I mean, what else do you need as proof that the invasion was a grave mistake?
"The ... attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations ... and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared."
Let's get out of here, asap.
Out of Germany, that is.
New York Times, "Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945
(...) Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration. Government failures were attributed in part to public apathy.An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces in the European Theatre recently.
Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation...
It's obvious now: Roosevelt and Truman lied!
Update 1: Erik Svane has a French translation of the NYT 1945 piece.
Update 2: This is a must read: If D-Day Had Been Reported On Today. Hat tip to Eric B who copied the full article into this posting's comment section.
(Hat tip: Franz Hoffmann)
I love it.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 03, 2004 at 08:32 PM
Let me draw your attention to a few differences between Germany and Iraq:
1. Germany was not liberated, Germany was defeated. It was the rest of Europe that was liberated.
2. Germany attacked its neighbours. Iraq didn't.
3. The reasons to fight Germany turned out to be correct. The reasons to fight Iraq turned out be lies.
4. German civilians were not tortured.
5. There were no suicide attacks against the occupants.
6. Germany and America had a common foe: Russia. Germany was soon divided into east and west. People were then fleeing the east by tens of thousands.
7. Germany had a democratic past (the Weimarer Republik). In Iraq, democracy is an unknown concept.
8. Germans and Americans shared their religion and had a similar culture. Both were highly developed countries. America and Iraq are incompatible: Their cultures clash, Iraq is a less developed country.
9. In Germany, America had strong support from its allies. In Iraq, more and more so-called allies are turning their back to America, notably Spain.
10. May be the Americans were disliked in Germany at the time. But in Iraq, they are despised.
Posted by: Unwichtig | June 03, 2004 at 08:56 PM
Unwichtig, you wrote:
"10. May be the Americans were disliked in Germany at the time. But in Iraq, they are despised"
Who told you? Ask Samir about this. He is an Iraqi and posted here already. He has his own blog. Go there and ask the Iraqi people.
But I think facts are unwichtig for you.
Posted by: Gabi | June 03, 2004 at 09:23 PM
@Niko
ad 1. Germany still wasn't liberated. My point is that you can't expect Germans to like Americans if they have just been defeated by them. In contrast, Bush expected the Iraqi people to be happy to be liberated from Saddam.
ad 2. Yes, but 10 years ago. Iraq was not in war at the time it was attacked.
ad 3. The two main reasons (weapons of mass desctruction and a link between Saddam and Bin Laden) were untrue.
ad 4. That was during the war. Iraqis were tortured after "mission accomplished".
ad 5. You are confusing that with the Japanese.
ad 6. Germans were actually fleeing towards the Americans while war was still under go. The greatest ship disaster in history (the sinking of the Gustloff with 10.000 civilians) was the result of Germans fleeing the red army at the end of the war.
ad 7. I don't care if you find it racist or not. Iraq does not have any experience with democracy.
ad 8. You can have a common culture and a common religion and still fight each other. You miss the point again.
ad 9. 9/11 is an event with no link whatsoever to Iraq. The link was fabricated by the Bush Administration.
ad 10. People hear what they like to hear. If it were that easy, why don't the Americans succeed with Al Hurra?
And don't forget to do your history homework for school tomorrow.
Posted by: Unwichtig | June 03, 2004 at 09:51 PM
@Gabi
No one told me. I know that it is difficult to get accurate information on the things going on in Iraq, but I believe that blogs are not a very good source for reliable information. They tend to be biased (look at this one). What I do is to consult as many different sources as possible and to try to get an average view. Have a look for example at this report.
Posted by: Unwichtig | June 03, 2004 at 10:04 PM
1. Liberation and defeat are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
2. Iraq's 'non-attacks' on Iran and Kuwait left a great deal of unfinished business that needed to be resolved.
3. The reasons to fight Germany's evil regime and the reasons to fight Iraq's evil regime differed in volume and incidentals. The theme remains the same, and the orchestration has in fact improved.
4. German civilians were tortured before, during, and after World War II. You can look it up.
5. Iraqi insurgents have greater post-war access to certain materials and command structures, so who can say for certain that German insurgents would not have engaged in suicide attacks had the method presented itself?
6. Russia, however, had fewer problems with the German occupation than the US, which was constantly accused of inept post-war planning and reckless troops.
7. There was a time when, in the entire world, democracy was an unknown concept...
8. Then perhaps the efforts of multi-culturalism are even more important for Iraq than they were for Germany.
9. Fortunately, America does not garner her integrity from the likes of Spain.
10. 'Despised' is too strong a word considering more than half the Iraqis polled by various groups say they are deeply thankful to the Coalition, including many of those who prefer the Coalition leave now. The Iraqis do seem conflicted, which is perfectly understandable.
Posted by: Jeffrey Wheeler | June 03, 2004 at 10:11 PM
@Niko, Jeffery
Admittedly, I enjoy discussing the 10 differences, but I'm afraid this nitpicking argument is shifting the focus away from what I was initially driving at. I didn't write down my conclusion explicitly, but actually it's quite clear: Comparing Iraq and Germany is less evident than comparing Iraq and Vietnam. And we all know the consequences of this failed liberation: Vietnam is today one of the most miserable and poorest countries in the world.
Posted by: Unwichtig | June 03, 2004 at 10:31 PM
1. Germany was rightly defeated and necessarily humilated. Only the western portions of Europe were liberated from Nazi aggression. Eastern Europe was only defeated in 1989 following "defeat" of the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union.
