Germany on the Bench

In his trademark blunt fashion U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had this to say (during a Defense Department Operational Update Briefing on Nov. 23, 2004) about the German and French refusal to train the Iraqi security force within Iraq.

Mr. Secretary, within the hour, SACEUR General Jimmy Jones at the National Press Club talked about one of your favorite topics, transformation, but he also said that soon a NATO training team of two (thousand) to 3,000 members will begin training parts of the Iraqi security force, but he also said one of the problems with this transformation is that up to 11 NATO countries would not take part. Do you feel NATO can still be relevant if all its members don't take part in military action?

            SEC. RUMSFELD:  (...)  Now, is it a problem?  Yes.  Let me explain why this issue that General Jones raised is a problem.  If you have headquarters and units and the 26 countries assign people to those units and those headquarters on the basis that when NATO decides to do something the NATO countries will then do that, and then all of a sudden one or two countries raise their hand and say:  "Wait a minute.  We agreed that NATO could do it, but we're not going to let our people in those headquarters do it," now that's a problem.  And that's a problem that the ambassador there is working on; it's a problem the secretary-general's working on. 

            I mean, it's kind of like if you've got a basketball team, and you have five people trained together week after week after week. Comes to be game time and two of them stick up their hand and say, "Gee, I don't think I'm going to play this week."  It would be better if they were on the bench and somebody else had been training for the last period of weeks.  And so that's something that NATO's going to have to work on.

I'm just glad the U.S. didn't sit on the bench during the many Berlin crises between 1945 and 1990.

Came game time, they were - always - ready.

Update: I deleted quite a few postings in the comment section - presenting Rumsfeld quotes is still a sure way to drive the German Left crazy... (as if it needed Rumsfeld for that). I didn't delete all of these quotes, though, for the amusement of our German speaking audience.

Comments

RUMSFELD fahr zur Hölle du verhasstes Ami-Arschloch

(Note from David: Ich habe die ca. 20-fache Wiederholung dieses Sätzchens gelöscht.)

Rumsfeld, du bist in Europa so beliebt wie ein Eimer gequirlte Scheisse auf dem Wohnzimmerteppich

(Note from David: Ich habe die ca. 20-fache Wiederholung auch dieses Sätzchens gelöscht.)

[George M]

Rummy really knows how to tweak these old Europeans! I love it.

David,

please don't delete the first 2 "messages"- they show very well the kindergarden-level of the German left-peacenik-antisemitism-socialistic thinking.

Best wishes
klaus

[fmj]

Wie man hier sieht, liegt die PISA Studie über Deutschland nicht so falsch. Wie die Studie aussagt, kann fast jeder vierte deutsche 15jährige einfachste Texte nicht lesen und verstehen und nur auf Grundschulniveau rechnen und sich wohl auch so artikuliern.

Lassen sie sich helfen, sg. namenloser Text-Stotterer. Schwache Begabung ist keine Schande!

[PJ]

Rumsfeld has an irritating habit of being right. Infuriatingly so, to Old Europe - no wonder he's such a hate-figure. I think he could have done much better in Iraq, but he should remain Sec of Defense just because he annoys the French and lefty Germans so much.

[Phil]

He is certainly very bright and clever and he is right on this one but I wonder if a sharp tongue matters more than the war in Iraq. I think it is time for him to step aside and let someone else do better. Is he not quite old as well?

[Kees Rudolf]

Compare Rumsfeld's candour and clarity with the hypocrisy of Chiraq and french diplomats in general.
There is a new expression, which you can use in the case someone is saying something apparently very sincerely but you should not believe him: "to say something with the heartfelt sincerity of a french diplomat".
I'm delighted to read here what Rumsfeld said today during the Defense Department Operational Update Briefing. I happen to be one of Rumsfeld's european fans.

[Kees Rudolf]

@Phil
"Is he not quite old as well?"
You are disappointing me with this discriminatory remark.

[Phil]

@ Kees Rudolf,

I called him clever, bright and say that he was right with his remarks. I argued that given his decisions over Iraq , it might be time for him to let someone else do the job. The remark about his age was made in the sense that he deserves to enjoy life after working so long. No discrimination intended.

[James]

@phil

I think that Rumsfeld is exactly as old (73) as Fidel Castro.

If I could generously extend your logic, then would you also agree that Castro should go because he's too old? Would this be the only reason for Castro to go?

[Pamela]

anon wrote
>Ja wir würden sogar Mengele klonen um diesen AMI-DRECKSACK angemessen zu behandeln.

Mengele? David, methinks you have a troll infestation.
Back on topic, I think the Germans and the French are simply making the best of a bad situation - they don't have the capability so they're simply assuaging their pride. As for Rumsfeld being 'old' - he's in his 70's but in the US that isn't considered terribly old as we're a fairly healthy people. 'Old' is about 85 when the body really starts to fail.

heh.

What an amazing statement and fact. It took a 73 year old man to bring radical change, out of the box thinking, genuine transformation, to the lumbering behemouth of the U.S. military.

Like the U.S. aggressively restructured its economy in the 70s and 80s because of the onslaught of a more competitive world and a changing business environment, so is this now happening to the U.S. military, because of the onslaught of a new type of threat iand a changing world environment.

It is this structural flexibility, this intellectual curiosity, this entrepenurial spirit, this individual willingness to transform (all encapsulated in a 73 year old head) that keep the U.S.A. on the cutting edge of every endeavor it embarks upon.

This 'new' EU, with it's 1,000 (?) page
'Constitution' it's billion~euro bureaucracy, its stifling regulatory / big brother oversight, it's pitiable NRF . . . is the best thing that could happen to America.

The really funny part is how most of Euros can not see it.

Tyranno

PS: Who is Europe's Rumsfeld?

PSS: If you haven't already, read Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power"

[Phil]

You are right, Castro should go. He's too old:-)

Ah... and before I forget, he's rubbish as well

[Gabi]

Ich liebe Rumsfeld. Er ist smart, eloquent und herrlich ironisch mit Journalisten. 4 more years!
Intelligenz kommt in Deutschland nicht so gut an.
Auf welchem Niveau wir hier leben, sieht man an den deutschen Postings.

