« Our Comment Policy / Unsere Kommentar-Regeln | Main | This Christmas Season: Support Freedom's Warriors »

Comments

Humans basically are emotional rather than rational beings, so we Americans know that our achievement and leadership incur the envy of others less ambitious. However, that does not means that hatred from people we have helped and protected with our blood is forgiveable. A cord has been cut. But then this was the left's objective all along, to separate America from Europe. Europe should keep in mind something called unintended consequences. War against Europe now is contemplatable and justifiable in the American mind. Gird what remains of your loins, Europe.

Hey PacRim Jim,

No offense, but your comments certainly don't sound particularly rational. "War against Europe"...??? I think you've gone off the deep end on that one...

---Ray D.

Ray D. -

PacRim Jim may be looking ahead.

Europe is already at war with Islam. The battlefield is on the highways of unrestricted immigration and in the maternity wards of Europe. Which side wins will determine what the future holds for our relations.

If Islam wins, Europe will no longer be the old countries. They will be the lost countries.

Noch ein interessanter Aspekt. Einige europäische Länder und die USA (viele Demokraten auch) haben die ukrainische Opposition mehr oder weniger offensichtlich unterstützt. Aber einige Engstirnige kritiseren die US-amerikanische Unterstützung, weil der Amerikahaß die blind und dumm macht. Dazu dieser Artikel:

"Für Puristen, denen Amerikas Rolle in der Welt der grössere Dorn im Auge ist als die Existenz von Unrechtsregimen, darf es solche äusseren Einflüsse in einem perfekten demokratischen Staatswesen natürlich nicht geben. Es lässt sich jedoch schwerlich argumentieren, dass der Demokratie ein grösserer Dienst erwiesen worden wäre, wenn das Ausland dem von langer Hand geplanten Wahlbetrug durch die alte Garde in Kiew einfach zugeschaut hätte.

Wohin diese Verirrung führen kann, demonstrierte Ende November der britische «Guardian» mit zwei Artikeln von an sich kenntnisreichen Journalisten: Darin war die Rede von einem postmodernen Staatsstreich unter dem Deckmantel des Einsatzes für die Stärkung der Bürgergesellschaften in der Ex-Sowjetunion. Als ob die demonstrierenden Massen in Kiew im Solde der USA stünden, behauptete die Zeitung, seien diese nichts anderes als eine amerikanische Schöpfung gewesen. Janukowitsch hätte es nicht besser formulieren können. Sein Lager hatte den Rivalen Juschtschenko zuvor auf plumpe Weise als CIA- Handlanger angeschwärzt, nur weil dessen Frau, Kateryna Tschumatschenko, als Tochter ukrainischer Emigranten die amerikanische Staatsbürgerschaft besitzt und vor ihrer Heirat in amerikanischen Behörden gearbeitet hatte."

http://nzz.ch/2004/12/15/al/page-articleA28V1.html

"sie" muß es heißen, nicht "die"

sie blind und dumm macht

Top-Story war also Israel.

A selection of the most popular articles on Guardian Unlimited, December 1 - 8.


1) Israel shocked by image of violinist forced to play
2) 'I don't know how it works': interview with a Beijing surgeon
3) Turn yourself into a diamond
4) Interview with Tracey Emin
5) Football: Liverpool v Olympiakos
6) Ooooh, ahhhhhhh (and a groan from the women's rights campaigner at the back)
7) One more time: when bands don't know when to quit
8) Iraq faces descent into chaos, says CIA chief
9) Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child
10) Einstein fridge comes in from the cold

Alastair Crooke is a former British intelligence officer who worked in the Middle East, Ireland and Afghanistan. He was until last year special adviser to Javier Solana, the European Union high representative, and is a founding member of Conflicts Forum.

Read what he thinks about terrorists and then you will understand the confusion in the EU about terrorism:

"One piece of evidence often cited by "terrorism experts" for the war on terror is the existence of "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. But these were not terrorist training facilities at all.

I knew these camps. For 20 years they produced guerrillas, in the tens of thousands, trained in irregular warfare techniques, in modules that allowed men with different linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to mesh as a single fighting unit. They were trained to fight an insurgency against western forces and against pro-western regimes in the region. We call these fighters terrorists, but this is not the way they see themselves."

It is essential to talk to the 'terrorists'.

hier ist der Artikel

We have too many people with this mindset in high positions and as journalists.

"This is why Conflicts Forum is calling for a new engagement with Islam. We need to recognise the "other" and acknowledge that Muslim values do not pose a threat to the strategic values of western society. Muslims do not hate our values. They hate our policies. We need dialogue at all levels. And we need to demonstrate in practical terms that there is an alternative approach beyond laying waste to large segments of the region's landscape. We believe it is possible to find common ground on the basis of respect for difference and a toleration of others."

The second Intifada started after talk, talk, talk. Arafat stopped talking, not Israel.

Bottom line question... Why do terrorists train to fight, and fight, and even sacrifice their lives, against the west and prowestern regimes?

There is no point in "talking" to them unless we know what they want and are interested in giving at least part of it to them.

