« Liberty or Death: Millions of Iraqis Defy Terror to Vote | Main | Our Goal for 2005: A New German-Language Blog/Unser Ziel für 2005: Ein neues, deutschsprachiges Blog »

Comments

Ralf: Agreed. Anti-Americanism is not much worse in Germany. Anti-Americanism is virulent all over Europe, including Finland.

But what Germans and Finns and Europeans don't understand is that the fact that it's all over Europe doesn't change its status from clear bigotry to a mere "critical" attitude towards America. It is plain old ugly bigotry, through and through. And Germany, Finland, and the rest of Europe are swimming in it.

By the way: A few days ago I have read in a local newspaper that Switzerland is the most anti-American country here in Europe. But these people have the pro-American Weltwoche. Germany has, regardless of few exceptions, nothing.

Niko,

As you have read most of my postings then you will know that it was only one person who deemed them to be racist. At no time were they ever intended to be such and if they had been I would not have posted them. As I do not view the people of Germany to be a race then my comments may be many things but racist they surely are not. Of course, as I pointed out if you cling to the theory of the Aryan race, then they probably are racist in that context. Maybe that is what the real issue, it is about the idea of an Aryan race still lives in the hearts of Germans. And BTW I surely would not expect a government who had as a central tenet of it philosophy to support a free and democratic Iraq. I in fact might view such a government as one whose long-range goal would be to conquer them and enslave them.

And since it also offended that person to view actions as a continuation of a nation’s history and culture as well as the actions of both a nation's media and elected government then there is no context to make any comment other than in total isolation. This makes the topic of Auschwitz one that only the Germany chancellor can discuss.

For whatever it might be worth, I think Germany had failed to deal with its history in an effective manner. I do think as a nation they have made attempts to address it, which is more than one, can say for Japan.

What I see is an on going effort in much of Germany to absolve their history not by taking positive actions but by medicating it by comparing it to today's actions of the US. I do not need to cite to you the examples I speak of, as many of them have been topics of discussion.

Maybe I am too idealistic or maybe I have too much respect for Germans to think that this is possible. Maybe in fact it is just too painful for them to address their history.

I will cite you two examples of where something positive could have been done. The first and the most obvious was in the run up to the war in Iraq. The Germany government could have fully supported the position of the US. In fact, it did provide all the support that the US had requested prior to the war. What it failed to do was to publicly announce this support voth in Europe and the UN.

Now why would I think the Germans might even consider supporting the US about Iraq. Well I can only think of their history and the wars they have spread across Europe and the people they tried and in deed enslave. Here was a perfect opportunity for them to write a new and honorable chapter to their history and they chose not too. This opportunity had little or nothing to do with either being a member of NATO or having been a historical ally of the US. It did have everything to do with their history and the positive contribution they could have made to another group of people other themselves. Something where there was nothing directly to be gained for themselves but also something very real to be gained, their self respect as a mature and free nation.

A second example is what has been taking place in the Sudan. If Germany really meant this phrase Never Again, they would have troops on the ground there now doing whatever they could. Again they have chosen not to. It does not take a UNSC resolution to determine what is right and what is wrong or to identify evil.

There are many more examples of the positive contributions Germany could make but in almost all cases Germany chooses the path of least resistance, which means they choose not to contribute.

Germany has in fact staked out a position, which it considers to be the moral high ground. It would be good one day to have a discussion on this topic as to why the Germans feel this way.

I personally see by not addressing their history, Germans have taken all the wrong lessons from it. Therefore they have learned nothing other than militant pacifism and the language of multi culturism.

I am prepared to accept that I am wrong about all of this. Today nothing Germany has done has proven me to be wrong.

As Ray said Germany continues to choose to be on the wrong side of history.

@ Niko

First I agree with you (in another thread) that there is a problem in the Islamic world about standing up (maybe even sitting up) to Islamofascism. This failure to recognize it for what it is is way too widespread among Moslems. But as we saw in Iraq just yesterday, it is not universal, even among Moslems. Iraqi Moslems stood up and voted despite the death threats.

Second, I agree with you that many Germans still alive today have personal exerience of American (and British) occupation, rebuilding, and support. I suppose we did it for all that German oil. If any people in Europe have more experience with American goodwill than the Germans, I cannot name them. So you are absolutely correct that for those with that experience to interpret American motives and objectives in a way so contrary to their own experience is pretty damn depressing.

Ralf,

Then I shall narrow my comments.

As for the foucs on germany. There are a couple of ways you can look this. I will cite you two but I am sure others can add more.

The first is to just pick on germany. In other words just to bash them because they are germans.
I see a lot of that on lgf.

The second is to consider germany as a nation of great importance. A nation whose opinions do matter and who can make a positive contribution to not only europe but to the world.

Of these two my comments are based on the actions of the german government and the german people.


Ralf,

I have no idea about the examination of media in other nations. I can tell you there are thousands of websites in the US that follow what our MSM is doing. These sites are becoming more powerful as more and more people find them to be both more accuate and balanced in their coverage.

Our media is really our self appointed elites. As Americans we have little use for elites. That is one of many reasons there is such a huge gap between MSM and the average citizen. That gap is growing not closing.

Joe,

may I answer as a German.

