Austrian Politician: Criticism of the USA has Become Fashionable Again

Medienkritik reader Trish translated this article from "Wiener Zeitung", written by the Austrian politician Erich Reiter:

Criticism of the USA has become fashionable again - Europe creates a new image of an enemy By Erich Reiter

Presently Europe is not critical of America, but anti-American. In this equation America is only the USA, not the rest of the continent. Interestingly enough Anti-Americanism – with the exception of the Islamic world – is usually particularly prevalent where Americanization is already highly advanced. Anti-Americanism does not offer reasonable alternatives for better policies. The system of international relations is centrally based on the United Nations, which is when all is said and done primarily based on a US initiative. “Fact is that the USA is lagging behind in its moral claim to leadership, but worse than the Europeans - they are not.”

Anti-Americans see in the US the country of energy waste, which lives at the expense of others, the country of militarism, as egotistically safeguarding it’s interests embodied in the negative cast of

capitalism, of political imperialism, but also as the embodiment of western decadence keyword: Hollywood and yet a bastion of Christian fundamentalism. The USA is in the eyes of Anti-Americans the country of double morality, that preaches freedom and basic rights, but allies itself with Dictators if it is in it’s best interest. The criticism goes so far as to accuse the USA of a lack of democracy and understanding of basic rights within its own borders. Specifically the USA is accused on the one hand of not standing up for the Arab-Palestinian interests while standing up for the Israeli interests while on the other hand supporting the conservative Arab regimes of the oil exporting states. The Iraq war was lead because of oil. And this in spite of the fact that prior to the war the USA was the second largest importer of Iraqi oil and the costs of the war are clearly higher than potential profits of good oil business over several decades.

A phenomenon of Anti-Americanism is that America’s actions are not criticized for themselves, moreover the subject USA itself is the object of criticism. If for example Bush offers kind words of praise to Russia’s authoritarian President Vladimir Putin and does not properly criticize his Chechnya policy, then America is a-moral. If, however, Jaques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder do the same, hardly anyone would refer to Germany or France as a-moral, rather the actual situation would be criticized All larger (and also much smaller) powers represent their interests egotistically and without regard to others – maybe Germany is a conditioned exception. If, however, the US does the same, then it is irresponsible.

“Fact is that the USA is lagging behind in its moral claim to leadership, but worse than the Europeans - they are not.” Should one ponder for instance the priority economic interests play of large EU countries in their policies towards China or Iran? And if one considers the suffocating embracing (hug) policies of European countries towards African and Asian Potentates, then it is hard to understand where some Europeans take the moral basis for their criticism of the US. Is powerlessness alone enough to deem oneself more moral than the powerful?

This is only understandable because the “ideological” background of Anti-Americanism is marked by irrationality. World conspiracy theories, the US as a fighting instrument for the enforcement of the oil interests and the arms lobby, enslavement of the Third World and the Islamic world as well as the USA as an instrument for the enforcement of Jewish and/or Israeli interests. One cannot argue against irrationality with reason. Those who believe such things want to believe them.

The Extremes meet each other in Anti-Americanism

In so far as I can judge it, Anti-Semites are routinely also Anti-American. Conversely naturally not all Anti-Americans are also Anti-Semites. But the connection is a given, because a central criticism of the USA exists that they have much too Israel-friendly policies and the assertion of the Jewish influence in the USA goes so far that the USA finally is only reduced to an instrument for the enforcement of Jewish interests.

The criticism of America is, however, also regularly one where reasonable alternatives are not shown. This was evident in the debates before and after the Iraq war. The criticism whether it come from the pacifists or leftist radicals or rightist radicals, US actions are damned, they do not touch upon how one could do it better, aside from the illusionary approaches of a romantic socialism and of the platitudes no words are found.

Naïve Pacifism, Leftist Radicalism and Rightist Radicalism have however one thing in common: Anti-Americanism. One can also study this in Austria, from the red-green university paper “Progress” to the extreme right Academic Magazine “Aula”.