[Phil]

I wish i hadn't written that one sentnce about his age. It was not meant to be a general argument for his resignation so please forget it.

@ anonymous

"It is this structural flexibility, this intellectual curiosity, this entrepenurial spirit, this individual willingness to transform (all encapsulated in a 73 year old head) that keep the U.S.A. on the cutting edge of every endeavor it embarks upon"

I do agree that the entrepreneurial spirit has kept the US on the cutting edge of most endevours but not Iraq. As far as I can see (I am sure I will be contradicted very quickly :-)) too many mistakes have been made. From the beginning there seemed to be too little numbers of troops in the country, looters and later insurgents were not brought under control and the prison scandal was very bad PR (yes I know, it was partly due to the international press). Furthermore I have read several articles last year about how Rumsfeld is apparently not very keen to listen to advice from his generals (caution: can't back that up with a link so I am aware that my memory is playing tricks on me).
I simply think that a new secretary of defense might be more able to bring back the cutting edge that the US has always enjoyed.

Das Alte Europa: Treffender hätte man es nicht sagen können; es trifft (manche von uns), weil es (auf den Punkt/zu-)trifft:

Wo ist im Zukunftsangst geplagten und von relativistischer Zweifelsucht befangenen Deutschland Optimismus, Zuversicht?

Wo ist Deutschlands Selbstvertrauen, ich meine nicht den Deutschen Weg und oberlehrerhafte Großmannssucht, ich meine echtes Selbstvertrauen, endlich Bildungs-/Arbeitsrecht-/Wirtschaftsreformen anzugehen, im Vertrauen darauf, dass sie gelingen, weil WIR es sind, die wir uns erneuern?

Wo ist unser Vertrauen in unsere demokratisch-westlichen Grundwerte? Stattdessen Skepsis, Nihilismus, Äquidistanz zum Islamofaschismus UND zu Amerika; die einzige Grundüberzeugung: Amerika ist gefährlich, genauso gefährlich wie die Zukunft überhaupt.

Frankreich hat zwar keine große Zukunft mehr, hat aber wenigstens eine stolze Vergangenheit; wir haben auch so Eine Vergangenheit, aber im Moment kaum die Kraft, die Zukunft mit ihren Unwägbarkeiten auch als Chance zu sehen: Der Nahe Osten kann gelingen, aber nicht, wenn man immer bloß Bedenken trägt.

Nur wer aus seiner Geschichte weiß, wer er ist, und weiß, dass es gut ist, der zu sein, der er ist, dass er bei allen Fehlern ein Recht hat, so zu sein, wie er ist, nur derjenige wird überhaupt darauf vertrauen können, dass das, was er im Namen seiner tradierten Werte unternimmt, auch schließlich und endlich gelingt: Wir schätzen die Demokratie so gering, dass wir glauben, dass die, die sie im Irak etablieren wollen, SCHEITERN müssen, weil sie ja bloß KREUZFAHRER VERGANGENER Zeiten sind. Amerika, diese glückliche Verbindung aus Geschichtsstolz und zukunftbejahender Dynamik, aus Prinzipientreue und Offenheit, glaubt das nicht, und ich auch nicht.

Ralph

[Joe N.]

I wonder, with all the "but this, but that, and this little detail..." complaints that FR, the BRD, and the smallest and wealthiest European states have for the USA...
What do they have to offer? The best they've done lately is this Iran reactor business where they rewarded them with A REACTOR. It can produce weapons grade material too!
The complaints are to the point that to the American public, reading the Gutmensch reaction is done basically for amusement.

I'm actually afraid of the Euros seriously engaging in the war on terror. What is most likely to happen will be a wrong-headed abandonment of religious liberties, and likely the abuse of immigrants that would eclipse even the delusions of the American left's accusations.

In the wake of 11 september 2001, of all the 'hate crimes' investigated, ony 3 out of about 60 were legitimate crimes and not crank calls or garden variety robberies and assaults. This in a nation of almost 300 million people.
Are there matching number for international Fifa matches, i wonder?

Having taught themselves that *groups* have rights and identities, and *individuals* are not it's focus, Europe has a very steep slope to climb if it ever finds itself needing to intensify it's protection.

Joe N.

[Gabi]

Phil,
du konntest ja nicht wissen, daß wir auch schon alle über 70 sind und uns in die alte Ecke geschoben fühlten. :-)

[Kees Rudolf]

@Phil,
Like you, I sometimes make remarks which I don't intend to be discriminatory but which could be interpreted as such by a not so benevolent listener. I hate it, like you, to be undeservedly accused of discrimination. In this case, I'm glad to agree with you that age in itself is irrelevant.
Rumsfeld is a sparkling mind. With hindsight, there is a lot of easy talk about alleged mistakes. Kerry pretended to be able to handle Iraq in a smarter way, but the majority of the American voters was not really impressed. Suppose it is true that the mistakes, made in connection with Iraq, are mainly Rumsfeld's fault and would not have been made by an other person in his place, facing exactly the same unforeseen and partly unforeseeable difficulties, it still doesn't follow necessarily that Rumsfeld should be replaced. I feel he still deserves to be trusted as someone who can learn from his mistakes -if there were real mistakes for which he alone is personally responsible - and do an excellent job as US Secretary of Defense.

[James]

@phil

"...too many mistakes have been made"

Well, I guess it's an issue of perception. Tell me, who can do better?

Europe? Laugh - in a word : Bosnia.
The UN? Where have they had a success w/o the USA?

History shows who does the heavy lifting in the world when it comes to solving the world's serious problems: the English speaking countries. In Iraq, we have the US, Australia and the UK; the doers. Any "multilateral" (such an abused word) solution would have to have involved these three countries anyways. With/without the "Gran Nation" et al, we would have to do 75% of the heavy lifting.

So, in conclusion, it is one thing to perfunctorily indict the English speaking nations with mismanagement, whilst history demonstrates casual comments emanating from countries who are incapable of proving themselves in such historical moments as now.