2. Completely wrong : Israel 1967/1973/1991, Kuwait 1990/Threatened(December 16, 1998), Iran 1980-88, Saudia Arabia 1991, Kurdistan Continuosly. Which countries DON'T boarder Iraq? Let me guess, you'll say "but he wasn't attacking anyone in 2003." Well, if the US and The UK hadn't kept him bottled up since 1991, history might so that he had every intendtion to carry on where he left off.
3. This is an issue of opinion and useless to comment. ( Obviously Germany wasn't going to do anything (nor capable of it) and the US and Brittan have a different history and experience with their attitude to the use of Force. War is just a continuation of politics by other means. ---Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian Prussian Military Philosipher )
4. I think torturing SS members would have been appropriate had it finished the war faster. Furthermore, I guarantee German prisoners were not treated well by the Soviets ( and likewise ). How many Germans were taken at Stalingrad, 200.000? And how many returned in 1955 5.000? Maybe they were just shot, and never tortured.
5. This has to do with our common attitudes towards religion stemming from the enlightenment.
6. I don't understand your point here. Following the end of the first war in Iraq, hundreads of thousands of Kurds fled to Turkey. Similarily, Shia fled to Iran during the Iran Iraq war. 700.000 Vietnamese fled following the fall of Saigon. 100.000s of thousands returned to Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban.
7. Hmm... Wiemar republik. The brief period of time from 1918-1933 is not something that I would consider a significant contribution. The US has had a continuos democracy since 1789, that is significant (and continuous to do so). Prior to the succession of hostilies in the 1953, Korea had no form of democracy (not even an aborted embryonic Wiemar-like one). After years of liberal rule, Korea was able to develop stable democratic instituions since 1974. I could also give you Japan as an example, but I think that the principal is that countries can eventually evolve into fully-functioning stable democracies. Whole books have been written on this subject, and it shows that the trend is getting stronger. Francis Fukuyama is probably the best know, where he presents his theory in "The End of History and the Last Man", is regared as the best work on the subject : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029109752/qid=1086294580/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7906735-8119327?v=glance&s=books
8. Many countries are democracies and multi-cultural (India). What is important is for their constitution to assure that minority rights are protected and liberal rule is ensured and protected through a uncorrupted legal system.
9. The end of WWII, Germany's direct neighbors had a direct interest in having a peaceful Germany. Depending on what you mean by support: It is not true that France, Brittan, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Poland, etc contributed to your financial support, but were interested in controlling Germany's historical tendancy to aggression. Obviously, the only country willing to help, the US (not the only capable: Canada, Australia, New Zealand) contributed to the Marshall Plan (remains unrepaid). All of the "western allies" helped in shaping the democratic face known as Germany today. But if one must, the constutition of Germany resembles the American constitution the most.
10. Difficult to say. What are your sources? Have a look at : http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com
Posted by: James | June 03, 2004 at 10:52 PM
a little medienkritik about how we like others to be stuck in their culture:http://tinyurl.com/3gazs
Posted by: | June 03, 2004 at 11:19 PM
@James
Ok, I'll give it one more go - there is more substance here than in the previous replys.
ad 1. Again, my point is that you can't expect Germans to like Americans if they have just been defeated by them. (= no surprise) In contrast, Bush expected the Iraqi people to be celebrate the Americans for liberating them from Saddam, and this did not happen. (= surprise)
ad 2. What I meant is that Germany was attacked because it had started a war. Iraq was not attacked because it started a war. I thought that was clear.
ad 3. I don't think so. Powell actually admitted that the primary reason for attacking Iraq - the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was based on false information.
ad 4. I am not talking about Russians. I thought that was clear, too.
ad 5. You got a point there. Still, if so many Iraqis prefer to die than to cooperate, this is not a good sign. Reminds me of the Palestine conflict, which has been going on for decades.
ad 6. Well, the point is that the Germans feared the Russians. May be they did not like the Americans at that time, but they certainly knew that without the Americans, it would be much worse. The Berlin wall was errected because so many Germans kept fleeing for East Germany to West Germany. We don't have such a situation in Iraq. The majority of the Iraqis believes that they are better off without the Americans.
ad 7. I know that the Weimar Republik was brief. You don't need to compare it to the USA, because this is not my point. What I wanted to say is that Germany had a democratic past, and today, Iraq hasn't. I am comparing Germany to Iraq, not to the USA.
ad 8. In India, the democratic process came from the Gandhi movement. (When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization, he answered: "That would be a good idea.") In Iraq, there is no Gandhi. Anyway, what I was trying to say was that the Americans in Germany didn't have the additional problem of culture clash like they have in Iraq.
ad 9. The point is that the Bush Administration has a morale problem, because they lied to the world when saying that the inspectors did not find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because they were not searching properly. In WWII, there was no such problem, the situation was clear.
ad 10. Here's one of them. Note that this article was written last year - before the abuse scandal.
Posted by: Unwichtig | June 04, 2004 at 12:09 AM
After the war, how many Allied troops were killed by German insurgents? Any?
Posted by: more_human_than_human | June 04, 2004 at 12:31 AM
--German civilians were not tortured.--
Sure about that, Unwichig?
I thought there were over 500 court martials.
Posted by: Sandy P | June 04, 2004 at 01:01 AM
@more human than human
See here for a source on German resistance against the allies. It was next to nothing, in particular when compared to the incredible American losses during the war.
In Iraq however, America has already lost more troops in post war fighting that during the actual invasion.