Since the Iraq war the assertion is going around that the USA destabilizes the international system i.e. that her policies will lead to the further militarization of the world. These accusations do not recognize that the world without the leading role of the USA would be more instable than it already is. It’s precisely the USA who have the potential to avert conflicts or their escalation, they have done it many times. The US predominance elicits measured reactions from some aggressive states and reduces the hegemonial role of regional major powers towards their neighbors. In short the USA creates more elbow room for smaller nations in international relations. The US guarantees the existence of NATO, whose existence Europe presently owes it oh so comfortable security situation to. Knowledgeable security politicians will welcome that the USA is the largest power of the world and not a different state. The international relation system is based centrally on the United Nations, when all is said and done is primarily based on an US initiative. The US have with the exception of a few sins like Grenada or Panama – rendered the decisive contributions to civilizing international relations before and after the second world war .
Overbearing? Yes but at least honest

The USA is the undisputed child of Europe. But the child has developed, and due to the demographic developments is becoming less European. It is to be judged positively that the USA not only is a open society but her policies lie there like an open book, which one does not find to this degree in Europe. One only has to read the National Security Strategy of the USA dated September 2002. It is self-complacent, yes overbearing but open and honest. Not only does the USA feel it is the undisputed Imperium of this world, they are it too. They see themselves as a success model and the world must follow their example. The USA are economically, technically and scientifically the leading country and according to the US’s self-image it’s cultural civilization is superior. Of course this is overbearing. But the USA builds on its strengths and they want to secure their superiority and hinder others who could contest their position. This is all declared very openly.

So one knows with whom one is dealing. One doesn’t need any conspiracy theories to explain the USA’s ambitions. A transfigured version of Anti-Americanism is the demonization of the present President. It is a part of political correctness in Europe not to leave one good hair on the Bush Administration. At the same time one pretends as if for example under Bill Clinton everything would have been different or as if everything would be different under John Kerry. But the America of George W. Bush jr. is not an exchangeable America.

US policy in the realm of international relations is pretty constant, very little changes, because the policy is and will remain the safeguarding of US interests that remain the same The language, the tone may change. It’s not the different Americas, which are exchangeable, but her Presidents. But admittedly the present President makes it quite easy for many Anti-Americans, because he so clearly states the US interests and the leadership claim.

Powerful and greatness stand stronger in the spotlight and this is why criticism cannot be astonishing. This should be however marked by a certain measure of objectivity and not by demonization and mystification. After all one should consider that the excessive Anti-Americanism in Europe inevitably leads to a mood in America of Euro-Skepticism and hostile feelings towards Europe. Seen as such, those America-Critics, who as a rule do not offer better or more realistic concepts, are not doing the world much good.

Section Chief Hon.-Prof DDr. Erich Reiter is the Head of the Office for Security Policy in Federal Ministry for Country Defense.
Appeared on: 28.09.2004

Comments

[Rob]

Bravo. What a great article.

[andrew2]

Amerika Haus München
Karolinenplatz 3
80333 München
Telefon 550 270 41

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Over a hundred and fifty people filled the auditorium of the Amerika Haus in Munich tonight to hear representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties abroad debate the issues. John McQueen of Democrats Abroad and Henry Nickel of the Republicans abroad were moderated by Patricia Guys, who read questions submitted by the audience.

US Counsel to Bavaria, General Matthew Rooney, opened the debate with a short speech. He said that the US was an ally who helped Germany become an independent player on the world stage. He mentioned terrorism and said “Islamism or Jihadism as terrorism should be analyzed and defined”.

The debate began with Henry Nickel of the Republicans talking about the security lapses in the 1990’s “The calm before the storm” and the decline of the military under the previous administration. He mentioned health care, education, economic stimulation and the expansion of NATO as positive Bush achievements.

The Democratic representative, John McQueen, took the podium with the trademark shout-out from the movie Good morning Vietnam--“Good morning Munich!” despite the evening start. He immediately went to work highlighting the Democratic view of the current administration. “The preservation of civil rights, dialogue with North Korea and Iran, and health care are all important to John Kerry”.

Mr. McQueen pointed out that the current administration gave discredited reasons for the war and that on 9-11 and Vice President Cheyney ordered the shooting down of civilian planes without the president’s permission. He concluded his opening statement by saying that “torture, Halliburton, the stolen election and the fact that Bush never visited a single soldier’s grave…”, was evidence Kerry was a better man.

Nichols was granted a 3 minute response and politely reiterated Bush’s stand on various issues, barely fazed by McQueen’s blistering opening statements.

McQueen wanted to emphasize that the republicans were unfairly branding his candidate with the flip-flop label. Quoting Lincoln, “states wishing to succeed from the union should be allowed to”, McQueen said leaders change. He was not pleased with the “unilateralism” of the war effort. Stating that he saw Fahrenheit 9-11 three times he announced that “Micronesian support does not count as a coalition in this illegal war”.
Speaking of the war as “illegal” prompted Nickel to urge people to read UN resolution 687 from Gulf War I.