You wrote: "the idea of an Aryan race still lives in the hearts of Germans."
I think this is not a point in the German hearts or soul. I know nothing about Neonazis and what they believe but the normal German people don't consider themselves as Aryans. That was only under Hitler and I never heard it in my life.

You wrote:"I think Germany had failed to deal with its history in an effective manner."
This is a great problem. I think my generation does not know much about Nazi Deutshcland and the next generations know less and less and nothing. Just some facts what Nazis did but never ever the problem of guilt and responsibility. So this German trauma never got a chance to heal. It is an open wound or an ugly scar. I don't know. I am too much involved to have an neutral view.

What to do with this ugly history? Schlußstrich? I think we don't have this choice. There are still victims who still hate us or disgust us or just don't like us as a country. And there are the children and grandchildren of the victims. All their lifes are infected by the Holocaust. Up to now. There cannot be an end made by Germans. We cannot say: It is over. It is not over. Also the grandchildren live with the consequences of the holocaust. It is in their souls as it is in our souls.

It is a responsibility for ever.

There can be Versöhnung (reconciliation) between Germany and Israel. So many Jews escaped to Israel. What happened to our special responsibily for this country? Where did it go? Schröder changed this. And this I really don't like. Covered with peace-words, Germany is supporting and helping Palestinian terrorists.

How do the victims and their families feel about this? I find it shameful.


As I posted somewhere else: No more war is not the right answer. Not war killed the Jews. Antisemitism and hate and Größenwahn killed 6 Million of people. AS long as Germans don't understand this lesson, they did not learn why Auschwitz happened and why was it possible. I see this hate again. There are signs in our society that people have again enemies. But they are hiding behind words like "peace". They scream peace and live their hate again.

No more hate should be the right answer. No more enemies.

When they say no more war, they only refer to the war what they started and came back to them. So their own war destroyed their cities and lifes. And they say now: No more war and think of their losses.

Already in 1932 Nazi Deutschland started to destroy the lifes of the Jewish people. Lawyers could not work. Don't buy at Jews shops. Shortly after that, it was not allowed to be married with a Jew.

The war was terrible for the other countries but not the reason for the concentration camps, for the Holocaust.

I think that many Germans think when they say today, no more war, they have learnt. But they have not even understand how did it come and why.

I apologize for my English. It is such a difficult theme and more difficult to express it in English.

No people want to feel guilty forever about their country and history. Today's Germans should not be blamed for the crimes of their grandfathers. However, it is disturbing to see Germans scapegoating now like they did before the world wars. Germany seems to be a pendulum that swings to extremes. Where is your ballast, your mittelvolk?

David,
Who talks about guilt? It is RESPONSIBILITY! Nobody blames us for the Nazi crimes. We have to understand our responsibility for the victims and their children.

I'm an American living in Erfurt, in the former DDR. Some people commenting here are trying to elevate the bias of the German media into a platitude about German civilization. I really don't think it's that lofty. It really just comes down to the fact that the German media, German politicians, even everyday Germans having a political conversation know they can win cheap popularity points by criticizing the US. It's gotten to the point where one doesn't even have to bother with the effort of making an argument anymore: just saying "Bush" or "America" and rolling your eyes elicits a laugh. Don't be too quick to judge though. American liberals do the same thing with Bush, as American conservatives did with Clinton and do now with France.

The problem in Germany also stems from a lack of media competition. For all the ranting from some people about the "liberal MSM" in America, the US reaches some rudimentary equilibrium of ideology (especially if you exclude Fox News and the New York Times) thanks to healthy competition. This has only gotten stronger with the internet and the advent of new sources of information and perspective like, well, this blog. I don't think the German media is as monolithic as, say, the UK, but it could definitely use a dose of opposing voices. Germans are just a critically-thinking as anyone else -- that is, not nearly enough -- but the homogeneity of their media certain doesn't help.

Gabi,
That was extremely well-said!!

@ Ernie,

I don't think there is homogeneity in the German media. In fact you can see a lot of differences on economic and domestic issues. These differences also exist on foreign policy issues with the Springer-newspapers and the FAZ being a lot more pro-American than ARD (publicly funded and therefore left), FR or TAZ. Der Spiegel is a special case: Read it for a couple of weeks and you'll realise that it is in fact against everything and everyone. People who think the Spiegel (I'm talking about the print edition) is anti-American, should read its articles on German politics which are just as negative.
In the last two years however the German media has been very critcal towards the Iraq-war which is, of course, legitimate if you give both sides of the argument a chance to explain themselves and if you don't leave information that is vital. I think some news-outlets have been critical but fair while others have used cheap polemics. Very many postings on this blog are devoted to SPON, DW, FR and TAZ but that is in no way the complete German media.

As for the UK, its newspaper market is among the most competitive in the world and journalistic standards have fallen dramatically due to price-wars between quality newspapers. Considering papers with great traditions such as the Times or the Guardian, it is rather sad.

@ Niko,

"I believe in the concept of things being absolutely right and wrong, with no 'shades of gray' inbetween"

I guess those concepts would be something like democracy and freedom. But the methods used to achieve these noble ends do have a 'shade of grey' such as cooperation with Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Those methods might be necessary but they I would never call them absolutely right.

There is something I have am not sure if I remember correctly and wish one of you would could help me with it. I do not remember precisely the reasons stated for Germany not supporting the US or the UN prior to the war in Iraq.

