An End to Nonsense

Interesting article in the Washington Times: An End to Nonsense.

The German (!) author Heinrich Maetzke describes the dangerous illusions Germany harbors.

It will not be long before German socialists and pacifists start calling nuclear-armed Iranian mullahs their "partners in security" — the affectionate label they once stuck on Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev. For those who shiver at the prospect of having to live under the shadow of Iranian nukes Mr. Bush's White House is the only place to look to. (...)

For 20 years Saddam Hussein had done his utmost to acquire nuclear weapons. For 12 long years he had mocked the United Nations. When challenged to come clean in March 2003, he refused to. However, when it comes to global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the burden of proof must lie with the suspect, not with the prosecutor. We now know that Saddam intended to pick up his nuclear threads where he had been forced to drop them, once sanctions were lifted and U.S. forces withdrawn. We also know that he had all the reason in the world to feel safe: He had the United Nations in his deep oil-for-food pockets, plus a couple of veto-yielding members of the Security Council, who had never liked the sanctions anyway.

If it had not been for one factor, Saddam's infamous gamble almost certainly would have paid off. This factor had a face and a name: President George Bush.

Read it all.

(Hat tip: Maxim)

+++BREAKING NEWS+++ SPIEGEL ONLINE has a new poll up. Don't miss your chance to VOTE!

Comments

[James]

Finally a rare German with common sense.

[Gabi]

Großartiger Artikel! Aber die Realität ist, daß die Mehrheit der Deutschen Spiegel- und Stern-Hetze als Information anerkennen, die Propaganda NICHT erkennen; SZ, FAZ, FR, ZEIT, WELT, all unsere Medien befinden sich auf niedrigstem Level und rühren die Propagandatrommel. Mit Worten wie Lügen und Judenverschwörung in der amerikanischen Regierung reizen sie die versteckten Ressentiments und helfen dabei, diesen als Pazifismus zu verkleiden. Dabei ist es derselbe Mindset, dieselbe Propaganda, die einen Hitler ermöglicht hat.

Ich lausche oft den haßerfüllten Anrufern auf WDR 2, wenn es um Israel und den USA geht und habe mich oft gewundert, warum dieser offene Haß nicht als solcher erkannt wird. Das ist die deutsche Dummheit und Heuchelei: Den eigenen Haß zu ignorieren und das Ziel des Hasses dafür schuldig zu erklären, daß man es haßt. So hat es Deutschland (und auch andere Länder) schon einmal gemacht, und nur wenige haben daraus gelernt. Wenigen war es eine Warnung, wohin es führt, andere zu dämonisieren.
Jetzt sind es die dummen amerikanischen Cowboys, zu blöd zum Wählen. Als wären alle Republikaner Texaner.
Aber man wähnt sich sicher mit der Herde Kerry-Anhänger. Man ist natürlich ganz und gar nicht antiamerikanisch. Da hört dann das Denken auf.
Daß Kerry diese Unterstützung ausnutzt, kann ich nachvollziehen. Machtgeilheit macht nun mal eben blind.

Es gibt Juden mit antisemitischen Positionen, und es gibt Amerikaner mit antiamerikanischen Haltungen.

Daß Kerry Bush haßt und diese Haltung mit den Europäern teilt, verdeckt den Antiamerikanismus, der dahintersteckt.

Daß ein Präsidentschaftsanwärter der USA den Haß auf Amerika ausnutzt, um Präsident zu werden, zeigt die Verantwortungslosigkeit dieses Menschen.

Ich hoffe, wir müssen den Preis dafür nicht bezahlen.

[Gabi]

Interessantes Posting vom Iraq the Model-weblog:

"One of the most adopted conspiracy theories was the “Zionist lobby domination over the government of the USA”, some readers were even more ‘original’ in their beliefs!, and while the majority of Arab posters showed their distrust in the American system as a whole, a small portion favored John Kerry and a lesser portion favored George Bush.
Iraqis on the other hand were less bitter, although conspiracy theory can be seen in many comments. However, those who still fear the “Zionist lobby” seem to separate it from America’s plans in Iraq and have more hope in her. Few posters had a clear stand favoring one candidate. Most of those supporting Kerry were Arabs, while supporters for Bush where mainly Iraqis."

Hier ist der ganze Eintrag vom 21. Oktober 2004:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[Gabi]

Alaa schreibt einen hervorragenden Beitrag unter dem 20. Oktober 2004. Hier ist nur der Schlußsatz:

"Any concept that there is possibility of a wide alliance that will support U.S. efforts and be amicable to its goals and national interests is a false hope which profoundly misinterprets the logic of historical realism. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and ally, foe, and opportunistic bystander are all quite well defined, and any notion that these can be appreciably changed by diplomacy or otherwise is an illusion."

# posted by Alaa : 3:56 PM

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

[Sock Puppet of Doom]

This person makes very thoughtful sense. It's sad then the majority of Germans and folk in EUrope in general will not see it that way. I have a bleak outlook on the future if Kerry should win the US presidential election. Enough citizens of the United States are infected with the same illness that besets Germany and EUrope that I am fearing what will come.