The debate was characterized by a marked contrast of tone between the two debaters. McQueen, who knew Bush and his wife while at Southern Methodist University, referred to him as an “Arrogant jerk”. Offering negative assertions as fact and attacking Bush’s intelligence to scattered laughter. McQueen said “Bush laughed about the death penalty, he actively sought to use the death penalty”. He also said “We are not safer now. There are psychotics coming back from Iraq-- 800 Timothy McVeighs came back from Iraq”!

By contrast, Nickels was soft spoken and avoided all personal attacks. He did not demand a clarification on any of McQueen’s accusations, choosing instead to discuss Republican talking points in a low voice which prompted some in the audience to ask him to speak up.

Nickel’s attempts at supporting the president sometimes back-fired as when his comment, “The president respects human life” drew sneers. The audience was for the most part, polite. The only outburst was by a woman who demanded a clear answer on the issue of Partial Birth abortion.

The two hour debate was concluded by a humorous football analogy by McQueen who compared the donkey and elephant football teams. He drew laughs when he said Clinton was on the sidelines with two cheerleaders as GWB gets blindsided and the ball picked up by a wobbling Ted Kennedy who carries the winning touchdown for the democrats. This bit of brevity caught Nickels by surprise, who laughed and said he could not top that, but people should learn as much as possible before the elections.

[Robert in Mexifornia]

Herr Dr. Reiter has written a great essay. That is, until he says America wants to secure its superiority over the rest of the world and will hinder all others. Utter nonsense. From what murky, paranoid well did he dredge up that thought?

[Walter Wallis]

Germany, you are irrelevant. You and France, just go over in the corner and play with yourself.

[Gabi]

Andrew2 shows that Anti-Americanism is supported by the Democratic Party in the US. They are misusing the world wide hatred of the US and tell the people: It is only Bush. Anti-Americanism will not dissappear under Kerry. This hatred is older than GW Bush.

Israel has the same situation with Uri Avnery. I see some similarities. People say they hate only Sharon and say the same as Avnery, so it cannot be Antisemitism.

It is Anti-Americanism and Antisemitism which won't dissappear when Bush and Sharon are gone. The Anti-American people all over the world and the Democratic Party are walking together for a short while misusing each other. Kerry is a silly man. I hope the people in the US will discover early enough how dangerous a man is who misuses the hatred of people to become President.

[Gabi]

For the General Thread:

Yahoo.de has the headline that the 2 Italian hostages are free - for 1 Million Dollars. Only when you click on it, you will find out that this is speculation in the Arabic media. So why does yahoo use this headline as a truth?

How dangerous when they really paid money! We had the same situation with the German hostages last year in North Africa. Did the German government pay? Most of the journalist did not report of it tooooo much because it makes the world weak (erpressbar) but why do journalists report about it at all? On N24 a journalist reportet how dangerous it is when they paid money and then he continued to speculate about if they paid. The silliness of journalists is dangerous.

[Gabi]

Wie seltsam doch das Thema Linksterrorismus in deutschen Medien abgedeckt wird. Klump hat Beihilfe dazu geleistet, einen Bus voller Menschen in die Luft jagen zu wollen. Wie sehr jüdisch waren sie, wenn sie in Rußland gelebt haben? Was war es, daß Klump und Konsorten diese Menschen töten wollten, nur weil sie nach Israel wollten? Wo ist die Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Terror gegen Menschen?

Arme abhängige Frau, sie mußte kochen und waschen und das Leben im Untergrund war gar nicht romantisch. Und sie bereut so sehr. EX-Terroristin ist sie, das taucht in jedem Artikel auf. Wann ist ein geschnappter Terrorist ein EX?

Artikel dazu muß man suchen. Schon heute von der titelseite verschwunden, obwohl der Prozeß gestern war. Kommentare, Analysen in unseren Medien? Schweigen im Walde.

[Gabi]

In seiner Rede hat Kerry Bush vorgeworfen, «eine Krise von historischem Ausmass» geschaffen zu haben. Er habe einen Diktator gegen ein Chaos eingetauscht, was Amerika weniger sicher gemacht habe. Das Land verdiene einen Oberkommandierenden, der sich nicht durch «dickköpfige Inkompetenz» auszeichne, sondern mit «klugen und verantwortungsvollen Entscheiden Amerika sicher erhalte».