Posted by: Unwichtig | June 04, 2004 at 01:09 AM
Well I have to agree with Unwichtig comparing Iraq and Germany is difficult.
The people of Iraq seem to like the idea of being liberated and did not fight till the entire nation was destroyed. They surely did not have great affection for Saddam. The German people on the other hand fought till their entire nation was in ruins. They had great affection for their beloved leader even when it was clear the war was lost.
It would also seem the Iraqi people appreciate the Americans much more than the Germans do.
Time will tell if the Iraq is a better ally than Germany.
Posted by: Joe | June 04, 2004 at 01:21 AM
Unwichtig, thanks for your comments.
1) What I meant by "defeated and necessarily humiliated." For a nation to fully submit to defeat at least two things need to happen 1) they need to be defeated in open battle, shown that their means and capabilities are not sufficient to overcome the enemy 2) sufficient numbers of them need be killed to show the futility of their cause. This is why I think welcomes the insurgency as it defines an active engagement allowing for marines to kill more of them. This “pitched battle” never happened satisfactorily enough in March of 2003 to allow for the US to destroy their army (in particular, the Republican guard). Instead, they just took off their uniforms and blended in with the rest of society to set off car bombs and snipe at soldiers later. It too the Vietcong years to recover from their failed tet offensive.
2) Germany was attacked because it declared war against the USA, Poland and Russia. Saddam showed no love for the USA, Iraqis, his neighbors, the UK, the UN and and and...
3) The real benefit of invading Iraq was to put pressure on all of the other governments in that region that openly support terrorist organizations : Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. It was not about oil. I'll grant you that the WMD was perhaps, at worst, a pretext, but not the only reason. Additionally, every government, including the UN (i.e. Germany, France, England, etc) all were in agreement that he still had WMD. If he did, we'll never know. But Saddam reminds me of the little boy who cried wolf too often. Recall that once Mustafa (his son-in-law who was head of the secret police) defecated to Jordan and reported on the Nuclear Bomb program that Saddam had up to then successfully hidden from the UN. Hmm, what we didn't know...
4) I, like the Iraqis, am not too upset with the torture thing. More then 700 Americans have died freeing their country from the worst enemy that region has ever known. This seems to eclipse (for me at least) the on-time torture (although I’m not happy about it) thing when one considers it was an institutionalised means of entertainment under Saddam & Co.
5) Are you sure that it's Iraqis that are committing these suicide attacks? Not al-Queda? The Baath party members maybe doing the bombings, but not the suicide attacks. And I make the distinction because it’s important in understanding the motivations of the groups conducting these operations. Additionally, ee often heard from the President and the press prior to the invasion that Al-Queda had no connection to Iraq. In fact, when Cheny hinted at it, he got a very public repremand from the President.
6) Nikita Khrushchev built the wall (1961) for two reasons: 1) Berlin served as an Allied organizational center for counter-espionage activities. He wanted to contain this. 2) He could use it as a bargaining chip when he later cut off Berlin, which was countered with the Berlin airlift. The continuous defection of Easterners was noted, but loss of manpower alone was not horribly large enough to warrant its construction. There were many years, 1945-1961 for those really wanted to get out, to really get out. The wall only served as a physical and mental barrier demarking East from West…
7. I think I made the point well enough to demonstrate that all countries should begin the long road to democracy by stating with a single step. Plus, everything else has seemed to fail: Maoism, Fascism, Socialism, Theocracies, Dictators, etc…
8. The Indians inherited many of the democratic British institutions that were left behind after 1948. Hopefully Iraq will gain this as well.
9. Sorry, that’s ipso facto morals. Like I said: all other governments were in agreement with the intel.
10. Your link didn’t work. But I think that all Arabs are in some way jealous of western success. America is the most successful and powerful of all these countries, that it serves as it’s center. The Arabs, and many Europeans, I think get frustrated when they see the US, admittedly a fairly new-country ( one could argue on the definition of a country, if in which case, Germany is younger than the US ), so successful. How can that be? We have a culture going back 3.000 years? Blah, blah, blah. Whoever said that culture evolves linearly? They know that they must modernize (democracy) if they want to become better off. For some of them ( bin Laden ), this means westernizing. Apparently, he’s never been to Japan.
Posted by: James | June 04, 2004 at 02:03 AM
@James,
Wasting your time with this ..
Posted by: Joe | June 04, 2004 at 02:18 AM
It is true, Joe, that the Iraqis generally appear more grateful than in post-war Germany, but the good relationship Americans have with those Iraqis are also considerably more fragile. In the lack of a decisive closure to the war--because, fearing short-term anger, the Coalition avoided the measures needed to provide long-term destruction of enemy forces--the insurgency is clearly more destructive, and tensions in some areas are more comparable to the hardcore German resistance following World War I.
Dissenting views should be welcome here, but I wish people would get off the 'Bush Lied' bandwagon. We found WMD in Iraq, just not stockpiles (yet?). There is a big difference between being misinformed and being misled.
Anyway, as Christopher Hitchens wrote in a commentary prior to the Sarin and Mustard discoveries, "So Saddam Hussein finally got his reward for all the unpunished times. Well, history doesn't move in a straight line, and irony is a dialectical hairpin. But if he really didn't have any unlawful WMD, it was very dumb of him to act as if he still did or perhaps even to believe that he still did. And it seems perfectly idiotic of anybody to complain that we have now found this out (always assuming that we have, and that there's no more disclosure to come). This highly pertinent and useful discovery could only be proven by way of regime change. And the knowledge that Iraq can be finally and fully certified as disarmed, and that it won't be able to rearm under a Caligula regime, is surely a piece of knowledge worth having in its own right and for its own sake."