But they tell us constantly that what they want is our destruction.

Israel's, and America's, and eventually all of the West... destruction.

How in God's name do you "talk" to people like that? How do you negotiate? What are your "giveaways"? What constitutes compromise? Do you let them kill a few million of us, to satiate them, so they'll lose interest? Do we put all our women in burkas and keep them home from school and work, just to appease those jokers? Are we really so willing to abandon parts of the culture we have fought so hard for, just to feel a phony sense of safety?

The whole idea is stupid. Anybody who both declares his intent to destroy us and acts on it is fair game for attack. People say we don't understand them and we should talk to them, learn about their point of view. I say they've already given us all pertinent information; that they intend to destroy us and take over the world for radical Islam. For the sake of American girls not yet born, we cannot let that happen.

And if the Europeans don't understand this very basic fact of 21st century life, they deserve what they get. Eventually they will succumb to the relentless march of Islam and their democratic institutions will be taken over without a shot, will morph into Sharia law. It is inevitable unless they fight. And the Europeans have amply demonstrated that they do not have the heart to resist Islam. They are too far gone down the politically correct road, too busy welcoming the simple Arab to their superior culture, doing him a favour, offering him Armani in exchange for his dusty robes, all the while patting themselves on the back for what good people they are. It's already over.

And if the Europeans don't understand this very basic fact of 21st century life, they deserve what they get. Eventually they will succumb to the relentless march of Islam and their democratic institutions will be taken over without a shot, will morph into Sharia law. It is inevitable unless they fight. And the Europeans have amply demonstrated that they do not have the heart to resist Islam. They are too far gone down the politically correct road, too busy welcoming the simple Arab to their superior culture, doing him a favour, offering him Armani in exchange for his dusty robes, all the while patting themselves on the back for what good people they are. It's already over.

How do you imagine this to happen?
Muslims in Europe haven't formed any significant political parties yet, they aren't present in business leader positions, they don't run any media that are influential among non-muslims. I can't see mass conversion of Germans to Islam either.
In order to "take over" our society, Muslims would have to do "the march through the institutions", as Fischer's and Trittin's political ancestors called it. But this is exactly what does not happen. There are quite few Turkish-German members of parliament. And they are in different political parties. There's even a turkish group in the CDU. So you cannot say that a specific party has been "taken over".
In your view, Muslims will always be suspicious. If they stick to their culture, they are not "willing to integrate". If they don't, they are "sleepers", infiltrating our society. If they work, they take away german jobs. If they don't they are exploiting our welfare system.
This Eurabia stuff is just as ridiculous as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" directed against Jews.

Care to provide the names and areas they represent of the muslims member of both parties in Berlin.

@Joe:

There aren't any CDU members of parliament born in Turkey (but, according to this article, there are 200 turkish CDU party members in Berlin). And there's a German-Turkish Forum in the CDU.
There are five Turkey-born members of parliement in the Green Party, SPD and PDS.

Sorry,
here are the correct numbers: There are only two members of parliament with turkish origin, Lale Akgün (SPD) and Ekin Deligöz (Greens)

Via LGF:

As Khomeini himself put it: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.”

The goal of this conquest would be to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. As Khomeini put it: “What is the good of us [i.e., the mullahs] asking for the hand of a thief to be severed or an adulteress to be stoned to death when all we can do is recommend such punishments, having no power to implement them?”

Khomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Ahhh, C'Bot doesn't get it.

A similar observation was made by a Spaniard about Mexico and Spain.

Didn't get it, either.

Hey Amihasser - brilliant comment you posted. Your German vocabulary and language skills are enviable!
Please help me out: exactly which part of the interview was it you didn't agree with or wanted to expand on?

Europe is already at war with Islam. The battlefield is on the highways of unrestricted immigration and in the maternity wards of Europe. Which side wins will determine what the future holds for our relations.

If Islam wins, Europe will no longer be the old countries. They will be the lost countries.

------------------------------------------

Interesting comment, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Bush aministration supporting a turkish EU membership ?
The turkish population is 99 % muslim, some people would argue it is a secular muslim state and it is pro western and important for NATO and a role model for the middle east or whatever.
But the truth is this is the turkish government not the turkish population. The turkish population is split into two groups, secuclar muslims , who live in the big cities like Istanbul or Ankara and a majority of islamists turks who live ouside these cities and and most of them have staunch anti western views. This situation has not changed since the days of Kemal Attatürk, the founder of modern Turkey and there are no signs that it will change anytime soon.
The vast majority of muslims living in Germany are Turks, unlike in France where the majority of muslims is from Northern Africa, the former french collonies. So if Islam wins in Germany it will be because of all these turks and most of the turks , who immigrate to Germany are turks from the poor regions of Turkey and most of them are islamists, some of them very radical islamists.
According to a poll from the turkish Gallup institute TNS Piar 23 % of the Turks plan to to look for work in EU countries if Turkey becomes an EU member.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,332944,00.html

You don't have to be a genius to understand what it meens for the demographics of Europe if 23 % of the turkish population immigrates to other European countries. It will change the face of Europe forever, it is the point of no return and the end of christianity in Europe.