Die Amerikahasser haben applaudiert! Die Terroristen ebenfalls! Doch sollte Kerry damit gewinnen, dann geht der Terror gegen die USA unter Kerry weiter. Clinton hat Al-Kaida 8 Jahre lang versucht zu ignorieren und zu besänftigen. 9/11 ist trotzdem und gerade deshalb passiert. Schwäche ermutigt zum Draufschlagen.

[michael]

@Robert in Mexifornia
>>Herr Dr. Reiter has written a great essay. That is, until he says America wants to secure its superiority over the rest of the world and will hinder all others. Utter nonsense. From what murky, paranoid well did he dredge up that thought?

take a look at www.newamericancentury.org - signed among others by cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz

[no comment]

@gabi

es ist vor allem allzuhäufig demonstrierte stärke, die zum draufschlagen ermutigt. das resultat ist dann z.b. ein asymmetrischer "krieg".

[JR]

@no comment & Gabi
Möglicherweise habt Ihr beide Recht, zum Draufschlagen mögen Stärke und Schwäche ermutigen. Die Frage ist aber, wie man die "Draufschläger" immunisiert und da bin ich doch glücklich, das diese Verantwortung nicht bei Schröder, Chirac oder Annan liegt sondern bei George W. Bush. Und Gabi, keine Sorge, Kerry wird nicht gewinnen. Da bin ich sicher. Nicht mal Hollywood kann Ihm mehr helfen, er ist durchschaut!
JR

[no comment]

gerade auf spon gefunden:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-394373-320586,00.html

Notiz von David: Könnten Sie so freundlich sein, auch einmal die geografische Verteilung und die Häufigkeit von Morden Saddams im Irak zu präsentieren? Klappt es noch diese Woche?

[fmj]

Als plakatives Gegenstück zur plakativen Spiegelstory:
Vom Kartenspiel der 55 "most wanted" sind nur noch 7 übrig.
So what;

http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/iraqi55/#

[George M]

@ Michael

So ist zitiert aus dem Web Page New American Centruary.org. William Kristol ist ein bekannter Journalist/Politikwisser hier in Amerika.

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."

William Kristol, Chairman

Was ist so schlimm ueber die Aufgaben dieser Organization? Wo liegt die Verschwoerung?

In Gegenteil, was macht Kofi, Chirac order Euerer ehemalige von Karlos angestellte Aussenminister/ViceKanzelor, um die Weltlage zu besseren? Antwort: Nada, Nichts!

[no comment]

@george m: "Euerer ehemalige von Karlos angestellte Aussenminister"

haben sie eigentlich noch alle tassen im schrank?

[ralph]

@ no comment

Fischer war zwar nie Carlos "Angestellter", aber seine Terrorverbindung zu RAF, PLO, Carlos etc. ist doch zahlreich belegt:

-Hat er nicht die Waffe transportiert, mit der der FDP-Politiker Karry von linken Terroristen ermordet wurde?
-Kannte er nicht Weinrich so gut, dass seine Zeugenschaft für den Strafprozeß gegen W. als unerlässlich angesehen wurde?
-Kannte er nicht jene Terroristin (allzu) gut, die nie USA sagte, sondern immer zwanghaft USA-SS
-War er nicht in Tunis (?), um jenen arabischen Terroristen seine Aufwartung zu machen, die von einer Wiederholung des Holocaust träumten und von der Vorstellung eines solchen Genozids (Israel ins Meer werfen ... ) bis heute besessen sind?
-Hat er nicht mit seiner "Putztruppe" zumindest eine irgendwie lächerliche, aber auch wieder nicht allzu lustige, sozusagen bewaldet-grüne Karikatur der RAF/RZ etc. ins Leben gerufen?

Das anti-westliche, anti-amerikanische, anti-demokratische und anti-semitische Ressentiment ist ein trübes Kapitel der 68er, zumal es bei aller Proteus-artigen bzw. sprunghaften Prinzipienlosigkeit der Schröders und Fischers als negatives Prinzip sich bis heute unterschwellig fortschreibt.