I can remember some of the slogans but not the reasons.

Thank you.

@ Joe,

the reason was something along the line 'We know how terrible war is and that's why there shouldn't be one'. The other one was 'there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam' (I think)

Gabi,

As your comments relate to Germany and Israel, one of the stated goals of the Iranian government is the destruction of Israel.

Should the “soft power” efforts of the eu3 fail in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, berlin has made it very clear to the world they are prepared to do nothing more.

So as you would indicate the special relationship which berlin speaks of sounds like so much flowery and flowing words in this situation.

If I can see this, then I am equally sure others can see it too, both those in Europe and out of Europe. It has to make them wonder just what does germany mean.


Phil, Gabi, Niko,

Then it would have been just as easy for Chancellor Schroeder to have said something like this too.


We know how terrible war is. We also know how terrible living in a nation ruled by a dictator can be. How such a dictator left alone is a danger to all of those nations around his own. We see in Iraq much of what at one point occurred in our own history, the gassing of innocent civilians, the mass murder, the denial of the most basic of human rights and the exportation of fear and hate. As a nation, we stood by and watched this; we can no longer stand silently. We will join with the other free nations of the world and demand Iraq fully comply with the all UNSC resolutions. If they fail to do so then we will stand as part of the Coalition of the Willing ready to take whatever actions necessary to free the world from the threat of WMDs and to give freedom to the Iraqi people.

While some may think there is a need to prove a direct link between the terrible events of 9 11 and Saddam, I do not. Saddam is both a supporter and a practitioner of terror. He supplies arms, money and training to those who would attack free nations. He, along with Syria and Iran, supports those terror organizations, which want the destruction of Israel. This too we cannot accept nor can we support.

Saddam by failing to comply with the resolutions of the UNSC leave the free nations no other choice.


This would have been a much more correct lesson to learn from history than the militant pacifism now at the heart of German foreign policy.

I for one would think such a speech and such a position would have won Germany great respect both in the world and even more so in Europe.

I think RotGrün became a kind of größenwahnsinnig. They like to oppose everything the US is doing just for fun. No concept. Just opposition like teenagers. I don't see a plan or concept. We gave up our support for Israel. Let the terrorists or Iran do the rest, or why? This cancellor destroyed everything I believed Germany is: a friend of the US and Israel. It disappered in dust and dirt. And our media loves it because they have the same mentality: US - WE ARE STRONG AGAIN! ÄTSCH! BÄTSCH! But only in their dreams. In reality Germany is nothing anymore. The supporter of terror. But they call it peace. How can something be peaceful what Osama Bin Laden makes happy? Are they crazy?

Joe,

in the German media they never reported about the possibility that this Iraqi war was legal. It was 100 % illegal. Forget Kosovo! Old-Europe did not want this war. So there was a network of lies between our politicians and the media. And the CDU was too weak to support the US. They saw these strong strong hatred against the US and supported the pressure on Iraq but that was all. What to do after the pressure? They had no answer. They did not support the war really. They were too afraid of the public opinion.

I think it has to do with Israel. That our journalists think that the occupation is causing the terror. Ridiculous and naiv - and dangerous for Israel. Are they afraid of the Palestinian terrorists? I think so. Wasn't there connections with the German RAF terror?

"Beate Klarsfeld, ohrfeigte 1968 Kanzler Kurt Georg Kiesinger, um spektakulär auf dessen Vergangenheit als NSDAP-Mitglied aufmerksam zu machen:
Ich fühle mich nicht schuldig, aber ich denke, dass meine Generation eine historische und moralische Verantwortung hat, der viele nicht gerecht geworden sind. Als Kinder der Nazis hätten wir zeigen müssen, dass es ein neues Deutschland gibt. Zwei Drittel der Juden auf Erden wurden von Deutschen vernichtet; es ist unsere Pflicht, alles dafür zu tun, dass sich so etwas nie wiederholt. Ich persönlich habe mir da nichts vorzuwerfen, ich habe mein Leben lang gegen NS-Verbrecher und Antisemitismus gekämpft. Das liegt sicher auch daran, dass ich 1960 nach Frankreich gegangen bin, wo ich meinen Mann Serge kennen gelernt habe. Sein Vater war in Auschwitz ermordet worden, mein Vater war in der Wehrmacht gewesen. Dadurch bekam ich endlich den Geschichtsunterricht, von dem im Nachkriegsdeutschland nicht die Rede sein konnte. Dort lebten die NS-Verbrecher in Freiheit, und Hunderte von alten Nazis saßen in leitenden Funktionen. Das änderte sich erst durch die 68er, doch die wurden dann sehr schnell extrem Israel-feindlich. Und mein ehemaliger Verteidiger Horst Mahler ist heute Neonazi."

http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/index.html?id=535750&p=2&nv=ct_cb


Eigentlich finde ich den Stern oft hetzerisch, aber das ist ganz gut.

@ Gabi,

The German government opposed the war in Iraq but they don't oppose everything the US does. We are still in Afghanistan, we train Iraqi troops (outside Iraq I admit), our policies towards Iran have not been condemned by the US although they are sceptical. On the Ukraine there was virtual agreement. I know that our commitment in armed conflicts is extremely limited but that doesn't mean that we oppose everything the US does.
As for policies towards Israel, I know you are really concerned about the issue. However I cannot see a fundamental change in our government's policies compared to Kohl's government. President Rau spoke in fron of the Knesset and Köhler is about to do the same. There might be a very 'loud' opposition against Israel among the left or the far-right but I cannot see any reflections of it in our current policies.