Posted by: Jeffrey Wheeler | June 04, 2004 at 02:47 AM
Well it depends on how one chooses to define the word lie. Then one has to also determine how this word is to be applied.
This is very complex. Just ask any German and he will tell you it is complex. It is even confusing for non Germans to watch them do this when they have difficult with issues like good and evil.
But the good news is that Germans have moral clearity when it comes to the US. This I think is very good. They only seem to be in a bit of fog when dealing with themselves, their leaders and their nation. Fortunately, they have their elites.
Of course, when one lives in the best social welfare state in the world, none of this is really very important. If something is really terribly wrong a new law can be passed or a new tax imposed to correct the problem.
Besides the SPD said it was going to save the social welfare state during their election run up. I for one believe them and hope they do.
Life is good.
Posted by: Joe | June 04, 2004 at 03:35 AM
Concerning the widespread hatred of the US and the mass killings of coalition soldiers, Unwichtig, kindly check John Keegan's article out at ¡No Pasarán!.
Regarding the supposed significance of the absence of attacks on allied troops in post-war Germany, click on the Daily Telegraph link to read the entire article.
Posted by: Erik | June 04, 2004 at 12:39 PM
it's clear (deutsch&deutlich)
Iraq was liberated by the US-Invasion.
No one else could do this, and all the stuff about democratic change under Saddam, civil society is just nonsense with the pistol directed on your chest.
Okay Iraqis may not think the same, but I think in five years views about the invasion will change.
I know from a relative describing from inside Iraq to the US before the war (six months before the war) that the Iraqi army won't resist and all people are waiting.
To the American people: I know from relatives that Iraqis had made stars & stripes flags to welcome you 1991. But you let them down, and down in the earth(in mass graves) are the people who made this flag awaiting you, so please don't let us down once again, like all the world for 35 lost years. I know Iraqis are not sympathetic but your job is to be stronger than our childish complaints and to be a psychoanalytiker because people are mentally tired and ill.
Posted by: Samir al-Iraqi | June 04, 2004 at 01:29 PM
Zugleich wandte sich Sebari gegen den Vorschlag Frankreichs, Deutschlands und Chinas, in der Resolution eine Frist für einen Abzug der ausländischen Truppen aus dem Irak festzuschreiben. Dies sei nicht sehr hilfreich und könnte von denjenigen genutzt werden, die Chaos im Irak verbreiten wollten, da die Iraker nicht ohne ausländische Truppen für Sicherheit sorgen könnten.
http://www.n-tv.de/5250897.html
Versteckt im Text finde ich diese klare Absage Sebaris an die deutsche Position. Ist es doch schon seit Wochen vorwurfsvoll und anklagend durch die deutschen Medien gegeistert, daß ein genaues Datum erforderlich sei. Ohne Sinn und Verstand wurde es von Pleuger gefordert und in den Medien nachgeplappert. Herr Sebari hat zum Glück keine Angst vor der Friedensmacht Deutschland.
Was berichten denn jetzt die deutschen Kommentatoren? Es wird sicher totgeschwiegen.
Posted by: Gabi | June 04, 2004 at 01:31 PM
@ joe
jerk!
spd is ruining everything-not only the german state but also the very important good relationships with the us!
SPD is more dangerous than everything else to Europe and the rest of the world!!! Sozialwahn is the right expression for their stupid and clueless politics!
Posted by: Sandra | June 04, 2004 at 03:12 PM
@Sandy,
Now you have hurt my feelings. I was trying to support the elected leader of the German people. I for one think they have just the leader they wanted and the leader they deserve. It pains me to see his poll numbers so low.
During his campaign to be elected he had two major positions. These were not to support the US and to preserve the social welfare state. He has delivered on both of these.
He has not supported the US in any way in its efforts to liberate Iraq and give the Iraqi people an opportunity to have both freedom and a democratic nation. Even today in the UN he wants the US to quickly leave Iraq. He has a clear picture of how best to handle this situation and feels that not only was the US wrong to start this war it continues to make major mistakes. He is frustrated that he cannot convience President Bush to see his wisdom.
He has also preserved the social welfare state. Actually, he is increasing its size and making it stronger. If one were to consider an increase in unemployment as growth and more individuals relying on the state for support, then he is saving the social welfare state. He has reduced the burden of businesses by reducing the amount of tax they must pay for health insurance. He has created jobs by passing a law requiring businesses to hire apprentices.
He has given his nation a sense of pride, which they did not have before by establishing a moral high ground for them to occupy. He has won numerous hollow diplomatic victories on the international stage preparing the way for Germany to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. He is a leader of the franco-German engine, which not only leads Europe’s efforts to strengthen the EU, but as a catalytic for European wide economic growth.
How can you not admire the current German Chancellor and his party?
Sandy, you might be the problem. It might be that you are looking at all these accomplishments through the prism of an American. You cannot do this. You must look at it as a German. Then it looks very different. If you do not believe me, just look at the comments so many Germans make here about our President. They do not hold their leader in such contempt.
Posted by: Joe | June 04, 2004 at 03:45 PM
@Sandra,
Oops.......I addressed my comment to Sandy. It should have been to you. Sorry about that.
I know you will look forward to my comment on why I think the current Chancellor will have a real place in history.
Posted by: Joe | June 04, 2004 at 03:50 PM
@ unwichtig
Oh unwichtig , du bleibst unwichtig.