[Alexander]

Ralph,

großartiger Beitrag, aller Achtung. Du hast absolut recht, mit dem was du geschrieben hast.

Ich wünschte mir nur, wir hätten Leute vom Kaliber eines Donald Rumsfelds in Deutschland, und nicht die Politicos in Berlin.

sigh

Man darf ja träumen, oder. ^_^

[old school]

Ach Ralph, nun malen Sie mal nicht den Teufel an die Wand. Pessismusmus und Genörgel hört man ja kurioserweise am häufigsten von denjenigen, denen "Reformen" nicht weit genug gehen können und für die die Bündnistreue zu den USA über alle westlichen Werte geht. Sie klingen ja schon wie die wöchentliche Bürger-Schelte der Besserverdienenden bei Sabine Christiansen. Ihre Ansichten sind wahrlich nicht sonderlich neu oder originell und auch nicht zutreffend.

Im Gegensatz wohl zu den meisten hier gehöre ich zu einer jungen Generation, und in meiner Generation freut man sich über Europa und nimmt unsere Geschichte und die Werte unserer Verfassung ernst. Grossmannssucht kann ich zur Zeit eher bei den ideologisch verblendeten Apologeten des "New American Century" erkennen - am amerikanischen Wesen soll die Welt genesen.

Scheinbar hat man nicht verstanden, dass dieser Satz Wilhelms gleich zwei Fehlschlüsse enthielt:

1. Es gebe so etwas wie ein deutsches Wesen, und dieses sei besonders vornehm und edel und anderen angeblichen Wesen überlegen.
2. "Die Welt" bedürfe einer ordnenden Kraft, sie sei krank und warte nur sehnsüchtig auf den richtigen Arzt.

Immerhin brauchen wir keinen Gott mehr aus der Klamottenkiste zu zerren, um Hoffnung zu haben, und wir glauben an Demokratie jenseits von Lippenbekenntnissen und Neokolonialismus.

Wie ernst die USA es mit der Demokratie meinen, wird man sehen, wenn die verunsicherten Iraker sich eine extrem-islamische Regierung wählen, die anders als Allawi kaum mehr kontrolliert werden kann. Vielleicht bekommt der Irak dann auch eine Militärdiktatur wie Algerien, nach dem die FIS gewählt wurde? Oder wird man Diebold-Wahlmaschinen benutzen, um etwaige Unstimmigkeiten zu vermeiden?
Von Freieheit und Demokratie war leider zu oft die Rede, wenn in der Vergangenheit gewählte Regierungen gestürzt und Marionettendiktatoren eingesetzt wurden. Irgendwann entleeren sich diese Worte zu Worthülsen, werden zu Codes, die etwas anderes meinen.

Mnachmal kommt es mir so vor, als seien die USA ein älteres Europa als unseres, als seien viele weltanschauliche Diskussionen und Konflikte, die das alte Europa hatte, in den USA noch präsent und unausgelebt. Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber, wie man am amerikanischen Wahlergebnis sehen kann. Bei uns werden keine Billboards aufgestellt, auf denen man lesen kann "Schröder - unser Führer".

"Islamofaschismus" ist ein rechtsgerichteter Kapmfbegriff, ideologisch zugerichtete Sprache, die die Illusion erzeugen soll, 1933/1945 wiederhole sich immer wieder und die USA ständen (immer) für "das Gute", egal wie sie real handeln.
Worum es sich in Wirklichkeit handelt: radikaler religiöser Fundamentalismus, nicht beschränkt auf den Islam. Wann werden die USA sich trauen, das 20. Jahrhundert endlich zu verlassen?

Alter wird nicht ohne Grund auch mit Weisheit identifiziert, und Jugendlichkeit mit unbekümmertem Ungestüm. Wir haben eben viele Fehler zum Glück schon hinter uns.

Und Herr Rumsfeld ist sicher ein unterhaltsamer eleganter Zyniker, warum allerdings nach Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib,
dem Irak-Chaos und der daraus resultierenden zunehmenden Isolation der USA nicht er statt Powell gegangen wurde, ist mir ein Rätsel.

[Phil]

@ James,

"Tell me, who can do better"

Certainly not Europe but a different Secretary of Defense. As we know, America has got dozens of people who are capable of doing the job.

Sicherlich, haben Sie einige Beispiele, die Ihre Behauptung untermauern, oder? :rolleyes:

[Alexander]

Sicherlich, haben Sie einige Beispiele, die Ihre Behauptung untermauern, oder? :rolleyes:

[Alexander]

Mein Beitrag ist an Oldschool gerichtet, damit keine Mißverständnisse aufkommen.

@old school,

Ihr Internet-Pseudonym legt es zwar nicht nahe, aber ich glaube Ihnen mal, dass Sie einer "jungen Generation" angehören -Fischer und die 68er halten sich ja auch für "forever-young" und joggen und zeugen und tun so, als hätte sie keine peinliche maoistische, stalinistische, trotzkistische (hab ich was vergessen??) Vergangenheit zu VERANTWORTEN: Privileg der Jugend, man hat noch keine Vergangenheit und kann deswegen auch naiv und unbedarft die Fehler eben dieser Vergangenheit (Anti-Amerikanismus, Anti-Moderne, moralische Überlegenheit bei zunehmender technologisch-wissenschaftlicher bzw. ökonomischer Unterlegenheit, Deutscher Sonderweg gegen den weltumspannenden Kolonial-Imperialismus der judeo-angelsächsischen Welt) wiederholen.

Ich entstamme vermutlich Ihrer Generation und fast hätte ich Ihr Statement deswegen auch ernst genommen und wohlwollend geprüft -bis, ja bis die Diebold-Nummer kam, hähhhhh ...

Vorschlag zur Güte: "Alter wird nicht ohne Grund mit Weisheit identifiziert, Jugendlichkeit mit unbekümmertem Ungestüm" -die ZEITLOSE Weisheit dieser Sentenz macht Sie nicht etwa ALT, so dass ich den Rest Ihres Beitrages gerne mit dem Ungestüm Ihrer Jugendlichkeit entschuldige.