President Bush said: " Turkey meets the EU standards of membership. The European Union should begin talks that will lead to full membership".
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040626134232.jgwfoic4


Aside from the fact that it is of course not the business of an American President to decide what country meets the standards of EU membership, it is also a false statement. Turkey does not meet any of the criterias to become an EU member, not economically and for sure not culturally.
It's amazing that the US President falls in the back of those conservative governments ( like Danmark, who supported America in Iraq and is strongly opposed to Turkey EU membership) or the CDU in Germany, who is also opposed to Turkey membership and sits in a boot with Schroeder and the Green Party and other multiculturalists and atheists in Europe. And this after the turkish Parliament was not really that supportive during the Iraq war ( Remember ? ). You can't have it both ways , you can't complain about Europe becoming muslim and at the same time support more muslim immigration to Europe, which will be without any doubt the case if Turkey ever becomes an EU member.

Christian ( Proud to be German )

@ Christian,

Well isn't that typical. Instead of blaming Germany's failing immigration policies for the mess, it is once again America's and Bush's fault. Turkey being in the EU or not being in the EU will not change German immigration laws. Only German voters can do that and they have only themselves to blame for out of control immigration and low birth rates among natives. Germans also have only themselves to blame for their stupid welfare laws which allow foreign immigrants to exploit the system and certainly serves as an incentive for many 'unsavory' characters to migrate to Germany.

Turkey being in the EU will also have little impact on "Muslim" immigration to Europe as you put it. The EU countries long ago opened the floodgates to Turkish immigration, Turks have been moving into Germany in huge numbers since the 1960s, but I guess if you warp any issue enough, you can find a way to bash America. It's becoming a sport in Europe, and it is clearly one that Christian excels at.

You write: "Aside from the fact that it is of course not the business of an American President to decide what country meets the standards of EU membership, it is also a false statement. Turkey does not meet any of the criterias to become an EU member, not economically and for sure not culturally."

Who ever said he wanted to "decide" what country meets EU standards? Are you saying Mr. Bush has no right to express an opinion on Turkey and the EU? And since when were there "cultural" criteria for EU entry? What are these criteria and why doesn't Turkey meet them? Do they even have to meet all the criteria at this point? After all, they don't even have a date for entry into the EU at all...they are just talking about joining.

Bottom line: You and other Germans need to take a long, hard look in the mirror before blaming all the world's problems on Bush and the US (and oh yeah, the Jews too). The fact that you continue to do so is a continued sign of intellectual bankruptcy from which many in Germany are suffering today.

---Ray D.

I would be curious to know how widely publicized Gedman's views are in Germany. From Amihasser's (such a delightful name) comments, it would appear that Gedman is at least somewhat known in Germany.

But what I would *really* like to know if many Germans would be at all troubled or concerned by what Gedman says. Would many Germans take pride in what he describes?

Christian:

You raise an interesting point regarding Turkish entry into the EU. What I found most interesting about your post, was the inference that the US is mistaken in supporting Turkish integration since it may hurt Germany. Truth is Americans remark on the Muslimification of Europe as an unflattering commentary on the future of the EU rather than as a concerned warning. Most Americans do not care what happens to the EU. Turkish entry is seen as a bridge between cultures and a reward for at least attempting to separate mosque and state. Since the EU cannot (or won't) project power in the Great Game, it can at least help by attempting cultural assimilation at home. That the EU will have to deal with any negative consequences is not our problem. I think that the negative consequences will end up being blunted somewhat by restrictions on immigration. After all, nobody overestimates the EU's ability to employ people.

I frequently see posts from Americans on this site assuming an aggrieved air, suggesting that Germany or the EU does not appreciate our sacrifice. Fact is, the Marshall Plan and security guarantee extended to Europe suited US foreign policy goals. It is reasonable to question the intelligence of Germans who cannot recognize the generally positive results of US occupation, but it is incorrect to suggest that the US spent the money and lives it did primarily out of concern for Germans. The peace and prosperity that resulted was mainly a positive side effect.

Proud of US Foreign Policy

Hypothesis: most anti-Americanism be categorized under a single rubric: resentment.

Examples:
Muslims RESENT America because our culture is successful and theirs isn't.
The French RESENT America because it's a cultural, military and economic superpower and France isn't.
The Germans RESENT American pioneer spirit, permanent mobility and willingness to tackle any problem no matter how daunting (a recent quote by G. Schroeder).
The British RESENT America because they've had initiative beaten out of them by centuries of a rigid class structure and now they prefer to indulge in envy and resentment rather than make the leap to personal responsibility.
Europeans leaders RESENT America because they are a self-important, elitist lot that plays politics by rules that reinforce that self-importance and elitism and America doesn't play by those rules.
Europe RESENTS the fact that while it's obsessed with America, most Americans couldn't care less about Europe. Yesterdays International Herald Tribune published an open letter from some European leaders (including Mr. Mitterrand) that had a line like "it's natural for Europe and the US to define themselves by their differences". Europeans can't grasp the idea that Americans define themselves by where they want to be, not by what Europe is doing.