1. Iraq was liberated and Saddam was defeated.
2. Iraq did not attack Iran, Kuweit. It did not support the PKK to attack Turkey indirectly. Oops I missed something.
3. The lies of you and the peacenicks-movement were that Saddam was harmless and it's the USA being a danger. Do you know the manufacture of death where people were shredded. Is this not a WMD ? But people like you never cared about human right abuses which are an inner state affair. See also my comment: If Iraqis would have been whales, you would care for us earlier.
4. German were also tortured, watch the film "Operation Artischoke". And you call this torture. Every Iraqi I met told me: "Where was Unwichtig and the f****ing rest of the world when Saddam choped the people`s hand and dogs eating women and and and ... Watch also the stuff from Mozany. Yes, Iraqis were tortured under Saddam, not under Bush, Schlaubischlumpf
5. As far as I know there is little proof of iraqi involvement in suicide attacks after the war. Iraqis have shown in history little sympathy to this method of killing. They could have done so against the Ba'ath and Saddam. And a suicide order like "Stalingrad halten" is a good balance to the individual suicide bomb. At the end, there is always the same result.
6. Iraqis in exil and in Iraq and the USA had also a common enemy: SADDAM. Now it's the chaos, unrest and terror of certain groups in Iraq, the arabic world and the islamic world. As I told people earlier: Iraqis never want any form of totalitarism. In the past 4 Million Iraqis (me, too) went on asylum in Europe and otherwise; a fifth of the whole population, a scale similar to the escape of East-Germans, so don't laugh about Iraqi minds. Understand it or leave it.
7. Iraq may be had no democratic past, but is this an exuse for non-action ? What was before the Weimarer Republik ? Also no democracy, so what't the aim of your talk. "If in the past there was no democracy, in the future there will be also none." In Iraq democracy in not an unknow concept, in the opposite. Until 1958 there was an Iraqi parliament and a widespread spectrum of thoughts how democracy works. Unwichtig forgot also the history of the Iraqi Communist Party which took apart to a democratic change of regime. This was put aside unfortunately in 1958, but to say that democracy is an unknown concept, is just an insult to Iraqis. At the other hand, Iraqi faschists, and Arabs in general, were eager to imitate every stupid ISM like fascism, antisemitism, nazism, socialism, imperialism etc. so why they can't be democratic, human etc. ? If there is any prove for Arabs affection to Western ideas, for democrazy, it's their adaption of old-fashioned ideas. The problem is that these ideas were killing in europe.
8. The culture clash is over for about 15 years. Arab culture and Iraqi souveranity can't challenge American military and Arab military dreams ended in many deaths and huge catastrophes. Why should cultures clash ? You are just a Kulturrelativist who can't understand that cultures consist of human desires common to all mankind. Why should American and Iraqi culture clash ? I'm sure this stupid talk of you was repeated ín WW II with different labels like : American culture is liberal and German culture authoritian. Instead of talking about clashes and divide people and make them hate each other like you do, we should talk about common grounds. And your stuff about the less-developed country is also insulting. Correct me but it was Iraq on the same level like Portugal, Spain and Greece in the eighties, economically. And it was your so-much defended Saddam who put us down, not the culture, lack of democrazy or religion, Mr. Sholl-Latour. As Jim Morrison put it: Poems are about sex, love and death. And poems are a high expression of culture, especially in the Arab world. And Sex, Love and death are also known to animals.
9. What Spain did, was just a favor for al-Qaida and the Ba'ath. Zapatero used the Iraq issue like the CDU used the asylum issue at the beginning of the nineties. Okay, leave Iraq alone, but when there' a second 9/11 or something like that, you'll be the first crying for the invasion of Iraq. In my eyes, Zapatero should just dispised as he deserves, not only for using the issue of Iraq to win votes on the back of the Iraqi people, but also for the way of departure, so quickly as an alien would be hunting Spain or Bin Laden directed a pistol on Zapatero's chest. And the defence minister gave himself a medal of honor for this departure. Bienvenida Republica Banana.
10. Okay, some Iraqis despise Americans like German TV's best friend al-Sadr, but people forget that any rule rests on a certain conscent, conscious or not, but Americans would be killed in dozens per day if they were really hated in a land full of ex-govermant killers ( trained with the little help of the BND) and weapons. We had some glimpses for the trouble, but the trouble you, unwichtig, are crying for, is missing.
And what do you mean by "may bei Americans were disliked by Germans". I think really, Iraqis dislike Americans and Germans despise Americans. Ask David, he has a lot of proof for you.
And American Embassies worldwide, why don't you publish our requestes for invasion, we all sent to you at risk of our lifes in the cases the writer of the letter was Iraq. Publish them so the world can see: We made emergency calls for 35 years but now you came.
My elder brother went back to Iraq after 36 years, so I hope to write a special report of a home-coming next time.
@ Gabi
Sebari war schon lange ein Kritiker der Haltung der Friedensmächte, was aber totgeschwiegen wird. Stattdessen Videotext ARD: Deutschland und Frankreich unterstützen Sebari.
Posted by: Samir al-Iraqi | June 04, 2004 at 04:43 PM
In the islamic world it seems that there is merely the choice between either a fascist/military dictatorship (Algeria, Tunesia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, ...) a rotten monarchy with ornamental islamic or democratic traits (Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, ...) or a islamist dictatorship (Iran). I currently can't observe a democratic movement (the islamists are exactly that) (with a differing aim than the aim of establishing a theocracy) anywhere but in Iran.