4-more-years, old school ...

Ralph

[Kees Rudolf]

@old school,
I've got the strong impression that you learned your wisdom not at an old school, but rather at some new school. Clearly the numerous educational reforms resulted in notable progress. Probably your politically engaged history-teachers were from the baby-boom protest generation. I'm sure you got very high marks from these teachers, because you was a really smart pupil. I think you are unnessarily belittling yourself in signing with "old school"; you should be proud to be a product of the new school. I'm especially impressed by this refreshing insightful remark:
""Islamofaschismus" ist ein rechtsgerichteter Kapmfbegriff, ideologisch zugerichtete Sprache, die die Illusion erzeugen soll, 1933/1945 wiederhole sich immer wieder und die USA ständen (immer) für "das Gute", egal wie sie real handeln."
Being educated at an old school, this was the eye-opener I just needed.

[Kees Rudolf]

@Ralph,
I missed your last comment before I sent mine. It's funny. I just had a spurious dispute with Phil about the (ir)relevance of age. Of course it doesn't matter whether 'old school' is from the 'forever-young' older generation or from the younger generation. He is just a ...well, I think we agree. Thanks for your excellent post BTW

[old school]

Ralph, ich habe meine Kindheit in den 80er Jahren verbracht, und meine Jugend in den wilden 90ern.
Sie entstammen vermutlich nicht meiner Generation. Auch Maoisten, Trotzkisten etc. habe ich wohl verpasst. Aber man munkelt ja, manche der "Neocons" hätten trotzkistische Wurzeln. Ich bin noch recht jung, aber ich bin ja auch nicht Europa, und darauf bezog ich mich doch, Sie Schlingel.

Sie werden in meiner Argumentation sicher weder Anti-Amerikanismus, noch Anti-Moderne oder gar Sympathie für einen deutschen Sonderweg finden. Das hätten Sie wohl gerne. Allerdings gebe ich zu, dass ich andere Werte, Ideen und Personen an Amerika schätze als Sie es vermutlich tun, und dass ich - wie ca. 49% der amerikanischen Wähler - nicht viel von reaktionär-"christlichen" "Werten" und Überlegenheitsfantasien und von imperialer Grossmannsucht halte, übrigens auch nicht auf europäischer Seite, siehe Balkan.

Die Moderne und die Postmoderne sind untrennbar verbunden, Sie können sich nicht die Rosinen herauspicken. Ihre Schwarz-weisse Weltsicht erinnert an die 50ies, und Ihre Kritikfähigkeit spricht Bände. Die Vorstellung, die USA verfügten über eine absolute Wahrheit und verkörperten einen hegelschen Weltgeist, der immer das Gute will - und auch noch schafft - , ist grotesk und wirkt fast schon religiös.

Aber wenn Sie sogar die Besorgnisse um elektronische, nachweislich (!) manipulierbare Wahlmaschinen, die ihre Ergebnisse nicht einmal auf Papier dokumentieren und nachvollziehbar machen, nur für einen Scherz halten, dann sind Sie einfach nur schlecht informiert - vielleicht liegts an den Medien, die Sie frequentieren.

Kees Rudolf, maybe you can explain further what you mean?

Is it that you doubt that language is being used to exercise power and to transport thinking?
Is it that you doubt stereotypes are used?
You probably know the book "lingua tertii imperii" of Viktor Klemperer about language in the third Reich? If you don't, you might read it, it is very telling.

"Islamofascism" was a term I read on the "little green footballs" blog for the first time, usually in connections with the term "ragheads", fantasies of "nuking mekka" and similar stuff. Since then, it seems to have spread very far.

Antisemitsm was one form of racism, there are others also.
My school told me racism is always wrong und explained me why. Did yours?

[James]

Aber wenn Sie sogar die Besorgnisse um elektronische, nachweislich (!) manipulierbare Wahlmaschinen, die ihre Ergebnisse nicht einmal auf Papier dokumentieren und nachvollziehbar machen, nur für einen Scherz halten, dann sind Sie einfach nur schlecht informiert - vielleicht liegts an den Medien, die Sie frequentieren.

Du bist einfach ein Technikfeind und hast offensichtlich zu viele Verschwörungstheoriefilme gesehen.

Aber man munkelt ja, manche der "Neocons" hätten trotzkistische Wurzeln.

???
Ja, wer? Du?

Diese Diskussion fuhrt immer Richtung Absurd...

Old school,

noch einmal, wir entstammen derselben Generation: Die Vorstellung, Menschen mit Geschichtsbewusstsein wären automatisch von gestern, lässt eher darauf schließen, Sie hätten Ihre Kindheit in den 90ern verbracht.

Was die Neocons und Trotzky betrifft: Auf I. Kristol trifft dies zu, auf die meisten anderen nicht; Kristol selbst hat ein paar Artikel über die 30er und seine JUGENDLICHEN Überzeugungen geschrieben, munkeln müssen Sie also nicht; es ist das Privileg kluger Menschen, Ihre Einstellungen zu ändern, sie sollten

-es nur offen tun (Fischers Biographie beginnt mit seinem Eintritt bei den Grünen)

-sicherstellen, dass nicht das Vergangene immer noch fortwirkt (USA-SA-SS; Sympathie für Terroristen wie Arafat; Ressentiment gegen wirtschafts-/bildungs-/staatsbürgerliches Ethos; Furcht vor Standards in Bildung und Universität; allgemeine Orientierungslosigkeit, geistiger Substanzverlust als Folge sektiererischen Theoretisierens, besser: Schwadronierens)

-nie den Staat aktiv-verbrecherisch bekämpft haben (RAF; Putztruppe)

-nicht Politiker sein wollen, nach dem Motto: Ich, Fischer, führe Euch in den Sozialismus - Nein, Quatsch, ich führe Euch in einen Ökomarxismus - Nee, doch nich, aber bisserl Pazifismus darf´s schon sein - Okay, jetzt führe ich Euch ganz pragmatisch ins Irgendwohin - Hauptsache ist doch wohl, ich hab die Führung, oder?