It's true that my interest in Europe is viewed through the prism of what I hold as American national interest. That's how I want my government to parse the problem, too.

That doesn't imply a win/lose game situation.

I'd like to see a prosperous and secure Europe. Since the EU as currently constructed isn't likely to allow that to happen, the next best outcome I hope for is that we won't plant any more fields of crosses there.

In our brief tenure on the historical stage, our relationship with Europe has been consistent. You've always been there when you needed us. And we came.

I don't see it working out that way next time around.

OT, via Rantburg:

YOUZA!!!

The downside of globalization.

A woman translator, 43, tried to sell to China the manuals for electronics that control all the weapons aboard Germany's crack new Type 212A submarines, a court heard on Wednesday

To Christian and other Germans like him,

I am a typical American, one who is descended from immigrants that came to the US, thank God, from several European countries. Most Americans are not 100% anything other than American. Hitler, like other Germans, despised us as a "mongrel race" and I believe you carry on that same arrogant and hateful belief. You must realize that the guilt of Germany will never be transposed onto us. It will last far longer than the 1000 years your Third Reich was to exist. Also remember that your hatred of Americans has once again made you an enemy in the hearts and minds of an ever increasing number of Americans. Hate breeds hate, and you need us more than we need you.

Ambrose,
Gedmin is well known here in Germany but I wonder why his influence is so less. I think the German elite is such an empty whole, they are not able to discuss with Gedmin. They never had facts against his facts, just anger and hate and emotions.

He is a smart person, he has a clear mind but this was and is not enough to stop this hatred here in Germany. It is only a single voice against a strong mainstream.

I would like to know what he thinks about the German journalists.


JK, you wrote: " Hitler, like other Germans, despised us as a "mongrel race""
I think this is not a strong opinion here in Germany. I never heard this or read it somewhere.

Gabi,

On January 7, 1942, Hitler said, "I don't see much future for the Americans. In my view it's a decayed country ... everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it's half Judaized and the other half Negrified." It seems de-Nazification is an ongoing task.

JK Zeller,

I do think Gabi is saying that that is not a perception that is currently held, even tho it is demonstrable that it was held at one time.

As an American, I must say I have never defined myself by the differences between the US and EU. European culture has a very minor influence on my life. I would like to vacation there, but it would be more like a large Disney Land full of nifty statues, architecture, scenery, and quaint accents.

The Germans do make good Techno music tho.

So Germany hates us. This is different than any other given day, how?

After a while it becomes so much background noise and something to maintain mild interest in (in that to stop potential violence from being visitied on the citizenry), but all in all, we are sadly used to it.

Best to ignore it for the moment and perhaps the locals will get the idea. If thier pride is offended, oh well. We do hope they will learn. But we find it unlikely

John,

A great portion of my own heritage is, itself, German, and I bear no profound ill will toward the the land of my ancestors. What does disgust me though, is how many Germans, and other Europeans, have allowed their culture to become a brittle mockery of what it once was or could have continued to be. Anti-Americanism is nothing new there, and, in whatever guise it appears, it is no substitute for true strength. Indeed, it may well have profound consequences that will only serve as a mute and resentfully staid witness to the withering of what remains there. All of this is a travesty that is all too human.

JK Zeller,
as John already said, I talked about the situation of today in Germany.

I think a re-look at PACRIM Jim is appropriate. I think the US would be unlikely to comtemplate a war against Europe. I think it likely we would take our forces (75,000 stationed in Germany) and go elsewhere. The economic impact of that and the loss of those troops' protection would be a likely move by the US. I think a general movement towards "buy elsewhere" is already in progress.

In short, what Germany, France and the EU is likely to get from the US is neglect and a tendency to let you fight your own battles this time. You [EU] should consider that the next Hitler will probably speak Arabic and appear from within the EU. Our reaction is likely to be slow to come around, given the attitude the towards EU currently popular within the US. Well, maybe Germany and France will suddenly develop patriotic fervor. ...and maybe not!

Not permitting open and unquestioned immigration is not a state of "war", it's the perogative of any nation.
Chomskybot: what makes you think that people who don't care for teh fundamentals of European life are going to join political parties?

Support for Iraq The Model!

I am tired of hearing the word "manipulation" when an Anti-Bush-person is talking or writing:

"Sunday, December 12, 2004

Manipulation of the Blogging World on Iraq?

Joseph Mailander of the Martini Republic weblog has an extremely important posting on Sunday about the dangers of "blog trolling." To "troll" in the world of the internet is to lurk on a discussion board and make deliberately false and inflammatory comments, to which all the other posters feel they must reply, so that it roils the list. There is also a connotation of dishonesty about the troll's real identity.

A related practice has been called by Josh Marshall "astroturfing," where a "grass roots" campaign turns out actually to be sponsored by a think tank or corporation. Astroturf is fake grass used in US football arenas. What Mailander is talking about is not really astroturfing, but rather the granting of some individuals a big megaphone.