But maybe you can provide me with examples. I've got the feeling that Israelis and the Israeli government are not half as concerned as you are about Germany's positions. Last time I checked, Sharon was heavily criticising France.

Gabi,

You point to some of the reasons I personally have problems with the German ideals that they somehow occupy the moral high ground.

Because they have such a strong moralistic attitude about this, I want them to tell me where it comes from. I feel this position is built on sand.

I find their actions of today lacking in principle. I find nowhere in their history as a nation - if one is still allowed to look at German history - where this principle comes from.

It appears to be a slipping standard to be applied only when it is in what the elites in German feel is some how to their advantage. Because it has no foundation, it has no meaning. The idea of slippage is being applied to all areas of international relationship be it from Iraq, to Iran, to the UN, to Israel, to China, to Russia, to the UK, to the EU or to the US.

There are all types of examples of this. One being the budget deficit rules which Germany demanded be part of the overall euro plan. When Germany cannot meet these then they want a pass on them ir they do not apply to Germans.

If another nation had broken these same rules, I think it is safe to say that Germany, if in complaisance, would be demanding a resolution, a resolution now and not at some future date.

This thinking, these standards or more accurately lack of standards and principles, this hypocrisy does not go unnoticed in either the world or in Europe. I dare say it is even more closely watched in the EU. Do not think for one second this attitude is not resented and that it does not create an atmosphere of distrust and contribute to a sense of disgust.


Ralf,

Here is a bit of insight to CNN. When their election coverage started they placed a reporter at what they said was a polling station. For the first hour, the anchor desk in Atlanta would keep asking her where the voters were. She went into these long comments about fear and terror and the overall security situation etc. She gave every impression that this was huge failure. In one of the other broadcast sites here in the US, a CNN expert talked about how the timing for this election was wrong, how this would be a huge setback for President Bush, etc.

An hour or so later Atlanta got back to her and she was standing in a polling place with people everywhere voting. CNN reported she had moved to another section and to a new polling place.

Well the truth of the matter is the first location was not a polling place at all. CNN got it wrong. At no time did they on the air correct their mistake. She and CNN left the viewer with the impression that where they first were located no one was voting. (Which of course was technically true as no one was suppose to vote there. This could only be an interpretation that CNN and the french could come up with and think acceptable.) They just left all those comments meant todegrade the efforts of the Iraqi people and the Collation on the record.

This might be just another reason CNN is sinking and their core audience is the left and hard left of the democratic party and various other moonbats.

CNN is very much an organ of the liberal left and such are supporters of the democratic party and by extension germany as socalists everywhere share certain principles and beliefs.

I think that German opposition to the Iraqi war is not so noble but is based primarily on simple self-interest. It is in the self-interest of all of Europe, who are weak militarily and by comparison to the US, economically (at least at the moment), to oppose, as a general principle, all uses of American military power. Chirac and Schroeder have explained publically that Europe should be a counter-balance to the American super-power. Their policies on the invasion of Iraq were perfectly in keeping with their intention to use their strengths of diplomacy, negotiations and appeasement to check the world's only super-power.

Weaker nations logically fear stronger nations. Europe fears the US's military strength and does all that it can to undermine American displays of strength. The anti-American fervor stirred up among the ordinary citizens of Europe by a media in lock-step with its governing elite is simply one very important element in the overall strategy of Europe to change the balance of power. An example: Germany wants the arms embargo on China lifted for two reasons: 1, Germany will profit by selling more arms and 2, a militarily stronger China will challenge the US super-power...a perfectly logical plan in the minds of the German government, no?

The flaw in these plans is that they won't work. Europe is simply too weak and the US is now a (since WWII) militaristic society and very powerful economically, two characteristics that the culture of "business", "individuality", and "appetite for risk" will continue to keep the US very strong. Europe will remain weak as only the group is important in European culture. (This is so firmly entrenched in the Euro psyche that it will not change for at least a century, probably longer and only after another huge societal upheaval in Europe.) When risk-taking is abhorrent to a society, they can never be strong. They can be weak and comfortable (if they are lucky) but never strong. Socialism ruins a peoples' spirit and spirit is a basic necessity for strength. Chirac and Schroeder have let their dreams of challenging the US become simply folly.

Phil, you are out of touch.

As for policies towards Israel, I know you are really concerned about the issue

So, that's it? Gabi is concerned? No, Phil, ALL normal people are concerned. I don't know if you are one of them.

There might be a very 'loud' opposition against Israel among the left or the far-right but I cannot see any reflections of it in our current policies

This line is the proof that you are out of touch, Phil. Of course Germany is not agressively anti-Semite today. The problem is that through its moral relativism, Germany encourages the ones who would repeat the Holocaust if they had the chance. Fischer talking about the "Spirale der Gewalt", Germany not voting against the condemnation of Israel by the UN because of the defense fence, Germany ignoring the sponsorship of Pal. terror with EU money are only a few examples of an attitude that isn't Israel-friendly.