Das ist der Unterschied zwischen New Lefties und ernsthaft nachdenkenden Köpfen wie Kristol -in einem Satz: Quod licet Iovis non licet ...

Ihr Hegel-in-30-Minuten-Wissen wie Ihre mitlerweile angestaubte Einschätzung der Postmoderne diskontiere ich mal; ja, war da sonst noch was, mal schauen ... Nö ... ach, doch:

Auf Wiedersehen bei der KOMMENDEN Love-Parade, old school, und nie vergessen,

4-more-years

Ralph

[roman thomas]

you know they used to call winston churchill a right-wing nut job, and called his cry towards the fast-growing nazi party a falice. until it was too late. wake up germany, it's not too late.

[Kees Rudolf]

@old school,
Zu Ralph sagtest du: "Ihre Ansichten sind wahrlich nicht sonderlich neu oder originell." Meinst du das deine eigne Ansichten neu oder originell sind? Ich habe viele Leute wie du begegnet, leider sogar auch in meinem eigenen Bekanntenkreis und in dem meiner Kinder. Alle hochgebildet, selbstverständlich. Vieles was sie sagen kann man fast täglich in den Europäischen Main Stream Media lesen, und ich finde es immer auffallend dass Leute wie du, zwar nicht alle mit dem gleichem halbphilosophischem Jargon, oft nur die Ansichten gewisser Journalisten wiederholen (die zum Teil wieder nur sich gegenseitig nachplaudern), und dann den Eindrück erwecken möchten als ob sie selber nachgedacht haben.
Du bist offenbar gegen Bush. Mit wieviel Prozent der deutsche Bevölkerung teilst du diese Ansicht?
Du machst einem Andern den Vorwürf eine Schwarz-weisse Weltsicht zu haben. Und du sagst:
"Allerdings gebe ich zu, dass ich andere Werte, Ideen und Personen an Amerika schätze als Sie es vermutlich tun, und dass ich - wie ca. 49% der amerikanischen Wähler - nicht viel von reaktionär-"christlichen" "Werten" und Überlegenheitsfantasien und von imperialer Grossmannsucht halte..."
Du glaubst also dass 51% der amerikanischen Wähler schwärmt für reaktionär-"christlichen" "Werten" (deine Anführungszeichen), Überlegenheitsfantasien und imperialer Grossmannsucht?
Den Balken im eignen Auge siehst du offenbar nicht.
"vielleicht liegts an den Medien, die Sie frequentieren". Ich überlege mich ob das vielleicht auf dich zutrifft. Aber nein, du bist sehr belesen: sogar die Site Little Green Footballs hast du besucht, ausserdem Viktor Klemperer gelesen, Bücher über Kaiser Wilhelm, vielleicht Hegel, Modernismus, Postmodernismus usw. Und das alles während du noch so jung bist!
Vielleicht liegts also daran dass du zu viel gelesen hat. Schopenhauer sagte es schon: viele Gelehrten haben sich dumm gelesen.

[afromme]

I'm just glad the U.S. didn't sit on the bench during the many Berlin crises between 1945 and 1990.

Came game time, they were - always - ready.

You being such a master of sarcasm and all - You are aware that you are stretching things just a little by trying to compare protecting Germany against the Soviet Union [1], not least of all out of one's own interest [2] on the one hand, and training Iraqi security personell on the other.

Hang on - we're not even talking about training or not training Iraqi security staff. We're talking about where Germany and France are training them.

[1] - whether one would completely agree with that notion in the first place is a different debate - although I'm not saying I disagree
[2] - also bearing in mind that Europe would have been screwed if the USSR and the US had at any point decided to go to war against the other

I don't even believe Rumsfeld himself really cares. It's just a nice thing (for him) to throw at "old Europe".

Update: I deleted quite a few postings in the comment section

Why do you do that anyways?

presenting Rumsfeld quotes is still a sure way to drive the German Left crazy... (as if it needed Rumsfeld for that)

Bit cheap, huh?
Especially as I got a feeling you'd delete comments like that if they were aimed at you.

Rumsfeld, du bist in Europa so beliebt wie ein Eimer gequirlte Scheisse auf dem Wohnzimmerteppich

Ouch! Da hat jemand aber ein echtes Problem. Ich krieg nur gerade den Finger nicht darauf, womit.

Ah -
Eloquenz. :-)

please don't delete the first 2 "messages"- they show very well the kindergarden-level of the German left-peacenik-antisemitism-socialistic thinking.

Cheap shot. Which, by the way, reveals very well...
ah - na, not gonna go there...

[Y.H.N.]

@Ralph
Please forgive my reply in english
"zum Islamofaschismus UND zu Amerika; die einzige Grundüberzeugung: Amerika ist gefährlich, genauso gefährlich wie die Zukunft überhaupt."

Orson Scott Card, an American writer once said something to the effect that America is the first Nation for which its "Golden Age Lies in the Future." We are an optimistic people. I suppose we share this conviction with the "Islamofaschismus" both are pushing Europe out of the comfortable present into an unknown future. Which is more feared? Answer the culture exerting the greatest pressure on the conservative status quo.

[Joe N.]

Old School:

I have never see the term "islamofascist" used in the same context as those epithets. As an arab immigrant to the US I can assure you that those epithets are deeply offensive, and Islamofascism is right on the mark.

It refers to nothing less than the acutly *illiberal* vision that the Taliban, Al Queda, the muslim brotherhood, the Islamic Jihad branches world-wide, Hizb-allah, Hamas, and their temporary offshoots have.
At it's heart is the desire to impose a religious belief on others. Before you make the reflexive comparisons with democracy, note that democracy is a system which permits individuals to have their own beliefs and still live in a society without dominating it.

There is no such thing as group rights. It isn't even possible.
Individuals can have rights. You remember those, don't you? The really serious ones. The ones that really matter to people. Not the simple-minded paedagogical ones.