[fmj]

Von Carlos angestellt war Fischer wohl nicht.
Die beiden hatten wohl nur gemeinsame Freunde.

http://www.123recht.net/article.asp?a=981&f=news_aktuelles_fischerermittlungenfini&p=1

[Kees Rudolf]

Dieser Herr Mc Queen, von dem Andrew2 redete, ist wirklich ein unverschämter Kerl. Das Tragische ist, er kan sich seine Unverschämtheiten leisten, sowohl in Europa als auch in Amerika selbst. @JR, Ich hoffe Sie haben recht dass Kerry durchschaut ist und nicht gewinnen wird. So bald feststeht dass Bush gewonnen hat wird ich darauf ein gutes Glas deutscher Riesling-Sekt trinken! Aber damit sind die Sorgen om was nachher kommt nicht verschwunden. Leute wie Mc Queen werden sicherlich nicht ihre Schnauze halten. Anti-Amerikanisches Vitriol in den Europäischen Medien wird vielleicht nur haüfiger werden.

[Gabi]

"Ihre Entführer seien „religiöse Menschen gewesen, die uns die Grundsätze des Islam lehrten und uns am Ende sogar um Entschuldigung baten”, sagte die Freigelassene Simona Torretta am Mittwoch nach ihrer Ankunft in Rom."

Vielleicht könnte man ja die Köpfe der anderen wieder annähen? Ja, ja, die lieben Terroristen, im Gegensatz zum bösen Blair können sie "sorry" sagen.

@ralph

aus zeitgruenden nehme ich mal den krassesten fehler, den sie gemacht haben:

"Mit Fischers Auto wurde die Waffe transportiert, mit der 1981 der hessische Wirtschaftsminister Herbert Karry (FDP) ermordet wurde."

(sinngemaess mehrere quellen im web)

er hatte sein auto verliehen (das sollte man nicht tun). nicht weniger, aber auch nicht mehr!

nochwas: die gruenen sind von allen parteien noch am ehesten basisdemokratisch veranlagt. ihre mitglieder, bzw. die bewegung aus der sie entstanden als anti-demokratisch zu bezeichnen, ist m.e. unpassend. dass es bei den 68ern "anti-amerikanismus" gab, ist wohl angesichts des vietnamkriegs kein wunder.

[Kees Rudolf]

@ Anonymus,
Wieso kein Wunder dass es, angesichts des Vietnamkriegs, bei den 68ern "Anti-amerikanismus" gab? Sie halten Anti-Amerikanismus, angesichts was in Vietnam wirklich passiert ist, also für gerechtfertigt? Oder halten Sie es nur für verständlich, angesichts der mangelhafte Berichterstattung in den Medien, oder des Bedürfnisses der Protestgeneration um sich gegen den Establishment zu straüben? Gerechtfertigt im Jahre 68 war m.E. doch eher anti-Kommunismus oder anti-Sowjetismus gewesen.
Ich weiss dass viele 68er jetzt noch stolz darauf sein wie anti-amerikanisch sie damals waren. Zeugniss ihrer Unwissenheit und Blindheit.

[ralph]

@ anonym (no comment)

Tja, die falschen Freunde ... und die falschen politischen Ideale! Selbst wenn es so sein sollte, dass er den Wagen bloß verliehen hat, warum hat er es getan? Ein neuer Motor? Völlige Ahnungslosigkeit? Wer einem Terroristen ein Auto leiht, vertraut diesem und dieser vertraut, wenn er das Auto "konspirativ" zu einem feigen Mord einsetzt, auch dem Leiher, also Fischer (so manches an).
Ich werfe Fischer nicht vor, dass er ein Mörder ist -das ist schon deswegen schwer zu beweisen, weil 1985 der Verfassungsschutzbericht, nachdem die rot-grüne Regierung diesen angefordert hat, zufällig verschwunden ist-; ich werfe ihm vor, dass er zu Terroristen ein inniges Vertrauensverhältnis, fußend mindestens auf politischer Einmütigkeit, unterhalten hat; ich werfe ihm vor, dass er die Anwesenheit von Frau Schiller genossen hat, dass er -ich glaube es war Algier- die Nähe von PLO-Terroristen gesucht hat! Das alles macht seine Nähe zum Terror doch wohl geradezu physisch handgreiflich.

