA save your asses again? I hope not. I'll fight it all the way. You've had the chance to choose sides repeatedly. You could have choosen to at least be neutral, but most often you choose to be against the USA. Decisions have consequences. Live with it!

Although a EUArabia wouldn't be the best for the USA, what the Fxxx! A good object lesson is necessary from time to time. Sorry. NATO's belated announcements to beef up in Afghanistan to help the USA, and the Dutch's recent committment of troops to Afghanistan is too little, too late.

You EU dipshits stil haven't awakened to China's threat. While the USA has spent trillions to secure the peace, keep the trade and sea lanes open, what has Europe contributed? You guys are a joke. More and more Americans are awakening to the facts every day. Every day, we feel less of a kinship to you do nothing, lazy, appeasing, socialist nebishes.

I yearn for the day when the "vast" majority of Americans, not just a simple majority, look on Old Europe, with pity if not outright contempt.

MaDr, it's in everyone's interest for the US to remain engaged in Europe (and they know it, too) -- isolationism isn't the answer. One of the answers is to make sure Europe doesn't become Eurabia at the end of the day. I think it's safe to say that many in Europe are coming to that realization, too. Let's just hope it's enough of them -- and that it lasts (and that it won't end up costing us as much as it did the last two times).

Does anyone else skip over long posts to read the short ones? Life's too short for windbaggage.

Scott H,

I could not disagree with you more.

Buckeye Abroad,

Without getting into the details of European military capabilities, from what attacks does Germany (or the rest of Western Europe) need to protect its borders ? You may recall that several members of the Warsaw Pact now belong to NATO, extending that treaty's border quite a few kilometers eastward. The only attacks on borders I read about these days are attributed to Polish plumbers, and I'm not sure the 101st Airborne Division could do much against them - or want to. Set-piece military action in Western Europe seems to be a thing of the past.

And you know what they say about statistics. Unfortunately, your figures seem to avoid conveniently some very significant historical developments. For example, you may recall that in 1989 a few events took place across Europe that led ultimately to NATO and EU expansion eastward. So quoting 1989 figures is really a strech on objectivity.

If you prefer figures, I've taken these from the following site: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm (The Heritage Foundation; I can't vouch for their accuracy.)

US troops in Germany:
1989 - 248,621
1994 - 87,955
1999 - 65,538
2004 - 76,058

The time-series graph from the dataset above shows a remarkable thing. Right after 1989, US troop levels in Europe generally (since they're driven predominantly by troops in Germany), and in Germany specifically drop right off the table.

Sorry, but your comment does not appear to hold water. Please correct me if my source is faulty.

Cheers,


Sorry for above windbaggage. Sadly I lack computer literacy to post graphs.

Don H, agreed. joe, disagreed.

Cheers,

Whoops, Scott H., agreed.

Dries,

What an outstanding idea. I've not heard of this trade agreement with Turkey, but I think you're on to something. It would solve the opium dilemna with Afghanistan.

Dries,

Bad idea.

Without defending any of the anti-American / anti-Christian (good op-ed piece in today's WSJE) activity going on in Turkey, I'd say it's better to maintain good relations with a large Muslim society that's a member of NATO, at the very least semi-integrated into the European economy, and well along the path toward a secular society (whether moving forward or backward on that path is another question entirely) than trying to wean a minor, rather radical Islamic society off of cultivating poppies for the drug trade.

Of course in the real world I would hope it's not an either or proposition. We should support both countries as much as possible to counteract the growth of Islamic radicalism (and I wonder if we do anything with regard to poppy cultivation in Afghanistan). But if the choice is to turn our backs on Turkey to extend our hand to Afghanistan, I think it would be a disastrous choice.

Cheers,

Scott H

I found this part of your comment to be interesting…..

“One of the answers is to make sure Europe doesn't become Eurabia at the end of the day”……

And just how do you propose the US do this?

The US is unable to get the euros to see the threat or to spend money to defend themselves against the threat.

Of course, if you take the position that Rofe likes that there is no boarder threat to Germany then the question becomes why does Germany need a military at all. This is a debating point, which has been raised in Belgium about their need for a military.

Equally using Rofe’s logic why not just disband NATO in its current form? There is no threat to Germany or Belgium or any other member of the “chocolate summit”.

But fear not for the defense of euroland as Rofe implies there is a military capability. Discount the Brits and what do you really have. Belgium with a military of 40,000 and cannot deploy 1,000 personal. Germany unable to deploy more than 4,000 out of its military of 200,000.

I realize of course, these are deployable forces and have nothing to do with the defense of the homeland. So the question goes back to why have NATO if it is a defense organization and there is no threat.

As a point of clarification there were 356,442 US military personal deployed in Western Europe in 1987. This did not include the 4 US Army Divisions and 2 Marine Divisions capable of deploying to Europe in less than 30 days.


When the Islamic Republique of France is declared (won't be long now), America's first action must be this: a reprise of Winston Churchill's decisive 1940 action at Mers el-Kebir.

To wit, Special Forces and cruise missile attacks to disable all French nuclear forces.