[Michael Moore]

Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Some quotes by Rumsfeld:
"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

"(Cluster bombs are) being used on frontline al Qaeda and Taliban troops to try to kill them is why we're using them, to be perfectly blunt."
"Have you killed anyone yet?" to General Charles Holland
"We do know, of certain knowledge, that (Bin Laden) is either in Afghanistan or in some other country or dead."
"The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is."
"Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin's still learning (laughter)"

The last paragraph of quotes is proudly presented to you by rightwingnews.com

I don't know if Rumsfeld is smart, but from the last quote I take that he thinks he is.

If anyone here doesn't know about cluster bombs I provided some links:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm
"Studies that show 40 percent of the duds on the ground are hazardous and for each encounter with an unexploded submunition there is a 13 percent probability of detonation. Thus, even though an unexploded submunition is run over, kicked, stepped on, or otherwise disturbed, and did not detonate, it is not safe. Handling the unexploded submunition may eventually result in arming and subsequent detonation."

http://www.itvs.org/bombies/bombs.html
"According to a recent study by the Red Cross, children in Kosovo are five times more likely to be killed or injured by a NATO-dropped unexploded cluster bomb than by a Serbian landmine."

And, last but not least my favourite quote by the Secretary of Defense Mr. Donald Rumsfeld:

"It is easier to get into something than to get out of it."

[Jay]

I spent three years in NATO (SR). When I first got there a Brit wised me up (obviously these aren't direct quotes but more or less how it went):

"NATO is perfectly willing to defend NATO members provided two things - one, it has to take place in Europe itself, and two, it has to be convenient for them. As a defense alliance NATO is a joke. If Mexico or someone invaded the US you'd be doing well if they even said 'good luck' ".

"So why are we here?"

"You're here to finance everything, and we're both here to keep these countries from starting another big war".

He then went on to give me specific reasons why each of the SR members was really in NATO which was interesting but kind of off topic.

[Jabba the Tutt]

@fmj: Ich habe versucht, die PISA II Studie zu finden. PISA I habe ich, aber nicht die zwote Studie. Koennen Sie ein Link posten? (I don't know computer jargon auf Deutsch, ich war in Deutschland bevor Computers. Yikes!)

[Jabba the Tutt]

@Old School: Name your bet. I bet the Iraqis do NOT elect an extreme Islamist government similar to the Algerian FIS. What can you afford to lose? ;^)

[Douglas]

This 'new' EU, with it's 1,000 (?) page
'Constitution' it's billion~euro bureaucracy, its stifling regulatory / big brother oversight, it's pitiable NRF . . . is the best thing that could happen to America.


So true...this EU constitution looks like it is a bad joke. The US Constitution -- adopted in 1789 -- is just a few pages long and actually created a federal democratic republic to serve the people, quite unlike that P.O.S. 1,000 page gift to the bureaucrats of Europe.

[Tyranno]

Michael Moore is about a profound as is his namesake and equally banal in his narrow selection of convenient "facts" to broadbrush a very incomplete and very self-serving picture of his preferred "reality."

He, of course, make a lot of sense ~ as long as you don't think to much about what he is saying. But ultimately you just have to be willing to overlook so much for anything he says to make sense.

The comments on Rumsfeld are enlightening but to assume his implications one has to ignore Chirac and France's relationship with Hussein since the mid 70s, Ignore the vast preponderance of arms flowing to Iraq from 1980-2000 from China, Russia and France, ignore the reality on the ground at that time of the recent toppling of the Shah of Iran and the ascendency of the mullahs, the chicanery of the KGB and it's surrogates. . .
Rumsfleds implied "venality" starts to appear prudent, if not down right prescient, in light of the political reality of the situation at that time.

As far a cluster munitions go and Moore's feigned concern for the unfortunate of the world who may be injured by them... but that this ilk ever voiced concern for the people of Iraq (for instance, but pick another if you like, the Balkans? Darfur?) at any time during the criminal Hussein regime...
But that this ilk had ever spoken out against the systemic terror practiced by the seated Hussein "government" as a means of controlling the population...
But that this ilk ever denounced the volumenous Abu Ghraib photos from the Hussein era (available for years) of severe torture, sexual abuse, decapitations, chopping off body parts, removal of tongues and ears...
But that this ilk ever denounced the 350,000 (estimates up to one million) sets of remains unearthed 'so far' inside the Iraq...
Since Mr. Moore wants to go back in history to point fingers . . .
But that this ilk ever denounced the historical and rapacious European imperialism that created the (euro-nationally) personally self-serving but locally illogical borders that have precipitated this and so many other problems in the world.

Though Moore does backhandedly underline the fact that it never was a 'War for Oil' by the U.S.A. ~ that was simply the necessary diversion to hide the fact that it has always been a 'War for Appeasement' by the Europeans, France and Russia in particular.

His sophomoric implications beg the question that Europe will have to answer in the coming (months?) years. That being, what are you willing to put up with?
- A synagoge or mosques firebombed weekly?
- A couple of politicians or prominent citizens murdered occasionally?
- European citizens kidnapped and ransomed annually?
- A train station or rathouse blown up every couple of years?
- (God forbid,) an Airbus into the Eiffel Tower or the Brandenburg Gate?

The U.S.A. has answered this question. That so many of the modern day quislings of Europe don't like the decision doesn't really matter to them. They also apparently prefer the convenience, for them, of a saddam hussein in power as opposed to the messier dynanism of an unfolding liberation, though they didn't mind the messiness so much when it was them.

Mrs. Moore and his ilk, including, according to the polls most of Europe, ignore the numerous fatwas and the aggressively offensive pronouncements of islamofascist worldwide that, "We will win because we value death!" and instead poke their chubby pink little fingers into the much safer target of a Mr. Rumsfeld, et al, weaving Rube Goldberg fantasies about why the U.S.A. is 'really' in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And isn't that really the great thing about being a (euro) progressive liberal these days?
You get to profit from both sides of the fence, you get to posture and preen about being more 'moral' and 'ethical,' more 'complex' and
'sophisticated' than the very people who are guaranteeing the safety of that very comfortable and secure life you live in the bad 'ol West.

I guess the crux of my problem with the Michael Moores of this world is that they decry the labeling of themselves as 'un-American' (anti-western?) for the arguments they create but, unfortunately for them, when you peel the onion, no matter the "topic du jour," that is the dull blunt club you are left with.