Die Grünen sind "basisdemokratisch veranlagt"? Was kommt als nächstes; die Katholiken sind zur "Nächstenliebe veranlagt", die Sozis zur "Solidarität"? Joschka Fischer hat wohl die stärkste Position aller Politiker -Schröder inclusive- innerhalb seiner Partei; man sagt, er gehe mit dieser Macht nicht gerade bescheiden um -despotisch? Gegner mit Hilfe seines seltsamen, privaten Bodyguards zu brutalisieren, gehörte immerhin zu seinen ersten basisdemokratischen Gebaren aus den frühen 80ern, so weit, so schlecht ... -aber warum dulden die Grünen diesen "starken Mann", wenn sie so herrschaftsfrei denken? Steine, Brandsätze werfen, die Namen von asiatischen Schlächtern und Diktatoren zu brüllen (Killing Fields; Kulturrevolution etc.), das nennt ihr also basisdemokratisch.

"Dass es bei den 68ern Anti-Amerikanismus gab, ist kein Wunder" ... soso, was mich auch nicht wundert, ist, dass er heute immer noch fortdauert:
Ihn zu verabschieden, dazu würde es schon genügen, wären die Grünen überhaupt d e m o k r a t i s c h veranlagt, das wäre zumindest eine tragfähige B a s i s für eine pro-westliche und dynamische (Wirtschafts-)Politik!

[Tanker Schreiber]

During WW2, the US had the best Germans - Eisenhower and Einstein. Now we also have the best Austrian - Arnold! LOL!

@George M
>>Was ist so schlimm ueber die Aufgaben dieser Organization? Wo liegt die Verschwoerung?
i didn't say it's a conspiracy - you usually don't find plans for conspiracies on websites, otherwise it would hardly be a conspiracy

as being pointed out by Reiter: the goal of this organisation is to secure american global leadership and to impede the advent of possible rivals - that's not bad from the american point of view, but other people see it differently - just to quotes from that site:
"The decision to establish an independent EU defense planning organization is a small but important precedent that needs to be challenged."
"For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as “the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space” – must be an essential element of our military strategy."

>>William Kristol ist ein bekannter Journalist/Politikwisser hier in Amerika.
he's also the editor of the neocon fanzine "The Weekly Standard" - he was also chief of staff for v.p. "potatoe" quayle

>>In Gegenteil, was macht Kofi, Chirac order Euerer ehemalige von Karlos angestellte Aussenminister/ViceKanzelor, um die Weltlage zu besseren? Antwort: Nada, Nichts!
that pretty much disqualifies you from any honest debate - i'm not a fischer fan and never voted for him or his party but that remark falls into the "bush-hitler"-category

[michael]

the above post is mine

[George M]

@ No Comment, Ralph:

According to the DIE, (Romanian Secret Service), Fischer worked in coordination with Karlos during the 1975 kidnapping the OPEC oil ministers in Vienna.

Mohmar Ghadafi hired Karlos. Karlos hired Fischer's roommate, Klein, as his deputy. Fischer became the middleman between Karlos and the DIE on getting the building plans of the place where the OPEC ministers were meeting.

Read an article by Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former Genaeral in the DIE: http://websearch.cs.com/cs/search?fromPage=CSroll&Tabs=Y&Brand=CSI&Type=I&Channel=&ServiceType=CServe&uType=CS2K&roll=Y&query=Joschka%20Fischer%20terrorist

If this link doesn't work, to a search at National Review Online, using Pacepa as an "author."

[Kees Rudolf]

@George M
"Was macht Kofi, Chirac oder euerer von Karlos angestellte Aussenminister/Vicekanzler um die Weltlage zu besseren? Antwort: Nada, Nichts!"
Ein mildes Urteil. Meines Erachtens haben sie vieles getan um die Weltlage zu verschlimmern.
@Michael
I suppose in your opinion this pretty much disqualifies me from any honest debate?
BTW I'm not convinced that Fischer has as little to do with Carlos as Bush with Hitler. So George's remark about Fischer falls certainly not
in the "bush=hitler category". I think this remark of yours falls in the category of the category mistake.
Anyhow, I appreciate your preference for a honest debate and your dislike of bush-hitler comparisons.