Background on Mers el-Kebir:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-el-Kebir

joe,

Don't be disingenuous. No border threat does not mean no threat. I didn't say this, I didn't infer it, and while acting like I did might make it easy for you to make cheap points, it's pretty pitiful stuff.

In fact, plenty of serious thinkers within the NATO framework have been grappling with the issue of how NATO should adapt to the world we live in since the world NATO was created for has ceased to exist.

David and Ray D.,

I think there might be a glitch in your 'Recent Comments' program. While joe would be thrilled to see me quoted (3 times, no less) as saying, "Today I hated Americans more than ever", he might be puzzled as to why he's quoted saying that as well.

Cheers,

Rofe,

Did I miss read this??

“Without getting into the details of European military capabilities, from what attacks does Germany (or the rest of Western Europe) need to protect its borders ?”

In fact, I think you will find that I agreed with you. There is no threat to the boarders of Germany or any of the members of the “chocolate summit”.

It would be interesting to read what you see as threats and how an organization such as NATO could be used to address these.

Germany is one of the nations in Europe who chooses to look on terrorism as criminal activity and not in terms of war. One needs to look no further than the most recent Germany's supreme court decision on the shoot down of hi-jacked planes over Germany.

As NATO was never intended to be a police force, then from the Germany perspective it cannot serve any purpose in the war on terrorism, which is not a war anyway. This does beg the question as to why Germany wants AWACS up and operational during the world cup.

NATO is supposed to be a war fighting organization. While it has turned into a group of peacekeepers, it serves no useful purpose other than to keep America entangled in Europe to provide security while the Europeans reduce their defense budgets and complain and make the task of providing security both more difficult and distasteful for the US.

So if one is to look at the priority Berlin places on its military, then there are no military threats facing Germany at this time or into the foreseeable future.

So the question remains what purpose NATO?


joe,

My apologies if I misread your answer. I think the actual threats are obvious - terrorism, in all its forms. I don't know how NATO could be best used against them. Obviously providing security in Afghanistan is one such element, but there's plenty to discuss about whether NATO troops are being used effectively there; like I said, far better minds than mine are grappling with this. With regard to theoretical threats, I think we might all agree that the threat of Russian tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap has shrunk to about 0.

Regarding Germany's view that terrorism should be treated as a police matter, I don't think that view can be dismissed out of hand. My impression is that the Brits had their best success against the IRA using this approach, and Germany has had some success as well (RAF in the past and some thwarted plots in Germany / France recently). And don't forget that the German army has played a leading role in the NATO engagement in Afghanistan - that's been a historical departure for the Bundeswehr and is not policing per se.

Regarding the shoot-down ruling, I'm perplexed. I don't understand the legal reasoning in the face of potentially enabling the deaths on the ground of multiples of the passenger count.

Regarding the future of NATO, I would simply refer to my 'better minds' comment. NATO served us well in the past. I have confidence that it will evolve to serve us well in the future.

I'm sure I've run afoul of the windbaggage constraint, so that's it.

Cheers,

US troops in Germany:
1989 - 248,621
1994 - 87,955
1999 - 65,538
2004 - 76,058

---

So, how's that economy working for you, Rofe?

Not only hve troops gone down, but families as well. Families who buy stuff, lots of German stuff.

Hopefully we'll see good things now that Ramstein(?) has been turned over. Your people need domestic consumption, not just rely on exports.

--My impression is that the Brits had their best success against the IRA using this approach--

Or the Omagah (sp) bombing got everyone fed up and the IRA's been persona non-grata in the W White House.

Of course, they never had to watch their fellow citizens choose either to do a 10-1/2 gainer w/a full twist from the 89th floor or be burnt to a crisp.

And tank their economy from 1 event by about $1 trillion, IIRC.

And they never had nukes.

Other than that, sure, let's treat it as a police action.

Police are there more after the fact, protect the crime scene to find out who did it and get him. Armies are there to make sure it doesn't happen.

Rofe,

Would you add something to your comment so I can understand what you mean?

"And don't forget that the German army has played a leading role in the NATO engagement in Afghanistan "

Thanks

Sandy P,

What's your beef with Germany ? From what I understand, you've never even been here. The economy's not great, certainly not compared to the US, but it's doing better than it has and somehow Germany has managed to become the world's largest exporter. (Yes, it has a lot to do with cars, but there's more to it than that.)

And no one's disputing the role of the military in fighting terrorism. Or at least I'm not. I just said don't dismiss the police aspect out of hand. That is clear, right ?

And what does your unbecoming joy in relating graphic 9/11 horrifics have to do with anything ? In fact, did our military prevent that ? (And no, I'm not bashing our military, just ridiculing your conclusion.)

joe,

As I understand it, the command of ISAF rotates and Germany took it's turn at the helm. I can see where your question comes from, so no I'm not saying that Germany has been at the forefront of becoming engaged in Afghanistan. Poor choice of words on my part. But Germany has stepped up with it's military obligations in Afghanistan including taking it's turn as leader of ISAF.