The MR posting brings up questions about the Iraqi brothers who run the IraqTheModel site. It points out that the views of the brothers are celebrated in the right-leaning weblogging world of the US, even though opinion polling shows that their views are far out of the mainstream of Iraqi opinion. It notes that their choice of internet service provider, in Abilene, Texas, is rather suspicious, and wonders whether they are getting some extra support from certain quarters."

http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/manipulation-of-blogging-world-on-iraq.html

Ray D.:

Well isn't that typical. Instead of blaming Germany's failing immigration policies for the mess, it is once again America's and Bush's fault.
----------
No I did not say that. I did not blame the failed immigration policy of Germany on George Bush. I know who is to blame and I fought against this left wing nutcases who try to destroy Germany with their ideas of muliculturalism and mass immigration since I was a school kid. In fact I don't want a German immigration policy, I don't want immigration at all and I don't think we need any immigration. All we would need is a higher birthrate.
My point was that George Bush supports EU membership for Turkey for some strategic reasons, although he and his advisors know pretty well that this is strongly opposed by the majority of conservatives in Europe and will in the end change the demographics of Europe in a way that is not beneficial for the US at all.
This morning I was listening to a debate in the German parliament about the Turkey issue, one of the speakers was Friedbert Pflüger, a foreign policy expert of the CDU. Pflüger was one of the biggest supporters of the Iraq war in German politics, he was lobbying for the Bush administration in numerous talk shows. He is definatly a friend of America and also a friend of Israel, he thinks like Mr. Gedmin wants the Germans to think.
Of course Pflüger is absolutly against giving Turkey the chance to become an EU member, like all other leading members of his party, including former chancellor Kohl who spoke out against it yesterday.
So I don't know if you're able to understand this, but the Turkey issue is extremly important for conservatives in Europe, not only in Germany. The CDU plans to make this one of the most important issues in the 2006 election and if George Bush is interested to improve the relationship with Germany he should also be interested in a regime change in Germany and he should support those , who support America.
But as Paul says : " That the EU will have to deal with any negative consequences is not our problem."
See if it is not your problem then you should also stop complaining about antimaericanism and antisemitism in Europe, because it will rise when people like Schroeder get re-elected and as more and more muslims immigrate to Europe.

Christian,

I suggest you see what you can find out about a short film, “Voices of Iraq”. It might provide you a different point of view of what is being reported in your media.

For your media to report anything positive would only confirm that once again Germany is on the wrong side of history. Time will in fact prove this. Then to deny it will prove all but impossible for any people but the french and Germans.

Here is a link for the rest of you which might add to this point.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/16/iraq_through_iraqis_eyes

OK Christian,

Fair enough. So why do Bush and the CDU have to agree on every single issue or topic (for example Turkey) to be strong partners or support each other? Not all conservatives agree about everything. If you expect them to agree on everything you will just end up disappointed.

The US supports Turkey because (despite the problems pre-Iraq) the country (and particularly its government) is among the most moderate, secular and frankly pro-Western Muslim states in the world. Turkey has also been an ally of the US through the Cold War and continues to play a key strategic role in the world.

Let's face it, America has a different set of values, goals and interests when it comes to Turkey than do German conservatives. They will simply have to agree to disagree on that and find common ground elsewhere. That doesn't necessarily mean that Bush wants unlimited Turkish immigration to Europe. Certainly Europe has to determine its own immigration policy.

Let me say again that if German conservatives have a problem with immigration laws, welfare policy, taxation issues and low birth rates, they need to, first and foremost, be PROACTIVE within the German political system and fix the problem AT HOME. Blaming ANYONE else is just going to make the problem worse and the hole deeper and can only be self-destructive.

Again, I know how popular it is in Germany to blame Bush, America, the Jews, the Euro, eastern Europe, the Turks and UFOs for all the world's problems. Until the blame game stops and Germans ask themselves what they can ACTIVELY do to improve their country, nothing will ever change. Why do the Greens and SPD win elections despite the fact that they are a disaster for Germany? They are masters at blaming all of Germany's (and the world's) problems on Bush and America. When was the last time these guys implemented an effective, competent domestic policy? (Hint: You won't need more than one set of fingers to count the times.)

America also has a broken border and big problems with illegal immigration, do you see Americans EVER blaming Europe or European policy towards Central America and Mexico for this??? No, Americans are currently in a debate amongst themselves about what THEY can do about the problem. Perhaps Germans would be wise to follow the American example on this and start the highly necessary and useful process of introspection. I am not saying any of this to be insulting, I am saying it because I really believe Germany needs to make this change!

All in all I would conclude by saying that America and German conservatives, and many moderates and independents, have far more that unites them than divides them. A distaste for the biased German media is hopefully one of those things that unites.

---Ray D.

Via Instapundit, article by Max Boot:


ISTANBUL — For most Americans, the most important day this month is Dec. 25. For Turks, it's tomorrow, Dec. 17. That's the day that the European Union will announce whether it will open full membership negotiations with Turkey.

In contrast to the ambivalence that surrounds the EU in most of its member states, Turks seem to be, almost without exception, enthusiastic about falling under the sway of a Brussels bureaucracy. EU membership is widely expected to deliver an economic windfall in the form of greater trade and subsidies. . . .