[PacRim Jim]

Germans are the largest ethnic group in America and Jews are one of the smallest. You Europeans understand nothing about us if you believe that one American ethnic group seeks to rule another. That is why our ancestors left accursed Europe. But, as usual, Germans are looking for a scapegoat for their international insignificance and declining economy, so another Kristallnacht may eventuate. Achtung Eurojuden! Keep in mind that America will welcome you when the German Endlosung returns.

[Gabi]

PacRim Jim, as I posted somewhere else: Kerry is a politician who misuses the Antiamericanism in our world for his own purpose. That is dangerous too. So, better we stay together against the German mainstream and people with Kerry's attitude and mindset.

[Transatlantiker]

"Facing the real world"?

Yes wonderful, if only the cherished "Bush doctrine" did so.
America's problems in Iraq stem exactly from the fact that those who decided on the war had a doctrine, an idea about how the world should be and how things should make sense. But they forgot to look at the real world: in Iraq and elsewhere. They ignored what was bound to happen when a country held together by a brutal fist came apart.

The latest I have heard from Bush is this:

" Q: If the people in Iraq, in a free, democratic election, someday choose an Islamic fundamentalist government, is that all right with you?

BUSH: I will be disappointed, but democracy is democracy. They have now got a — the beginnings of a constitution, the TAL, which sends a different message, that there will be tolerance and an open society. But people — if that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose.

So fundamentalism is acceptable if it comes by free elections? Not only the Iraqi women might disagree.

Is that what U.S. soldiers die for in Iraq? And would a fundamentalist oil rich Iraq be no threat to the U.S. and the world?

The problem with the Bush doctrine is that it is exactly that: a doctrine. A doctrine sharply limits your range of actions. Sooner or later you will change or scrap it. Remember the Hallstein doctrine? (it's us or East Germany). What happened to the Breshnev doctrine? The Bush doctrine wants to "take the fight to the enemy", so that the enemy doesn't come to the U.S. That might no be such a bad idea if the enemy had a limited amount of fighters willing to engage the U.S. But by "taking the fight to the enemy" and invading Iraq (where the terrorist enemy wasn't in the first place) Bush created more enemies, more people motivated to become terrorists and... what is even worse... a dangerous new "legitimacy" of terrorism confused with the classical guerilla fighting for chasing foreign troops out of the country. Unfortunately the Arab world has an unhealthy big supply of frustrated angry young men.

The German RAF terrorists tried to succeed in making Germans believe that the state was the oppressor and the true terrorist. They wanted to provoke a heavy handed state backlash so they could promote themselves as freedom fighters and legitimize their bloody actions. They failed because the state didn't play their game (or hardly played it).

With Bush I'm not so sure. The fact that far more bombs are exploding in Iraq has not led to a decline of terror elsewhere.

And Iran? Those who ridiculize the European attempts have yet to answer a question: What would YOU do? Is bombing all you got? Will that even work? What would be the consequences if irated Iranians (who do not understand why they are bombed) take up arms? How will you control this situation likely to go out of hands?

And why are the Iranians so recalcitrant? Somehow the Iraq "example" doesn't seem to work well? Shouldn't they be a little more afraid of America now? Why aren't they obviously?

Could it be that they learned another lesson from Iraq? That the only way to avoid an invasion is to have nukes?

[Gabi]

"As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry."

John Eisenhower wrote this recently. Unilateral? Are all democratic voters and the European supporters without brain?

How can they ignore facts?

Why do they go on with telling this nonsense?

[Gabi]

Transatlantiker, what is your answer to your question? I am curious.

[Transatlantiker]

To which question exactly?

[Joe N.]

Europe is at risk of being thought of as little more than a continent of the maladaptive, and being thoroughly ignored in most meaning ful matters.

They don't have much longer to correct this. Their population is aging and shrinking, their ability to use their economies as a political tool is diminishing as asians and africans live a better life without them (which they should, if only EU trade restrictions would end.)

[George M]

@Transatlantiker

"But they forgot to look at the real world: in Iraq and elsewhere. They ignored what was bound to happen when a country held together by a brutal fist came apart."

If you honestly feel that the US made a large blunder when attacking a country (Iraq) that was held together by a dictator, then didn't Germany blunder when it recognized Slovenia as an independant country, causing Yugoslavia to break apart and civil war?

"And why are the Iranians so recalcitrant?"

Could it be because the Europeans are a paper tiger and the Muhlas know that they can get away with rubbing the Europeans face in the ground?

[Gary]

To Transatlantiker:

Your whole understanding of the Bush doctrine is so flawed I hardly know where to start. I suggest you do more research before coming to those conclusions.

1. You need a better grip on how democracy works. If Iraq elects a fundamentalist government, that's their business. The US has made it clear that Saddam was THE major threat to the region and the world. The two invasions, the mass graves, the extensive torture network the proven links with terror groups are indisputable.