The West can now support a) the fascists and monarchists or b) the islamists or provided they can be found c) secular democrats. Option a) was up to now the favoured option. It has some important advantages because there are no erratic voters decisions and they (the dictators) are the only ones that can be made to tolerate Israel. And the best: they are sworn enemies of the islamists.
It seems to me that the US changed its strategy from a) to c) lately. But since the battle against the islamist menace is of paramount importance right now I wonder if it really was the right time and place to do that, because I fear Iraq will transform to a type b) country.
Posted by: J. M. | June 04, 2004 at 05:58 PM
He is denying the main reason, the only reason, ultimately, for our liberating millions of grateful iraqi's WAS because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam's ignoring the UN security council resolutions stemming from that war made this war inevitable, and necessary.
No invasion of Kuwait=Saddam still in power.
WMDs don't matter; I never cared about them. The resolutions, on the other hand, do matter. 12 years of sanctions, 12 years of no-fly zones, 12 years of defiance: many Germans may not care about those things, but americans do. At least we like to TRY and do the right thing, not a trait I have ever noticed the germans possess.
And he was almost on to something with Vietnam; it is one of the more miserable countries in the world. Had we never been involved there, it would still be one of the most miserable countries in the world. (of course, had France and Japan never been involved there, there might be a different story) Had we won the war, on the other hand, there is no reason to think South Vietnam wouldn't be like South Korea.
Posted by: JJ | June 04, 2004 at 06:27 PM
Samir, it is so good to read your postings.
I would like to read an answer from Mathezar or Unwichtig or ...???
Posted by: Gabi | June 04, 2004 at 06:46 PM
@JJ
"The resolutions, on the other hand, do matter."
Is that so? How come we don't invade other prominent countries located in this particular region of the world which also do not care much about UN resolutions?
We Germans also TRY to do the right thing but that doesn't mean that we always agree with the US on what the right thing is!
Posted by: jo | June 04, 2004 at 06:47 PM
@Niko
@James
A little bit of history. One could almost say today is nothing but a rerun of history. If you would like to see what I mean, I invite you to view the below link. I think you will find it intersting. Maybe this is where some of these comments are coming from.
As I have said before there is no sense or understanding of history.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/life.guest.html
Posted by: Joe | June 04, 2004 at 07:06 PM
jo, I assume you are referring to the security council resolutions regarding israel's occupation. I suggest you go take a close look at their text, and at the history surrounding their adoption. They call for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the '67 war, which they have. They do not, intentionally, call for withdrawal from all territories captured. They are not in violation of the security council.
Posted by: jj | June 04, 2004 at 07:36 PM
@ David:
This October 1945 New York Times article was discussed by Rush Limbaugh today on his radio show. (He referred to it as a Life Magazine article, but same context).
No matter what the source was, this theme, (the press declared that Europe was lost in late 1945), is being discussed over National Radio in the U.S. If you guys were the discoverers of the article, you should take credit for it.
Congratulations
Note from David: George, that's a very kind comment from you. But - I didn't discover the article. It was printed in National Review (I linked to the article), and Franz Hoffmann made me aware of it (see hat tip).
Posted by: George M | June 04, 2004 at 08:16 PM
Quoting Stephen Zunes, associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco
"The list of U.N. Security Council resolutions violated by Iraq cited by Bush pales in comparison to the list of resolutions currently being violated by U.S. allies. Not only has the United States not suggested invading these countries, the U.S. has blocked sanctions or other means of enforcing them and even provides the military and economic aid that helps make these ongoing violations possible.
[...]
Moroccan forces still occupy Western Sahara, however, with the Bush administration supporting Morocco's defiance of subsequent Security Council resolutions that simply call for an internationally supervised referendum by the Western Saharan population to determine the fate of their desert nation.
Meanwhile, Turkey remains in violation of Security Council resolutions 353 and 354 calling for its withdrawal from northern Cyprus, which this NATO ally of the United States has occupied since 1974.
The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel, by far the largest recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel's refusal to respond positively to the formal acceptance last March by the Arab League to the land-for-peace formula put forward in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 arguably puts Israel in violation of these resolutions, long seen as the basis for Middle East peace.
There can be no argument, however, that Israel remains in defiance of a series of other Security Council resolutions. These include resolutions 262 and 267 that demand Israel rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as the more than a dozen other resolutions demanding that Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolitions of homes, collective punishment and seizure of private property.
For example, Security Council resolutions 446 and 465 require that Israel evacuate all of its illegal settlements on occupied Arab lands. The United States, however, insists the fate of the settlements is a matter of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
In fact, the Clinton Peace Plan of December 2000 would have allowed Israel to illegally annex most of these settlements and surrounding areas into Israel. Even more disturbing, the U.S. decision to help fund Israel's construction of Jewish-only ``bypass roads'' in the occupied West Bank to connect the illegal settlements with Israel puts the United States in violation of Article 7 of resolution 465, which prohibits member states from facilitating Israel's colonization drive.
[...]"
Posted by: jo | June 04, 2004 at 08:30 PM
--ad 4. That was during the war. Iraqis were tortured after "mission accomplished".--
Now, U, the ship did finish it's mission, it was coming home after being diverted.
And I still say people in the West pay good money to be led around on leashes naked.
Of course, all we really had to do was have them clean their own cells, after all, women's work is more demeaning than the torture they expect from their own.
Posted by: Sandy P | June 04, 2004 at 09:37 PM
Umm, Jo? You might want to bone up on Iraq v. Israeli resolutions.