Tyranno

[Tyranno]

. . . And isn't it interesting how it is now the "progressives" and "Liberals" amongst us who defend the bloodthirsty tyrants at the UNITED NATIONS and protect the criminal dictators of the world with their own bodies as 'human shields.'
My, my, my, have they really deconstructed their 60s idealism this much. . . or have they simply been outed for what they always were?

Can we differentiate between the young naive idealists as opposed to the Fronts (useful idiots) and Fellow travellers?

Tyranno

[Tyranno]

phil posts:

"It is this structural flexibility, this intellectual curiosity, this entrepenurial spirit, this individual willingness to transform (all encapsulated in a 73 year old head) that keep the U.S.A. on the cutting edge of every endeavor it embarks upon"

I do agree that the entrepreneurial spirit has kept the US on the cutting edge of most endevours but not Iraq. As far as I can see (I am sure I will be contradicted very quickly :-)) too many mistakes have been made. From the beginning there seemed to be too little numbers of troops in the country, looters and later insurgents were not brought under control and the prison scandal was very bad PR (yes I know, it was partly due to the international press). Furthermore I have read several articles last year about how Rumsfeld is apparently not very keen to listen to advice from his generals (caution: can't back that up with a link so I am aware that my memory is playing tricks on me).
I simply think that a new secretary of defense might be more able to bring back the cutting edge that the US has always enjoyed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Phil,
I think to say that 'mistakes were made' will always be true. If Marshall had become the SAC as opposed to Eisenhower in WWII I think the Allies still would have won, but perhaps in a slightly different manner and with a different set of 'mistakes.'
Mistakes are part and parcel to war. As is said, "no plan survives the initial contact."
Iraq has gone no better but certainly no worse given the political situation, than any other military endeavor.
I can't help but wonder how much more would have already been achieved, how much further down the road to elections and stability we would be, if nations such as France and Germany were not still providing hope to the criminal ba'athist elements and the atavistic Islamofascist in Iraq to just hold out a bit longer. They have blood on their hands.

It is simply too early to label Iraq a "failure and it is the height of cheap election year politics to try to pin some sort of blame on Rumsfeld, as much as the dems were obviously willing to sacrifice 25M Iraqis in order to regain the White House.
Rumsfeld has indeed angered a large number of Flag officers in the U.S. Army. He did it right up front by pulling Peter Schoomaker out of retirement and over the heads of over 300+ active duty Generals to become Chief of Staff of the Army.
Rumsfeld, like Roosevelt knew we were going to war and knew he needed warriors not technicians and peacetime administrators to get the job done. The move was not without precedence, and yes it hurt the feelings of those passed over.
Another 'not listening' example; GEN Shinseki was fired for a number of reasons not the least of which was his being tied to the Crusader project and being a steadfast proponent of heavy armour in an emerging age of lite-Special Forces. A brilliant military man, a war hero, and a great American! But there is no royalty in the U.S.A. and Shenseki fell out with his new boss. Trust me he is not hurting, except for that ego again, in the aftermath
The point here being to say Rumsfeld "isn't listening to the generals " can mean any number of positive things too.

Lastly, A new SecDef? returns us to the Marshall vs Eisenhower point made up front.

Tyranno

[James]

I find it rather disappointing that Moore fails to provide links regarding the destructive capability of nuclear weapons. Jacques Chirac personally sold Saddam Hussien (describing him as "my friend" in past correspondence) a nuclear reactor.

Also, what Mike likely would not allude to, was that nuclear reactors are also used to produce weapons grade uranium and plutonium in nuclear weapons. Need I provide what a nuclear bomb is capable of?

For several years, Israel applied diplomatic pressure to the Gran Nation de France, only to be met with silence. Having already had bad experiences with Saddam, Israel was left with no other alternative but to destroy the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor approaching completion. As the successful mission deliberately took place early on a Sunday morning, no French contractors were killed. And they say the Isrealis have no sympathy...

And, last but not least my favourite quote by Michael Moore : "Why yes! Yes I will have that double cheeseburger with bacon!"

[old school]

James,

Im Gegenteil! Ich erinnere mich gut an Momente meiner Kindheit, in denen ich mit meiner Familie bei Wahlen vor dem Fernseher sass und auf Ergebnisse wartete, und eine Idee hatte: Statt den albernen Zettel sollte man Computer verwenden! Alles ginge dann viel schneller. Das Programm würde ich in 10 Minuten auf meinem C64 in Basic schreiben. Ich war nie technikfeindlich. Aber ich weiss, wie Technik funktioniert.

Sie halten die verwendeten Maschinen für sicher genug?
Ich empfehle: www.blackboxvoting.org. Verschwörungstheorie? Es geht nicht darum, dass Bush gewonnen hat, weil jemand aufs richtige Knöpfchen gedrückt hat. Es geht um die grundsätzliche Möglichkeit der Manipulation, und evtl um statistische Merkwürdigkeiten (die an Bushs Wahlsieg wenig ändern würden, ausser durch einen Skandal und darauf folgende Neuwahlen wegen nachgewiesener Manipulation.)

Es ist mir schwer begreiflich, wieso mit dem Thema so leichtfertig umgegangen wird, ich kann es mir nur so erklären, dass man Manipulationen tatsächlich für unmöglich hält, weil allein der Gedanke solch eine Provokation darstellt, der das Herz des amerikanischen Selbstverständnisses berührt - weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf...ein blinder Fleck. Bitte, bitte informieren Sie sich.

Joe N.,

I understand your point and I might agree - but I see these problems:
Fascism is a term which is more or less exactly defined. By your new definition, radical christianism, and many other belief-systems would have to be called fascism. Capitalism also.

And I think the term is very vague - you mention some groups on which I would agree. The people at lgf expand the term to nearly any muslim. Who is to draw the border? I still think the term is misleading, and will not use it.

Fascism also is a secular system (although the nazis claimed to be christians, their interpretation was superficial and twisted, they were mostly fascists). The core of most religions is respect for other human beings, its always the people that twist these ideas pragmatically who turn religions into something similar to fascism. It can happen to any religion, it does happen, look at history.
Why not call it religious fundamentalism? For political reasons?