Phil, anti-Semitism today doesn't mean only gasing Jews and then burning them or shooting them in the head. It's more subtle and many people, obviously including you, are not able to get it. Many German politicians and most of the German media are in fact, through their "understanding" for Israel's mortal enemies, nothing less than moral accomplices of the criminal terror against the Jews. This concept will most likely be an overload for your mental circuits and your circuit breaker will kick in and help you ignore the reality. That's fine, we all do what we are best at.

@ WhatDoIKnow

I do get the concept of anti-Semitism and I am not out of touch. In my answer to Gabi I was clearly referring to the policies of the current German government and I argued that its policies have not changed compared to the Kohl government. Dodgy EU funding is nothing new and has been scaled back and the line that the defense fence takes has not gone down well, even with the Americans.

I would like to give a longer reply but I have to go. But ask yourself if you are setting the right tone on the blog. None of my postings at 'Medienkritik' are in anyway offending to anyone. They are all genuine discussion postings. As for you, you don't read my posting properly, then call me out of touch and tell me that my mental circuits are insufficient. WhatDoYouKnow yourself? Not much.

@ Phil

I do think that the German media does reach some homogenous consensus when it comes to foreign policy, at least among the major newspapers, magazines, and news programs. Maybe it is because of broad strokes of anti-establishmentarianism rather than anti-Americanism or anti-Anglophonism in particular. I'm not sure. I admit that I was sadly ignorant of the German media before I came here a year ago, and the year since then has been dominated by the same foreign policy issues, so it's probably not an ideal window of time with which to judge the German media.

I also didn't mean to argue that it was that way on domestic issues too... certainly anyone arguing that need only review the coverage and commentary on Hartz IV.

@ Ernie,

There has certainly been a certain degree of homogeneity in the German media when it comes to issue of Iraq. My point was simply that there very much is competition among newspapers and media outlets in Germany and that there is a healthy degree of diversification on most issues. Also we should realise that media outlets try to sell as many copies as possible and therefore write what many people want to read, i.e. newspapers being negative cos they think it's what we want to hear.

@ Jarrod

In answer to your question:

"... but I want what the Iraqis owe me for their freedom and first elections, NOW and big time."

And what exactly does that mean?

*****
The US anti-war faction is now beginning to clamor for monetary recompense for what the US has invested in the Iraq war, rebuilding and elections. It was these same people who shouted the loudest that the US was in Iraq only for the oil and monetary gain, and yet, ironically, these are the same people who are now shouting the loudest for some kind of monetary payback now that the elections have been successfully completed.

I call these do-nothing demanding people... carpet-baggers.

[And reply to Carl Densing: Yes. Chirac, Schroeder, Annan and a whole host of others are on that list.]

Did that answer your question?

Niko,

Thank you for requesting I be cut some slack.

The selection of the word "race" was not at all unfortunate. It was selected with great care and its use was very intentional.

In the US to be called a racist when one is not, is the typical standard operating procedure of the Left when they really have no other answer.

It would appear that in Germany the procedure is to call someone either a Jew or a Nazi.

I guess some people really cannont support their positions and that is fine with me.

I am sure for some Germans it is a huge shock that someone would disagree with the positions their elites wrap themselves in and spread to the general population.

So unless you happen to be Aryan....

As for the broad bush, I tend to paint with, I can assure you it is much narrower in focus than what most Germans are expoused to about America.

I guess some here are uncomfortable to find themselves in the back blast area just as most Americans are too.

Phil,

I truly enjoy your posts. There are always so many things where our views of events, positions, actions and history seem to differ. I am sure a large part of that has to with factors such as age, culture, information sources, etc.

Your comment about Ukraine made me think about just how the german policy came about. It was caused by the actions of “new Europe”. Those nations, which border and are much closer to Ukraine than Germany. Those nations felt interference by Russia was a real long range threat. They have a much different relationship and history with Russia than germany. At no time during this crisis did germany actually take the political lead. It was done primarily by Poland.

Germany was fearful of antagonizing Russia, as was much of “old Europe”. This remains true today. There is a policy shift-taking place. Europe lead by germany is going in one direction and the US is going in another direction as far as policy toward Russia is concerned. There are many reasons for this other than the non, nyet and nein alliance. The primary reason is germany is now dependent upon Russia for more than 40% of its energy. Of course in an effort to counter the US, one cannot fully discount the non, nyet and nein alliance either.

So germany came late to the policy, did not come willing or at the very least was reluctant and did little. Much like the deployment of the P2 to Europe in the 80’s.

Phil

You gave us all a great example of the failing logic and analysis you process and what appears to infect most of your fellow citizens. Your comment about the current polices of the germany government was…they have not changed from the Kohl government.

Yes that is probably true but even discounting Iraq much in the Middle East has changed. Want to start with the rise and exportation of Islamic Fascism, or maybe what has until recently been a continuing barrage of suicide attacks against Israel or the reality that Iran could go nuclear in a relative short period of time. I would say these were significant changes since the Kohl government.


Yes, Phil the policies have not changed. What has changed is the environment they are being applied too. This seems to be take-off on the theme of …just following orders. In this case, well do not blame us or you cannot blame this government as they are doing just what the Kohl government did and that seemed to make everyone happy.