[tn]

An excellent article indeed. The way these "denkschemata" have taken a hold of the majority of the German population -- at least the one which considers itself educated -- and the way in which *every* political or critical discussion these days inadvertently spirals into a prejudice slug fest is starting to personally depress me and ruin my nerves.

we recently had here one of our irregularly scheduled discussion rounds with a couple of friends and collegues -- all smart people -- architects, lawyers, visual designers. the topic was "the city and terrorism". as part of this topic i showed some slides from 9/11/2001 which i have been experiencing personally in new york city. i was trying to raise the point that there is a difference between being a direct subject to a threat and the more abstract kind of influence this might have on someone 3000 miles away.

even though people listened and were quite interested it didn't take long until the usual arguments were surfacing and were thrown around once again like absolute and foolproof truths. here is a verbatim sampling of some: "[911] is the USs own fault"..."there were warnings, but they ignored them"... "he who exploits other nations mustn't be surprised if 'they' [the poor] react"..." if you look at what the US does in africa -- yes, yes, africa and the islam DO have things in common"..."why do favela inhabitants not kill themselves in suicide attacks? because that is no poverty!"... "irak was invaded because of the oil. no doubt about that"..."maybe palestineans kill themselves because they have no other choice"... "Die Spirale der Gewalt"..."we need to listen -- i mean, of course not to bin laden, but in general"... "Bush on his ranch..."..."many more people have been killed through US violence than through 9/11"..."we need to offer them something...show them that we have understood"... "there ARE churches in Bagdad [on my point that western democracies are the ones which most tolerate and assimilate foreign cultures, while there is little known religious or cultural diversity in most islamic nations]"...

question by what means a democracy could filter out the "bad guys", or how a democracy could protect and defend itself against those who try to destroy it: not answered. instead: "the way civil rights are cut at the moment is troublesome"..."the US is steering towards a 'Polizeistaat'"... "i don't feel threatened... so why not just keep on living as we always have been doing. it is more likely to get killed by a car accident then through terrorism. why intervene? just ignore things"...

at one point discussion went in the direction of saudi arabia and it's regime, which even the TAZ recently labelled as fascist. reactions: "we cannot mingle in the internal policy of such countries".. "if their law allows stoning women, well what can we do about it? that's the way things are down there. one has to accept that"... "i can only make statements based on what i know. the US is more or less our culture... saudi arabia is not"..."i don't know about those things"... "i know an arab woman who was raised in germany and now lives in saudi arabia... well, it doesn't seem to trouble her"...

question whether it is not amoral and inconsequent to point at one injustice (guantanamo) but ignore others (saudi arabian law enforcement): not answered. answer to the question of how to prevent al quaida training new recrutes in afghanistan: "sanctions". even if this meant starving children and more civilian suffering than an intervention. answer to question of how change could be enforced if sanctions don't work: none.

evening finished. topic derailed. my presentation totally ineffective. me frustrated. others quite satisfied (so it seemed).

it is futile to argue against hermetically closed thinking systems. i am not even saying that all of these points are wrong or not worthy of a closer consideration, but the thing that puzzles me each and every time is how shortsighted, simplifying and selective these viewpoints -- by people who deem themselves politically educated and morally sound.

will this ever end, or at least get back to a point where one can discuss these things analytically rather than emotionally? i don't know. what to do? i don't know anymore.

[George M]

@ Michael

How can you disqualify me from debate by inferring that Jospeh Fischer, aka "Joschka" once took part in a crime on behalf of Carlos the Jackal when you yourself write off Dan Quayal as "Potatoe" Quayal.

The whole purpose of this blog is to get you Germans to think critically about your present leaders. Your press feeds you your Government's version of the truth and you seem to accept it as gospel.

Joschka Fischer is a man with a very cloudy past. Atleast most of you Germans now admit , thanks to Ulrike Meinhof's daughter, that Fischer was involved in violent political protests. Now you must take the second step and decide whether Fishcer, along with his other 68 lefties, Joseph Klein and Danny the Red, were involved in Direct Action on behalf of terror sponsers around the world.

Please read the article writen by General Pacepa. You can find it by doing a Google search: Joschka Fischer/terror.

I hope you Germans can have an honest debate amongst yourselves about your present leaders.

[James]

@tn

Europeans are from Mars and Americans are from Venus.

I have heard all of those same disappointing points before as well.

Europe has become a surrogate spoiled child. I fully agree what Bush has done with troop reduction in Germany: alas, let the child use his "soft power" in effecting foreign diplomacy. Daddy will not be there to supply the credit card.

This will force Europe back into the very dirty existence from whence it came: back to history. I feel they are in denial of it.

Ironically, was it not the historically important German, Karl von Clausewitz, who said: "War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."

Almost Borg-like, the Germans repeat the very lines that we impregnated into their heads regarding war. I suppose if I were a German, in consideration of the unnecessary horror that the Nazis perpetrated, I would also conclude that war is not the answer. I think that we as Americans have a different recollection to that same war: wanting nothing to do with another European problem, and getting dragged into it anyway.