Regarding individual <--> group rights, I totally agree. Some group rights are the summed rights of individual rights of a group of individuals, though - harrassed minorities will sufffer individually, but are identified by their opponents as group - its complicated...

Ralph,

In der Einschätzung von Fischer stimmen wir sicher überein.
Und mit der Hegel-Frage könnte man ganze eigene philosophische blogs füllen, aber Sie wissen selbst, dass die Diskussion nicht notwendigerweise vorteilhaft für Ihre Seite ausginge.
Das selbe gilt für die Fragen von Moderne und Postmoderne, so leicht ("angestaubt") entkommen Sie der dieser Diskussion nicht. Aber Sie sind ja ein sehr gebildeter und intelligenter Mensch und wissen das demnach selbst. Und verschonen Sie mich mit der Love-Parade, eher würde ich einen Parteitag der GOP besuchen - das Spektakel gleicht sich ja.

Das mit den "four more years" schein Ihnen ja unglaublichen Spass zu bereiten, und weil jetzt ja die Weihnachtszeit beginnt, gönne ich Ihnen Ihre Freude einfach mal.

Kees Rudolf,

Sie machen es sich sehr einfach. Genausogut könnte ich sagen, dass Sie eben die Standpunkte der GOP und der neokonservativen Wortführer in (deutschen, amerikanischen...) Medien nachplappern.

und: "Du glaubst also dass 51% der amerikanischen Wähler schwärmt für reaktionär-"christlichen" "Werten" (deine Anführungszeichen), Überlegenheitsfantasien und imperialer Grossmannsucht?

Nicht notwendigerweise, dass alle 51% dafür gleichermassen schwärmen, es handelt sich ja auch um verschiedene Dinge. Dem einen ist das Recht auf Waffenbesitz oder die Werte, die er aus der Bibel zu lesen glaubt, das wichtigste, der andere verehrt die Neocons und ihre Weitsicht, obwohl er vielleicht Atheist ist und für ein Recht auf ABtreibung.

Im Ergebnis allerdings muss ich feststellen, das 51% ihre Prioritäten so gesetzt haben, dass sie keine Probleme mit den issues dieser Regierung haben und mit allen Punkten leben können, wenn Kerry die Alternative ist.

[afromme]

Zum Thema Wahlmaschinenmanipulation schrieb James:
Du bist einfach ein Technikfeind und hast offensichtlich zu viele Verschwörungstheoriefilme gesehen.

Mal zwei simple Fragen:
a) wie schwierig ist es, eine Wahlmaschine zu programmieren? Das sollte jeder Informatiker jenseits des 4. Semesters innerhalb einer Woche hinbekommen. Mit so vielen Logs und Ausdrucken, dass auszuschließen wäre, dass da was manipuliert worden sein könnte.
b) warum zur Hölle wird nicht schlicht der Quellcode der Wahlmaschinen offen gelegt?

Zu b) Also neue Vorgehensweisen o.ä. stecken in den Geräten nicht drin. Da gibt es also keinen Grund, den Quellcode geheim zu halten. Offenlegen und gut ist. Dann kann jeder nachschauen, was da eigentlich passiert und wie gezählt wird und wie die Protokolle erstellt werden. Damit könnte man den Kritikern dern Wind aus den Segeln nehmen und das Vertrauen in die Geräte wieder herstellen. Die ersten Berichte über mögliche Probleme kamen schließlich schon im August oder so. Flucht nach vorn.
Bei manueller Wahl soll schließlich auch jeder Schritt der Auszählung offen nachvollziehbar (und im Zweifelsfall nachzählbar) sein. Für elektronische Geräte soll das nicht gelten?

Unabhängig davon, wen ich lieber als Präsidenten gesehen hätte, sage ich das mal, weil's echt nervig ist, noch Ewigkeiten später über möglicherweise manipulierte Wahlmaschinen oder was auch immer zu debattieren.
Mal davon ab, dass ich auch immer noch nicht nachvollziehen kann, warum so eine Stimmauszählung in den USA länger dauert und die Hochrechnungen eher ungenauer zu sein scheinen als hierzulande. Klar, USA ist größer, aber wenn man die Stimmen der Wahlberechtigten eines 80-Mio-Volks in der Zeit ausgezählt bekommt, sollte es möglich sein, auch die Stimmen von 51 Bundesstaaten auszuzählen...

[Michael Moore]

Interesting...
Tyranno and James made some comments regarding my little take on Mr. Rumsfeld.

Well, I never disputed the fact the France, China, Russia or any other country ever dealt with Saddam or did anything. I didn't even write about them. I am sorry, but if I make a comment I can't start with Adam and Eve.

But You didn't dispute anything I stated. Simply because nothing was wrong. When it was convenient for Rummie he met with Saddam. And when he became inconvenient he tried to get rid of him. That is the realistic politic game that all of them play. Saying that Saddam is "evil" in that respect is the dumbest thing anyone could do. Sure, all dictators are evil, but so what? The Saudis are the best allies of the US in that region. But I haven't heard anyone in the current administration calling the House of Saud evil.

But I am getting carried away here. Rumsfeld would never call Saddam evil, I guess. I just put together some quotes and mentioned some interesting facts regarding Rumsfeld and Saddam. What really bothers me is his chicken hawk attitude. While he was never in combat himself he feels he is qualified to send men into combat on some fabricated evidence. But then again that is what many politicians are doing. The most disturbing part is the quote about cluster bombs. And some people in this forum actually defended this. I guess those people would also defend the use of land mines, nuclear bunker busters, chemical or biological so called "non deadly" weapons, and Napalm, which was used again btw. I still thinks that from this small list land mines and cluster bombs are the worst since they stay on for decades to keep on killing the children of now born babies.

Cheers, baby killers!

(by stating this I don't defend other baby killers, but I guess some people here don't understand this, so I make a little analogy: If I speak up against murder, I do not condone another murder in some other city related to this murder or not)