@Joe,

There is probably a difference in age, background and culture between us. Although I often disagree with many postings here I enjoy participating in this blog because I think it raises important issues

Regarding the Ukraine: my point is simply that the US took the same positions along with the EU which shows to me that there very much are common values.
Regarding Israel: In my opinion it is a good sign that our president will speak in the Knesset today. I think it is in no way anti-Semitic to criticise projects such as the seperation fence as long as you state your clear commitment to the existence of the state of Israel.

With regards to the current political situation in the middle-east that you mention in your argument: Yes, the Europeans negotiate with Iran, but why not? The Americans seem sceptical but are willing to give it a try. And since most of you think highly of GWB I'm sure you trust him to do the right thing at the right time. I think every possible route has to be explored before going into an armed conflict.

I think people like you (correct me if I'm wrong) are using double standars: trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities is portrayed as supporting an enemy of Israel. Yet the US closely cooperating with oppressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia (with one of the worst human rights records) or Pakistan is portrayed as Realpolitik in the war on terror. Both policies have noble aims: preventing the spread of a nuclear bomb and finding terrorists, yet only one is condemned here.

Artikel URL: http://de.news.yahoo.com/050201/3/4e9b5.html


Dienstag 1. Februar 2005, 11:10 Uhr
Extremisten in Gaza drohen mit Wiederaufnahme von Angriffen

Gaza (dpa) - Nach dem Tod eines zehnjährigen Mädchens im Gazastreifen haben die palästinensischen Extremistengruppen mit einer Wiederaufnahme ihrer Angriffe auf Israel gedroht. Das geht aus einem gemeinsamen Flugblatt von acht radikalen Fraktionen, darunter Hamas und Islamischer Dschihad, hervor. Nach palästinensischer Darstellung hatten israelische Soldaten von einem Wachturm an der Grenze zu Ägypten auf das Kind geschossen. Von Israel hieß dagegen, in der Gegend seien von israelischer Seite keine Schüsse abgegeben worden.

Und das sagt Sahm dazu:

"Der Tod einer Zehnjährigen
Jerusalem, 31. Januar 2005 - Gewiss ist nur: die zehn Jahre alte Nouran Iyad Dib ist tot. Sie wurde am Kopf verletzt, sagen palästinensische Ärzte in Rafah. Das Mädchen wurde "angeblich" auf dem Weg zur UNO-Schule getroffen.
Etwa 3000 Palästinenser und 1000 Israelis starben während der Intifada. Dennoch ist Nourans Tod keine Routine. Die Intifada ist angeblich beendet. Dem "informellen Waffenstillstand" wird von beiden Seiten gehuldigt, obgleich es an irritierenden Zwischenfällen nicht mangelt. Solange die Israelis von einem "drastischen Rückgang der Gewalttaten" reden und der funktionslose "starke Mann" Muhamad Dahlan mit dem israelischen Verteidigungsminister Marathongespräche führt, muss man zuversichtlich sein. Die Israelis wollen palästinensische Städte räumen: Kalkilja, Tulkarem, Ramallah, Jericho und Bethlehem. Die Palästinenser träumen von einer Freilassung von 8000 Gefangenen. Ministerpräsident Ariel Scharon wird wohl dem Palästinenserpräsidenten Muhammad Abbas die Zahl der amnestierten Gefangenen als Morgengabe übergeben.
Dann kam der Tod von Nouran Iyad Dib. Die Hamas schoss Granaten auf Neve Dekalim. Eine landete auf dem Dach eines Hauses. Der Putz der Decke stürzte auf den Esstisch einer Familie beim Mittagessen. Verletzt wurde niemand. Die Hamas redete von einer "Vergeltungsaktion" für den Tod des Mädchens. Die Israelis beschwerten sich. Bewaffnete palästinensische Polizisten sollten doch solchen Beschuss verhindern.
Erste Informationen über den Tod des Mädchens veröffentlichte der "Palestine Monitor". Der Titel enthielt eine Schuldzuweisung: "Israel verletzte erneut den Waffenstillstand". Doch in der zweiten Zeile heißt es vorsichtiger: "Die Kugel kam ANGEBLICH von einer israelischen Militärstellung an der Grenze zu Ägypten." Adnan, Gehilfe des Friedensaktivisten und Präsidentschaftskandidaten Mustafa Bargoutti, der um die 20 Prozent der Stimmen gegen Mahmoud Abbas gewann und den Informationsdienst betreibt,
gestand: "Sie haben durchaus recht, wenn Sie da einen Widerspruch entdecken..." Der aufklärende Rückruf kam nie.
Ein paar Zeilen weiter wird der Sprecher des UN-Hilfswerks für palästinensische Flüchtlinge (UNRWA), Paul McCann, zitiert: "Dies ist der fünfte Vorfall, in dem Kinder beim Unterricht in unserer Schule durch israelischen Beschuss verletzt wurden." Eben war das Mädchen noch auf dem Schulweg, inzwischen sitzt es schon im Unterricht. Der neutrale UNO-Sprecher weiß genau, dass es eine israelische Kugel war. Weiter heißt es: "Palästinensische Polizei bezog Stellung zwischen der Schule und israelischen Posten. Die Gegend war ruhig. Israelisches Feuer passierte die palästinensisch-kontrollierten Gebiete ohne Provokation."
ap berichtete von einer "Belastungsprobe für den Waffenstillstand". Das Kind wurde von einem "Panzer beschossen und am Kopf getroffen". Nach palästinensischen Angaben war es aber nur eine Kugel.
Der israelische Militärsprecher behauptete, die Untersuchung sei "nicht abgeschlossen. Kein israelischer Soldat habe geschossen.
Wenig später meldete der Militärsprecher, in der Gegend habe es zwei Zwischenfälle gegeben, aber nicht dort, wo das Mädchen ums Leben gekommen sei. Palästinenser hätten sich bis auf 50 oder 100 Meter israelischen Stellungen in Sperrzonen genähert. Die Warnschüsse hätten keinesfalls das Mädchen treffen können. Die verdächtigen Palästinenser seien infolge der Warnschüsse verschwunden. Bei Kontakten palästinensischer und israelischer Offiziere sei die Frage der "Freudenschüsse" frommer Rückkehrer des Hadsch, der Pilgerfahrt nach Mekka, aufgebracht worden. Die Palästinenser baten ihre israelischen Partner, wegen dieser Schüsse nicht gleich zu schießen.
Kaum meldete der israelische Rundfunk diese Angabe, da bestätigten palästinensische Sprecher, dass es in Rafah nahe der Schule ein Fest mit ortsüblichen Freudenschüssen gegeben habe. Das Mädchen könnte dieser wilden Schießerei zum Opfer gefallen sein.
Gleichwohl bot Militärsprecher an, den Zwischenfall vom Tod der Zehnjährigen mit den Palästinensern "gemeinsam aufzuklären".
Die Recherche zu dem Zwischenfall mit einem unschuldigen Opfer lehrt, dass Wahrheit relativ ist und für politische Bedürfnisse der UNO, der Hamas, der Israelis und der Autonomiebehörde zurechtgebogen wird. Ob der letzte Stand der Wahrheit entspricht, lässt sich nicht überprüfen. Israel und die Autonomiebehörde haben kein Interesse an einer Eskalation. Sie wollen der Hamas keinen Vorwand liefern, Angriffe auf Israel zu erneuern. So bleiben die Wahrheit und ein unschuldiges Menschenleben auf der Strecke. Für den Tod der zehnjährigen Nouran Iyad Dib wird niemand die Verantwortung übernehmen oder zur Rechenschaft gezogen."