This might lead some Americans to wonder whether Turkish membership in the EU is such a good idea after all. It shouldn't. Notwithstanding numerous transatlantic squabbles, the EU is a positive force for integrating southern and eastern European countries firmly into the fold of the West, institutionalizing democracy and opening up their closed economies. EU membership may be a bad deal for Britain, whose free market is hampered by heavy-handed regulation from Brussels, but it would be a positive force for change in Turkey, which still has a long way to go before it can enjoy British-style prosperity or stability....

“Theirs are not only anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian feelings. In the most fundamental sense, these are anti-Western sentiments.”

Ein wichtiger Punkt. Aber was charakterisiert eigentlich das Ressentiment gegen den Westen? Folgende Ausführungen aus einem Essay von Richard Herzinger in der September/Oktober 2004 Ausgabe des Merkurs sind in diesem Zusammenhang von besonderer Brisanz:

„Erstens: Bei den Erfolgen der westlichen Gesellschaften geht es nicht mit rechten Dingen zu. Ihre materiellen Errungenschaften verdanken sie der Ausbeutung von Mensch und Natur, ihre Freiheiten sind entweder bloßer Schein oder sie kommen nur wenigen zugute, die sie auf Kosten vieler anderer genießen. Sofern wir selbst in ihren Genuß kommen, leitet sich daraus die moralische Verpflichtung ab, unsere privilegierte Situation zu nutzen, um die Grundlage dieser Ungerechtigkeit laut anzuklagen.

Zweitens: In den Weltkonflikten ist der Westen immer der Angreifer. Selbst wenn er wie am 11.September in den USA oder am 11.März in Spanien in mörderischer Weise attackiert wird, trägt er mindestens Mitschuld. Denn er hat den exzessiven Haß seiner Feinde durch seine Rücksichtslosigkeit und Arroganz gegenüber andersartigen Gesellschaften und Kulturen provoziert.

Drittens: Der Westen ist übermächtig und letztlich unverletzbar. Deshalb kann er ohne Bedenken verteufelt werden. Und wenn der Westen behauptet, dass er sich gegen seine Feinde verteidigen müsse, um seine Existenz zu sichern, will er damit nur weitere Aggressionen gegen unschuldige Menschen und Eroberungen wehrloser Länder rechtfertigen.“

http://www.zeit.de/2004/39/ressentiment

Gabi,

The German present is only an addition to its past. You cannot pretend that your old hatreds were ever erased and not just shallowly submerged until rising once again in a tawdry EU garb. No amount of wishfully thought denial can ever change the fact that Germans hate because they are good at it.

Weren't American "re-educators" in part responsible for Germany's pacifist culture?

Americans have pushing multiculturalism on Europe for some time. US Jewish groups such as the ADL have been particularly vocal on this subject:

ADL Hails Passage of New Immigration Law in Germany
New York, New York, May 28, 1999 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today lauded the passage of sweeping changes in Germany’s immigration law, saying the easing of the nation’s once rigorous naturalization requirements "will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance.

"It is encouraging to see pluralism taking root in a society that, despite its strong democracy, had for decades maintained an unyielding policy of citizenship by blood or descent only," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "The easing of immigration requirements is especially significant in light of Germany’s history of the Holocaust and persecution of Jews and other minority groups. The new law will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance in a nation with an onerous legacy of xenophobia, where the concept of `us versus them’ will be replaced by a principle of citizenship for all."

The new law reduces the waiting period for adults to become eligible for naturalization – from 15 to 8 years – and enables children born in Germany of immigrant parents to maintain dual citizenship until age 23, when they must decide their permanent citizenship. The law as previously written was based on ancestry, making it far more difficult to become a naturalized German citizen, even after many years of residence. Pressure to change the law came as waves of Turkish and other immigrants, often referred to as "guest-workers," poured into Germany in recent years. These included asylum seekers from Eastern Europe, many of them Russian Jews. Today, immigrants account for approximately 10 percent – or 7 million – of the reunified nation’s population of 80 million people.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB_41/3396_41.asp

@ Ray D.

"Why do the Greens and SPD win elections despite the fact that they are a disaster for Germany?"

They dont'win!
2002-2004
13 elections in the "Bundesländer!"

Winner: the pro-American CDU and the Liberals F.D.P.
Loser: SPD, Greens

exception: Saxony (the homeland of the German socialism in the 19th century): Right extremist NPD 8%, SPD 9%!

Example: Saarland (the homeland of SPD-Oscar Lafontaine and former GDR-president Erich Honecker; an industrial ares, working class....

September 5th 2004

CDU 47,5% (1999-last election: 45,5%)
SPD 30,8% (1999- 44,4%)

@ Roland,

Good point Roland. I guess I should have written: Why do the SPD and Greens EVER win elections. Unfortunately, the SPD and Greens won the election that counted the most, the national one. You are right though, they have been getting demolished in almost all of the state elections since then as we have documented on this site. Thanks for pointing that out. Let's hope the trend continues right on through 2006.