Cheers,

PS - Sandy P., my people are in fact Americans. That is if you count my mother's 4 Czech grandparents, who all immigrated around 1900, and my dad's family who arrived from Ireland circa 1750.

Just curious when the Turks will make a film about their genocide against Armenians.

Even if the Turks wanted to make a film about their genocide of Armenians, they couldn't. Even suggesting it took place (which it did, most certainly) earns a Turk a prison sentence.

No wonder they scream and march and riot, demanding that Denmark muzzle its newspapers. Censorship is second nature to Turkey.

Rofe,

Thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid I had missed something about German combat operations.

@Rofe

"Without getting into the details of European military capabilities, from what attacks does Germany (or the rest of Western Europe) need to protect its borders ?"

Its about the projection of military power and the ability to field a force for a sustainable amount of time. If a country couldn't effectively defend itself from one foreign invader, they would have a hard time committing to foreign engagements anywere else. The only country in the EU that can do so on its own, at the moment, is Great Britain and even then I would say that would be within a limited scope.

"Sorry, but your comment does not appear to hold water. Please correct me if my source is faulty."

Sorry, I was stationed in Germany in 1989 and read the figure in the "Stars-and-Stripes" at one point while there. Whats your source?

I was quoting from memory about 300,000 troops being stationed 1989, but I could suspect that the figure included those US units not physcially in West Germany activley supporting them from other parts of the European theater.

@ Rofe

"My impression is that the Brits had their best success against the IRA using this approach, and Germany has had some success as well (RAF in the past and some thwarted plots in Germany / France recently). "

Your assumptions are amuzing. Lived in Eire for a couple of years. The Brits capitualted and recognized a violent terrorist organization as a legitimate political advisary. FYI - Jerry Adams and the Sein Fein at the ntional level, but they even have representatives in the EU parliment. Great message put forward- terror works!! Don't make the mistake of comparing 1916 IRA with the marxist IRA of 68'-- romantzing fiction really confuses the times and context. Goals and motives completely different. Besides, today's IRA and Unionists are too busy killing each other for turf in their illegal narcotics trade.

A supporter of the RAF even became Foreign Mininster. Actual members can be found teaching in German universities. So much for thwarting. The man responsbile for locating and bringing the RAF members to justice lives in a fenced off compound with armed security guards today [at least he did 5 years ago].

"Regarding the future of NATO, I would simply refer to my 'better minds' comment. NATO served us well in the past. I have confidence that it will evolve to serve us well in the future."

Like the UN.
/sarc

If the europeans push through with their plans of an EU rapid reaction force, then this would probably jeopordize NATO for good.

"Just curious when the Turks will make a film about their genocide against Armenians."

Armenians? What *are* Armenians? Oh, you mean one of those ethnic groups living in the US, right? ;0

I think Der Speigel might be disturbed by two things about the Turkish film. One, it is unbalanced criticism of the US whereas Speigel never does anything but balanced criticism of the US. Giggle.

Two, it may have just occured to the big brains that the people in the US have been following the crap oozing from the German media and politicians and that the US *might* not be there for Germany or the EU in it's hour of need. Said possible hour of need suddenly looking a lot closer in light of what is happening to Denmark and things Danish and Norwegian.

Apoligies anyone? Absent an apology frankly they can kiss my trouser seat....

Its so funny to see the American point of view about this movie. What do you know about Turkey? What do you know about the Turkish culture? Im a Turk but not a muslim and I live in US. This movie is not anti-American! %70 percent of the events in the movie is the news that you watched on tv. Such as torture of the ppl and taking their picture while they are naked and on top of each other. Is this way of American justice? Why do you get mad when you see them on the big screen. Also I really like to know how many of ou watched the movie before you comment about it?

@ Refeto

You say you live in the US, but then you ask if those pictures are the way of US justice. Do you really think we are that stupid? If that was the way of US justice, why are the people who were in those pictures abusing prisoners sitting in US military prisons today? How many Turks who abuse and torture Kurds and others in prison are ever brought before a courtroom and convicted and sent to jail for their misbehavior? Not too many I would guess...

And please don't lie that the movie isn't anti-American. It almost only shows Americans (and Jews) as bad guys and is totally one-sided propaganda. It shows a Jewish doctor extracting people's organs for use in the US, England and Israel. That is sick. And let me ask you this: If Turkey is such a wonderful place and Americans are all just like in the movie, what the hell are you doing in the USA? Why don't you go back to paradise if America is so rotten my friend? Just wondering...

Well, this is what I think. I have yet to see the movie because I am in America,but I am looking forward to it. I do agree that it has caused more problems between America and Turkey..I know this first hand since my husband is Turkish,and is in Turkey. Turkey can be a wonderful place,and many Americans need to know this,but with that said,Turkish people also need to see the same in America. I think this movie is the first step to more hatred toward Americans. I have seen how Turkish people look at Americans when they visit their country. Most of them are anti-american. The issue with the americans and the 11 soldiers back in 2003 will not be forgotten. Turkey will never forget. They will hold this "grudge" toward americans for a very long time..if not indefinetly.

Its DVD is out in English , i found it in Ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9144489883&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

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