2. Where did you get the idea that the war failed to stop terrorism? Look at the arrests and elimination of terrorists throughout the world, then look at how the war forced terror groups to coalesce in Iraq to fight the coalition and how Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the UAR and Qatar have announced political reform toward democracy in the last two years.

3. Iran not only dismissed European diplomacy, it had the temerity to demand Europe provide it with the resources to build nuclear weapons, weapons the mullahs have publicly stated would be used against Israel. What would YOU do?

4. Iran isn't afraid of America? Then why is it funding al Zarkawi? Why is it brutalizing its own people who demand reform? A confident, stable government doesn't have to murder its chilren to remain in power.

5. "The German RAF terrorists tried to succeed in making Germans believe that the state was the oppressor and the true terrorist. They wanted to provoke a heavy handed state backlash so they could promote themselves as freedom fighters and legitimize their bloody actions. They failed because the state didn't play their game (or hardly played it)."

Maybe Germany didn't play the game then, but it is now. And it's costing Germany any goodwill that might be left for it in the US.

[Transatlantiker]

This is from the Telegraph:

"The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, which published its annual Military Balance yesterday, said it could take five years for America to train enough Iraqi forces to allow coalition troops to withdraw. The insurgency has attracted up to 1,000 foreign fighters and hampers America's ability to deal with other threats - particularly North Korea's expansion of its nuclear arsenal and Iran's widely suspected programme to build an atomic bomb.

"Over the past year, the nuclear proliferation threat posed by North Korea and Iran has worsened, as both countries exploited America's growing troubles in Iraq," said John Chipman, the institute's director. He said North Korea was playing for time in fruitless six-nation talks."

Something did turn wrong now didn't it. And it didn't turn so wrong because of the invasion itself (which can, according to what priorities you set, be justified) but because of poor planning of the post war time. The Chinese say that if you save somebody's life you are responsible for him. But Iraq was meant to serve as an example of the new preemptive interventionist policy... show the world how easy it is, how few soldiers it takes and how cheaply it can be done. This was the fundamental mistake because Iraq is not some god forsaken country like the Falklands but the central country in the Middle East, with huge oil reserves. So if you invade and change powers you must do it right. But the U.S. never had enough troups to secure a country that wouldn't shower the invading army with flowers.

Re Iran: I guess Iran was worried about the sudden deployment of U.S. power in the Middle East. That fear seems to have dissipated as the mullahs clearly understand now that the U.S. is in no position to stage a full blown invasion of Iran.

So what do you blame the European Three for? They can't invade Iran either.

Saddam was evil, but he was not a threat to the West. At least not a threat in the league of Iran, North Korea and a few other countries which are nominal allies of the West (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia).

Iraq is something the U.S. can't replay every year. Should a war with Iran follow, how would the U.S. deal with the Chinese jumping on the occasion?

[Gabi]

This question, Transatlantiker:

" Q: If the people in Iraq, in a free, democratic election, someday choose an Islamic fundamentalist government, is that all right with you?

[Transatlantiker]

It is about as alright with me as people in a free democratic election someday choose Adolf Hitler...

I wonder what Bush would have said if the question had been: What if the Iraqi people, in free democratic elections, choose Saddam again?

Islamic fundamentalism is what feeds terrorism. Just because terrorism wins in free elections doesn't mean we don't have to fight it.

Or what am I missing here?

[Transatlantiker]

Since nuance is maybe not appreciated here: The answer is NO, it is NOT alright with me.

[Gabi]

So? And what will you do against it?

[Transatlantiker]

What do you expect me to do? Support a U.S. president who thinks a fundamentalist goverment is ok as long as it is democratically elected?

And do you think a few Bundeswehr soldiers would make Iraqis change their mind?

[Gabi]

I would like to hear your own answer. Just an answer to your own question.

[Sandy P]

If Iraq wants to revert to form and become a failure, that's their decision, Translantiker. As long as they keep it in their borders and no genocide.

Let's look at it another way. Quite a few Americans are disappointed how Europe has turned out these 50 years hence. But, the process is king and you chose. Can't have us coming back in cos we don't like how Europe turned out, now, can we?

What should we do about it?

[Stan]

@ Transatlantiker

Q: If the people in Iraq, in a free, democratic election, someday choose an Islamic fundamentalist government, is that all right with you?

Yes, it seems to me that the best wat to turn people against Islamic fundamentalism is to give them a little tase of it. When it fails to deliver prosperity and the political mullas are revealed to be scheming thieves they will take another look democracy. Young Iraninas are exactly that right now. They have a chance to do well with this election and they have a chance to royaly mess themselves up. But those are the same choices we Americans face in November.

[Joe]

To Have A Nuke

...........................To Deliver A Nuke

Oh My Oh My how they differ

The only way to join those two parts and form a real treat is if some of the "so called allies" of the US or maybe their friends (Russia) sell the missing pieces.