---Ray D.

a brillaint article Ray and David. Thanks for researching and digging it up.
This fact alone should make it necessary for some MPs to have to come to wipe the spittle from the chins of both schroeder and fischer-
"This thesis enables many Europeans to relativize, or even balance, Europe's guilt. A second factor is that in Europe, romanticism about underdogs still prevails.
"This reflects further European hypocrisy. There is no passion in either Germany or Europe for independent Kurdish or Basque states. There is no concern for Tibetan underdogs. One can only conclude that the reasons Europeans consider the Palestinian cause for independence central are their cultural bias, burdens of the past, and anti-Semitic feelings. It would be much more logical to see the Israelis as underdogs, a small democracy in a large, hostile Arab environment.
...and lets keep in mind that the people who compose this small democracy survived a european on-slaught and genocide attempt. That's makes the insanity behind the ideology take by the german govt even more insane. I have mentioned it on this blog previously, and I hope some have noted- but this article confirms my beliefs that the current position of the german govt and so many of it's people is a psycho-social phenomenon of un-matched proportion never before seen, and something that will be nothing but a failed attempt at cleansing the soul of one's national history. In layman's terms- the wiping of one's arse with the face of another. This has failed, and will fail further. In this case it' the US and Israel bearing this verbal and sophomoric on-slaught. Watching the "eu" (france, germany in particular) wanking the corpse of arafat, (a small man who had called for the creation of a female "army of roses" suicide bomber platoon) has truly been outrageous and bordering on comical. There is not a military general, PM or leader within the "eu" who is brave enough, or ideologically driven enough to send even a handful of special forces to guard the UN mission as elections draw near.
The US and UK get Libya and khaddafi to come clean, and what happens then?? Schroeder re-dyes his hair a chestnut hue, and off to Tripoli he goes with his top business leaders seeking cash for his broke govt. The "eu"s biggest worry with it's current failures in dealing with Iran is it's potential revenue disruption from Braun blenders and Perrier water sales to the mullahs.
The US hasn't traded in years with Tehran, and rightly so. The brave and great Ayatollah asshola Khomeini was groomed in Paris, as was Pol Pot. Mohammed Atta was groomed in both Hamburg and Madrid. German leaders now say they have been "emanicpated from the US grip". Did anyone ever think we'd hear such insanity? Articles within the "eu" press claim of a "dirty US funding and CIA influence" to democracy in the Ukraine. One has to ask in the most simple of ways- what the hell is being spoken on that continent?
What event will we witness soon that might be able to change these fetid minds and attempts to re-write history?
What will it take?
Watch the iranian mulluhs soil their robes once their people see elections next door in Iraq. Watch what occurs from within Iran.
Where will the Braun and Bosch, EDS and Perrier salesman be at that time?

Weren't American "re-educators" in part responsible for Germany's pacifist culture?

Not a bad question Philip. Maybe they were in part responsible, but not in a large part. Despite attempts by some Americans ( some of them jewish , some not, but nearly all of them left wingers) to re-educate Germans the Germans were not very pacifist until the late 60s. In a truly pacifist nation it would have been impossible to re-install an army or to have a draft like it was introduced in Germany in the 50s. The threat of communism was real and most Germans in the west were willing to defend their freedom against this threat. Presidents like Eisenhower and Kennedy were very popular in Germany and most Germans had a positive view about American politics. The Nazi time was not completly ignored , but it was also not part of a daily debate like it is today. Which in itself is a joke since at that time most of the ( former) Nazis were still around, while now most of them are long dead.
Germany was on a good way, but then suddenly something changed, it was the arrival of the infamous 68 er generation ( that's how the Hippie generation is called in Germany).
This 68 er generation, who was the first generation born after the war revolted against their parents, the WW II generation, in the late 60 s, they tried to change everything and had ideas like multiculturalism and internationalism, they were opposed to everything German and they started to reduce German history to 12 years.
Since their parents supported America and were afraid of communism, the 68 ers had to be against America and developed a positive view of the Soviet Union, Red China and Cuba. To think (like many in Germany did at this time ) these people were just a few longhaired, pot smoking, Nixon hating freaks was wrong . In fact they were the elite of the future, they were students and intellectuals and only a few of them went the violent way like the RAF terrorists did. The majority of them started their march through the institutions, they did not change their political views, up to that day they still dream their dream about a socialist One World Government, the destruction of Germany and the end of capitlism.
As time went by many out of this generation became parents themselves and teachers and they started to poison children with their ideas . They became judges and journalists and in September of 1998 their march through the institutions ended when they hijacked the German government. That's were we are now and there is no easy way out.

@ Gabi,

Thank you for your response.

Am I correct in believing that the reaction of the German elite to Gedman's claims is "Na und?"

Do you think a significant portion of the German public would also have the same "Na und?" reaction?

If the answers are yes, how do such attitudes and beliefs benefit Germany's national interests?

I read this blog regularly and find it generally depressing (let's not go into the psychological sphere and examine WHY I'd read despite the depressing nature). It's like reading the NY Times, I suppose. A steady diet of information, the same kind of information, creates a bleak picture for German/US relations.