"In my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world."

--Margaret Thatcher

[Caroline]

Why do Bush's opponents ignore one of the main tenets of his foreign policy after 9/11 - namely his very vocal admission that in the past, America thought it could provide for its own security by supporting dictators around the world but 9/11 proved to America that this was not the case - that people kept under oppression would eventually lash out, endangering even America? So in a few short years he overthrows 2 of the worst dictatorships in the world - the Taliban and then Saddam, reasoning that if they could eventually become democratic (not meaning mob rule but with all the checks and balances that American democracy entails) - even America would be safer. Isn't this a win-win situation? Both for the people living under those dictatorships as well as for Americans and for everyone, including Europeans? Certainly there are ugly, counter examples in the meantime - the saudis and pakistan e.g. - but as a democratic American myself (who supports Bush) I am perplexed that the Europeans and the American left - who should be the most vocal advocates of liberalism, women's rights, democracy, homosexual rights, free speech, freedom of religion - find themselves demonizing George Bush, while essentially rooting for perhaps the most totalitarian, anti-democratic, misogynistic voices on the global stage. What is wrong with this picture? If it happens that Bush is re-elected on November 2, I hope the Europeans do not mistakenly assume that Americans are idiots. Rather - Americans are the whole world. My own father fled WWII Holland when the Nazis invaded. Every day I am surrounded by people of every imaginable ethnic origin all having immigrated to the US in the span of a few hundred years - many of them having escaped tyranny elsewhere. So no - if Bush wins in November it will be because Americans can see that Bush is very clear on these issues while Kerry is not and both Bush and his supporters do not really care on moral grounds what others think of him or us as Americans. After all, it is always a mob that stones a person to death so basically a mob has no particular moral legitimacy and one should never assume moral legitimacy based on sheer numbers.

[Caroline]

Let me add - regarding the very important issue of Iran - that the pro-democracy forces there are basically begging us to impose UN sanctions - knowing that that if we do so - the Iranian regime has a good chance of collapsing from within (Win without War). But Kerry and the Russians and the Europeans - with their misguided faith in "multilateralism" are essentially propping up the theocratic regime. The Bush adminstration is listening to the pro-democracy forces and trying to impose the sanctions. Does anyone on the American left or in Europe support the sanctions instead of further concessions to Iran? Again - let me restate - Americans supporting the reelection of Bush are not idiots. In fact many of us consider ourselves liberals and democrats in the true sense of the word. We support Bush because we actually see in fact that our two political parties are in many respects "flipping over" - reversing themselves. We now have a bizarre situation in which our political left (plus the majority of Europeans) is giving voice to totalitarianism while our political right is championing the traditional liberal cause. My hope is that Bush is reelected, giving both Americans and the world 4 more years to recognize and absorb this historical fact and hopefully get all freedom-loving people onto the same side of the fence.

[klaus]

@George M

>The whole purpose of this blog is to get you Germans to think critically about your present leaders. Your press feeds you your Government's version of the truth and you seem to accept it as gospel. <

I think it's not just a poroblem of our present leaders. Think of this:

- a nation's souvereignity vs. EU/UN-collectivism
- low tax / low bureaucracy vs. high tax / much bureaucracy
- people organize themselves vs people get organized (by state)

What you see here is the REAL problem in my view: two different worlds clashing.

One could also call this EU/US-difference
"freedom vs collectivism".

Where a free US-world simply disturbs the bureaucrats and collectivists by realizing their ideas.

What happens now actually reminds me of the old "DDR" (Eastern Germany) where the fellows on top of state wanted to top West Germanies wealth, where those who fled the commie-system were mobbed as unpatriotic and criminals (W. Thierse, this Struwwelpeter-looking fellow called entrepreneurs who left germany because of guys like him "unpatriotic". If you compare East Germany, the attitude at those times (state should do everything) and the Germany of today you will find a lot of parallels.

Socialism, collecitivsm - that's it. And itall began with Helmut Kohl. Believe it or not. (Look at Mrs. Merkel: this madame had no problems in legalizing the communistic robbery of estate, land and houses, which happened between 1945-1949, when Germany was unified and when she worked as an assistant for the last DDR Prime Minister.

They are all the same. And none is better. Or as we say in Germany: Man stecke sie alle in einen Sack und haue ordentlioch drauf - man trifft immer die richtigen.

Kind regards
Klaus