Just because Israel has more against them (which might show bias in some people's eyes) doesn't mean they have to comply.
Iraq was at Chapter 7, IIRC - HE MUST COMPLY. Which also ties in to making the UN relevant and W did by going into Iraq and enforcing the YOU MUST COMPLY resolutions, but that's for another discussion. W/O the US, the UN can pass all the hot air it wants, but it can't enforce squat. And if you want the UN to be the one world gov't leader, you must agree that the YOU MUST COMPLY chapters must be enforced.
All Israeli resolutions, except one, IIRC, are "we're shaking our fingers at you severely but you can ignore us."
Unfortunately, I didn't think I needed the UN link anymore so I deleted it. But the info is there on the UN website.
It is, after all, all about "nuance" or "context" if you prefer.
But I'll bet your media never explained that to you, did they? I know most of the US' didn't. Had to find out thru the blogosphere.
--There can be no argument, however, that Israel remains in defiance of a series of other Security Council resolutions. These include resolutions 262 and 267 that demand Israel rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as the more than a dozen other resolutions demanding that Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolitions of homes, collective punishment and seizure of private property.--
and the beauty of this one, as soon as the Paleos stop splodydoping or trying to kill JOOOOSSSS, I'm sure they'll stop this, too.
And now why wouldn't Professor Zunes also want to inform the reader as to the different UN chapters?
BTW, have you been paying attention to the UN lately? More and more scandals as far as the pocketbook can hold. There's a new book out, start perusing instapundit.com for the link. And well, I really don't know if you advocate the UN running Iraq, but if it's anything like Kosovo, you'd be on the "wouldn't touch the UN w/a 10 foot pole" side.
The UN is not your friend or your guiding light. It's a cesspool of thuggocracies, despots, and massive fraud. Enron's got nothing on them. Of course, Parmalat and the EU doesn't either. So much for the morally superior Europeans.
Posted by: Sandy P. | June 04, 2004 at 09:50 PM
Jeffrey - --In the lack of a decisive closure to the war--because, fearing short-term anger, the Coalition avoided the measures needed to provide long-term destruction of enemy forces--the insurgency is clearly more destructive,--
Not to mention our abandonment of them in 1991, I'd be skittish, too.
All for the sake of "stability."
Posted by: Sandy P | June 04, 2004 at 09:54 PM
(1) Regime change in Morocco, Turkey, and Israel isn't imperative to US national security, (2) all those parties demonstrated support for alternative solutions to their conflicts, and (3) two of them have basic democratic systems to facilitate the necessary discussions. (1) Iraq is, (2) didn't, and (3) won't until the near future.
Posted by: Jeffrey Wheeler | June 04, 2004 at 09:59 PM
Well, jo, having just gone back and read all the cited resolutions, it is bizarre that this professor of 'peace' would make such declarations. They are not even remotely of the gravity of Iraq's violations, which, of course, were all the more serious because they stemmed out of a UN authorized war (essentially a war against the UN) and because Iraq agreed to them. With Iraq, the UN says things like 'demands''requires' and 'unconditionally', with the others its 'deplores' and 'doesn't recognize'...
Posted by: jj | June 04, 2004 at 10:04 PM
@Sany, Jeffrey, jj
You know, your arguments would actuall ymake sense to me if there really had been any WMDs in Iraq. Yet, that was not the case. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that Saddam is gone. But why playing these games with the U.N. enforcing some resolutions and not enforcing others? And why not getting rid of all the other dictators of this world?
Posted by: jo | June 04, 2004 at 10:42 PM
The US and the USSR may very well have obliterated each other were it not for the UN serving as a place for them, and the rest of the international community, to talk out some tensions. The UN has its place. If you need the diplomatic equivalent of a hammer, the UN is second only to NATO (to the US, anyway). The trouble with the UN's hammer is that not every problem is a nail...
Posted by: Jeffrey Wheeler | June 04, 2004 at 10:46 PM
@Niko
Actually I was thinking more about people like Kim Jong Il, Than Shwe, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, Crown Prince Abdullah, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Omar Al-Bashir, Saparmurat Niyazov, Fidel Castro, or King Mswati III but I doubt that you've heard of any of them.
Posted by: jo | June 04, 2004 at 10:58 PM
@Unwichtig at 1:09 above:
thanks for the link. I'm familiar with the Werwolf subject, since Bush apologists have been dragging it out for some time in an attempt at moral equivocation. The short answer appears to be that not a single US soldier was killed by insurgents in post-war Germany. From what I can tell, no mortar attacks on the occupation army's bases, no reconstruction workers killed and mutilated etc. either.
One can compare post-war Germany and present-day Iraq sure - but one must also appreciate the differences.
Posted by: more_human_than_human | June 04, 2004 at 11:46 PM
@Samir al-Iraqi
". . .so please don't let us down once again, like all the world for 35 lost years." What you said here is important enough that I'll break my rule about not posting to this site.
I'm a first generation Hungarian-American. It is impossible to say in words, after all the promises of help broadcast on Radio Free Europe and made by Secretary of State Dulles, what the American failure to act in 1956 did to the Hungarians. The scars will always be there.
Every other week a very nice lady gives me a manicure. She escaped from Vietnam shortly after Saigon fell in 1975. She doesn't talk much about the past (neither, for that matter, did my relatives). She did once say that she wondered why the US never helped South Vietnam when the situation there deteriorated in 1974-75.
And you know only too well what the American failure to act in the aftermath of the 1991 war meant.