Phil.

Two short points – first” old Europe” was very late to embrace the policy on the Ukraine.
While it could have been opposed this policy, and we both know how that can work, it did not. You unlike me give germany much too much credit for taking this position.

Iran – I am sure you are fully aware of the stated policy of the Iranian government, which calls for the destruction of Israel. To my knowledge this is not the stated policy of either of the two nations you mentioned. Iran fully supports this policy thought its support of terrorist organizations.

As for being critical of the separation wall Israel has built, I find that at best to be most disingenuous on the part of Germany. I say this because this wall is to protect the citizens of Israel. It has in fact done so as it has reduced the number of suicide attacks. Until such time germany is prepared to deploy her own forces on the ground to protect Israel from these attacks I see little merit to the criticism coming from either you or berlin.

One of the overriding criticisms I have of your nation and your government is they only criticize and do little more. They never have a second viable position or solution to any international problem. Germany could have taken a much stronger position against the PA than it did. With a cut off of both funding and political support, the situation might very well be much different today.

To think that much of Europe treated a known terrorist as Yasser Arafat as some type of hero only proves your inability to determine the difference between good and evil.

And I will correct you about being wrong on the use of a double standard. Do I need to remind you how triumphal your Chancellor was when he returned from Saudi Arabia an announced a new trade agreement.

Your comment about this ignores what germany does. So if any double standard is being applied, it is being applied by you.

I mock the moralistic superior attitude of your government because it has no underpinning of principle.

For those of you who are as German language challenged as I am here is an analysis of the information from the Media Tenor organization.

REVIEW AND OUTLOOK
Europe's Left in Denial
February 1, 2005
Wall Street Journal On Line European Edition.

The European left's attempts at damage control came right away. Just hours after the scenes viewed around the world of joyous and determined Iraqis defying terrorists by casting their votes, Germany's Social Democratic parliamentary group sent out a press release with the following headline: "Iraq elections: A good step but no retroactive justification for the war."

It says much about the decline of Germany's left (and Europe's for that matter) that the removal of a fascist dictator and the spread of democracy cannot be considered a worthy end in itself -- at least not if the dictator is Arab and the liberators American.

The same bias runs through much of Europe's media. According to a common narrative, nothing good could possibly come out of this "illegitimate" war. But that their ideological zeal to uncritically condemn American policy surpasses that of Arab media surely should be cause for some introspection.

Media-Tenor, a media analysis center headquartered in Bonn, Germany, studied the Iraq election coverage of 41 main European media outlets in Germany, France, the U.K., Spain and Italy between Jan. 17 and Jan. 26. The analysis compared this with 12 leading Arab TV stations and newspapers. Specifically, the researchers looked at how the journalists presented the legitimacy of the elections. The results "even stunned our Arab researchers," Markus Rettich, director of political studies at Media Tenor, told us.

"European media portray a dramatic picture ahead of the elections in Iraq. The legitimacy of the election is strongly questioned. Almost no positive Iraqi sources are quoted," Media Tenor writes.