I disagree with some who post here that Europe should be 'grateful' for the result of WWII and, therefore, should align themselves with the US. It isn't about gratitude, it's about self-interest. Are Americans grateful to Greece for developing democracy? Too far back? What's the cutoff for gratitude? Forget that, really.

Instead,let's talk about self-interest. Europe and the US both practice it. French self-interest was certainly at the core of their relations with Iraq/Saddam... ECONOMIC self-interest, that is.

Cultural pretense to liberte' was not an aspect of French policy there, yet, it now provides a figleaf to their willful blindness to Saddam's predation on most Iraquis. Short-sighted self-interest has now created a political and economic disaster for France. They have sacrificed any goodwill from the majority in Iraq and now must pin their hopes on an inclusion of their former partners there in any new government. That seems a forlorn hope and demonstrates the danger of purely economic interest dominating policy.

Where lies Germany's self-interest in Iraq? Apparently the policy in Iraq is to oppose the US.
Between denigrating the US for invading (in what we see as OUR self-interest) and spurning what seems certain to be the concrete result of a democratic Iraq, where does Germany see a positive for itself?

This aspect is what so depresses me in my reading here. The figleaf that many European countries are now donning isn't worth a fig. Their feckless calls for adherence to 'international law' are valuless when the alternative is status quo for vicious murderers who happen to control nations and the resignation of their victims to their fates.

Germany, France, Russia, and the UK are presently appealing to Iran to halt their research on nuclear weapons. Who sold them the wherewithall to conduct such research?

Who is now lining up to sell weapons technology to China? Who is most likely to ever have to confront that technology?

I guess what most depresses me is that I believe Western Europe has passed the point-of-no-return. Majorities in most of those countries see no differences between the US and any repressive nation one can name. The dominant news mediums in those countries constantly reinforce that opinion.

The EU, itself, wages war against the democratic natures of its members, imposing laws, rules, and restrictions with little regardfor, or observance of, democratic process. Complacency is occasionally interrupted when referenda are conducted and, generally, referenda are avoided for that reason.

Ah, well. I've had my say. Thanks to the authors of this blog for the opportunity. Regards....

I have never made a comment before on this site because I know very little about contemporary Germany and have forgotten almost all the German I ever knew.

But the exchange with PacRim Jim struck me. There is of course no threat of war between Europe and the US in the near future. But continued anti-Americanism in Europe does fuel anti-Europeanism in the U.S (and vice versa.) Nationalist antagonisms can persist for decades, and they provide tinder for war. I hear faint echoes of "revanche pour Sadowa" from Europe, and it is not the kind of echo sensible people like to hear. I hear faint echoes of "Wir fahren gegen Frankreich" from the U.S., and those are not good either.

Even more troubling is the European coupling of "contrepoid" and increased military might. What is the avowed purpose of being a counterweight? Why to constrain the U.S. How can military power constrain the U.S.? Why only by threatening to use it against the U.S. when Europe does not like what the U.S. is doing. I greatly doubt that this line of reasoning is consciously intended, but I also doubt that von Tirpitz intended to create the Entente Cordiale and to add a British army to those of France and Russia.
Chirac would never use the phrase "Weltmacht oder Niedergang," but the train of thought is disturbingly familiar.

Americans remember that similar patterns of Europeanness brought us ultimately into two incredibly bloody world wars. We fought in the Atlantic and the Pacific in WWII. Why?

Why did we fight the British in 1776? Why did we fight each other in 1865? Why did we fight and die in Europe? Veitnam? Korea? Somalia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Iraq? We believe in freedom.

You may want to make us think that it is OK that a genocidal maniac, with UN money, held 25 million citizens hostage and created at least 2.5 million dead people and 5 million refugees. I'm sure you hope the American people won't care (Kofi, Benon, Koji, France, Russia, Germany, Belgium, et al). You are wrong. We intend to find out who made this mess. We mean to know who had shares in Hussein. We have been looking ourselves in the collective face since 9/11. What have you been doing?

Ambrose,
I cannot speak for Germany. My opinion here is very rare. I try to be fair in my observation what is going on here in Germany. Of course I am deeply disappointed about this situation expecially with the attitude towards Israel. People are dying there and we don't send the right signals to the Palestinian terrorists. We don't support the normal non-violent people enough. But to answer your question: There is a high selfrightness in being on the right side and way. What amazes me. I wonder what they do with the facts. But I think our elite has again a poisened mind. They are wrong. Every country has its own interests like the US, like Israel, like every Arab country. But I don't see and understand a German plan and idea and German interests. Our government will send weapons to Egypt and China but not to Israel. I don't understand this. The peace movement is already preparing protests against Bush when he will come to Germany but that Egypt will get weapons cannot bother them enough to move a single finger. I don't understand this. The media is forcing a culture of hate. Why? Where do we go? What is our interest? I don't know what the majority wants. I have no answer.

I think Schröder is too weak compared to Chirac. He is Chirac's pudel. He is too weak to realize Germans interests and to name them and to get up for them.

Schröder got elected by anti-americanism and keeps it alive. That is the only thing he can do well.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31