I wish it were possible to promise that the US will finish the job and that our past did not matter. The Iraqi people, including you, must continue to fight as well. One of the most important elements of that fight is to get the truth out in the US and Europe, as you are doing, no matter how badly the press behaves. If you do that, then you can rely on the US. Even the worst institutions can be made to tell the truth. For example, Deutsche Welle broadcast a piece the other day about the situation in northern Iraq. It was positive, which did cause the news anchor a great deal of distress and that was a delight to watch.
Posted by: Ambrose Wolfinger | June 04, 2004 at 11:49 PM
Umm, Jeffrey - about the USSR and US?
Castro wanted them-- "encouraged" them to do it around the Cuban Missile Crisis, IIRC. They realized he was a few quarts shy.
Sometimes rattling sabres works, sometimes it doesn't. W/the islamofascists, they would do it w/o a thought. That's the difference.
--
Jo, the entire country was WMD. All programs were in place ready to go - even Kay said so. Easier to make weapons than secure the parts, until the sanctions were lifted. It was becoming untenable, frogistan and Russia or China, can't remember which was pressuring for sanctions to be lifted. No-Fly was 13 years and Tony wanted to scale back, if not end it, I believe.
what do you think Saddam would have done once they were lifted? The UN destroyed the larger ramps for larger missiles that he wasn't supposed to have.
Now, during this 14-month-long "rush to war" we never took out the railway between Syria and Iraq. There was a lot of traffic on it and on the roads. And Debka's a fun place, I think it or Strategy Page, or one of the other intel watching sites said that the Syrian defense Minister's son got $50M. Do you think there might have been enough time to spirit stuff out of the country?
Where did the chems for the Jordanian blast come from?
What's really in the Bekka Valley?
As to dictators, I agree wholeheartedly overthrow them all. However, we don't have the resources and Europe doesn't have the will. Fortunately, we just have to throw over enough for the rest to moderate their policies. While we haven't determined what enough is, the ME is already starting to moderate itself.
As to some on your list, Fidel's dying and Kimchee's going to get his. Not necessarily by US.
Oh, and as to African despots - that's frogistan's sphere of influence - talk to them. Oh, that's right, Chiraq greets them.
Besides, we can't do anything, that would be racist.
Posted by: Sandy P | June 04, 2004 at 11:52 PM
Sounds to me you need to start surfing more American sites, Jo.
Start w/The Belmont Club. Very thought-provoking stuff.
And do you read the Iraqi bloggers?
Posted by: Sandy P | June 05, 2004 at 12:03 AM
Because, Jo, limited resources means prioritizing the order in which even the most appropriate actions must take place. Among the issues are which of these actions are most 'do-able', as well as any added benefits of such action... For example, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and while the Saudi Arabia is classified as an American ally, it is also Terrorist Central. For the US to put pressure on the House of Saud, a few things would have to occur: First, a noticeable reduction of US aid to Saudi Arabia, in this case by removing the need for a military deterrent on Saudi soil against an aggressive neighbor. Secondly, the placement of a sizable military force nearby. Thirdly, if tensions flared, a large, alternative source of oil would need to be found to stabilize the region's output. Finally, the US would have to take a somewhat smaller action to demonstrate what could happen if the security issue is not resolved.
And, judging by the sudden sizable increase in anti-terrorist activities and calls for democratic reform, the Iraq War opened the door for a more peaceful world in the long run.
Posted by: Jeffrey Wheeler | June 05, 2004 at 12:12 AM
@ Ambrose Wolfinger
Hódvód (or so: Hungarian: how are you)
Well, I try my best, everyday but sometimes it's like a bull running against a wall and my head hurts too much at times.
For you as hungarian, it would be interesting that the Iraqi opposition lobbied the USA in the same way Hungarians did it to drop Ceaucescu who was a friend of Saddam. Same dictaturships, same problems.
I remember my uncle who told me that Radio Free Iraq was in the last 14 years his only glimpse of hope.
Europe, where was you Radio Free Europe and your Iraq Liberation Act ? So don't call, like Jacques chiraq, yourself an advocate of Iraqi people ?
Posted by: Samir al-Iraqi | June 05, 2004 at 01:35 AM
@jo
Jo, many (perhaps all) of the resolutions against Israel are NON BINDING.
The IRaq resolutions were binding. There are UN resolutions with teeth (or at least they are supposed to be , we waited 12 or 13 years before doing anything about it).
Hey Iraq was shooting at the US planes in the no fly zones, which the US had the right to be there. act of war there, which the US ignored for too long..
Any other power (Read for example Russia in Chechnya) would have responded immediately and HARD.. the US waited... too long..
Posted by: | June 05, 2004 at 01:39 AM
In case anybody is interested, I have translated US Occupation: Things Turn Ugly into French on Le Monde Watch.
Posted by: Erik | June 05, 2004 at 02:19 AM
One of the things history teaches is a nation or nations should not conduct wars unless they feel they can be victorious. It would appear this lessons has been lost on the Arabs
As for the cited Professor, a member of the far left. A member of AI. Very much someone who might be even called anti-Semitic by some of the positions he takes. He would fit right in with a large part of the population of eastern Germany. I am sure he would feel at home with the attitudes displayed there as well as some of the attitudes of some posters here.
Yes, unfortunately we too have our so-called elites. This happens to be one. The great thing about America is you can always find someone to support your position. This does not make your position any more creditable.
Of course, I for one take the position if this is such a big deal to some nations, then maybe you should take action to enforce these UNSCR's.
Posted by: Joe | June 05, 2004 at 03:29 AM