The Arab media, on the other hand, "make significantly fewer skeptical statements regarding the legitimacy of the elections in Iraq. In contrast to the Europeans, the Arab coverage quotes more Iraqi sources. As far as legitimacy is concerned, Al Jazeera & Co. seem to be reporting about a different election," Media Tenor concludes.

During the observation period, ambivalence or outright negative reporting about the legitimacy of the election always topped at least 60% of the European coverage. In the Arab media, positive reporting about the legitimacy usually topped 60% and sometimes was even 100%.

In Germany, the coverage appeared particularly biased. Nearly 80% of the reports regarding the legitimacy was negative in the coverage of ARD and ZDF, the two main state-funded broadcasters, which produce the "most-trusted" news shows. "The trend of the reports from ARD and ZDF correspond to the extremely one-sided pattern of reporting that we have observed since [Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder's change of his U.S. policy in the final phase of the 2002 German general elections," Media Tenor editor-in-chief Roland Schatz said in a press release. "The media present the German public with a situation in Iraq that is twice as negatively portrayed as the one under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship."

"As long as the same daily topic is offered from Baghdad, the viewers cannot come to an independent judgment about what has been achieved in Iraq," Mr. Schatz said.

We can add to this from our own observation of the media in Germany and beyond. French-state owned TF1, for example, Sunday made much of a report from Amman in which a German diplomat was complaining of "irregularities" and absence of monitors. As Michael Rubin wrote on these pages yesterday: "Judging an Iraqi election from Amman is the geographical and political equivalent of monitoring an American poll from Havana."

Some European media are struggling today to reconcile this incredible display of courage and yearning for democracy by the Iraqi people with the distorted picture they have been painting of supposedly abject American failure in Iraq. The shock in some quarters is not unlike that which followed the re-election of President Bush. The inability to predict or even contemplate Mr. Bush's victory stemmed from the same type of ideological bias that "informed" much of Europe's Iraq coverage.

Then as now some are still in denial. "Americans are stupid," was Europe's verdict as the results came in Nov. 2. Surely there must be an equally facile answer to why Iraqis risked their lives to vote. Given a little time, someone in Europe will come up with it.


@ Joe,

criticising your double standards does not mean that I do not detest our government's moral standard. I agree that we are terribly opportunistic and pretend to know everything better.

As for Saudi Arabia, there might not be a commitment to the destruction of Israel but that is not the only issue in this world. Women are not allowed to drive cars. Adultery is often punished by death. Most of the 9/11 highjackers came from there. For me that is reason enough to be suspicious of any cooperation with that country. Summing up, I know that the German government has double standards but you should admit that the US has similar problems. How do you achieve your aims while remaining on the moral highground?

As for the fence, I agree with you on the right of Israel to protect itself. But why wasn't it built on the border to the West Bank? Instead it has built around several settlements and has created an arbitrary border. These are issues I am interested in , I don't think they are anti-Semitic or stupid and I am not convinced by current explenation (I might be soon: my flatmate is Israeli and 'brainwashes' me every day:-))

Phil

America has never claimed the moral superoity in a way as the germans have. You talk we do. Do we make mistakes - surely. Do we have to compromise our ideals at times - certainly.

As for the fence, it provides the best protection along the line it was build. It is like building any fortification one must use the tactical advantage of the ground.

I could have been cute and said... well if the Arabs did not continue to start wars they could not win, then the boarders of Israel would not be an issue.

And once again, I have no double standard here. I feel it is the germans who do.

Who and on what principle is germany leading the charge to lift the arms embargo on China or to nomralize relations with Cuba.

Did I miss something.. ?

Joe,

as I said above, you're absolutely right on Germany's double standards as they can be seen in the example of China.

But in my opinion the American government very much claims the moral highground. It pusues its policies in the name of liberty and freedom. Yet, some states get away with actions that are contrary to those principles.

Phil

I didn't mean to say that your mental circuits are insufficient. They are just not prepared to deal with some issues. I also didn't mean to imply that you are not intelligent enough to understand issues. If that's the feeling you got from my posting, I appologize. I don't think that you excuse the terror in any way, but I believe that you don't understand how Germany's politicians, willingly or unwillingly encourage anti-Semitism in the ME.

One thing will stay though. I don't mean to offend you, but I really believe that you are out of touch.

Dodgy EU funding is nothing new and has been scaled back

Well, it wasn't dodgy, it was official. And when was it scaled back? After enough Jews were murdered? After enough children were indoctrinated for life with anti-Semite propaganda through school books financed by the EU? Why did it take so long to scale it back? You said it yourself: is nothing new. Germany knew all along what was happening with the funds but they didn't act. That's exactly my point, that's what is criminal in the attitude of Germany.

the defense fence takes has not gone down well, even with the Americans

Sorry, but the Americans were against condemning Israel. Germany was not. How do you think pal. terrorists read those actions? Germany does not encourage the killings of Israelis in any shape or form, but unfortunately pal. terrorists feel encouraged by Germany's(and EU's) actions, whether Germany likes it or not. Do you understand that?

I cannot see a fundamental change in our government's policies compared to Kohl's government

Phil, this is another reason why I believe that you are out of touch. Germany's policies haven't changed, indeed, but the reality has changed. The situation couldn't be more different than it was during Kohl's time, but Germany has failed to adjust its policies. For a country like Gerrmany this failure is outrageous and irresponsible.

I hope you understand my point. I don't believe a second that Germany will ever repeat Auschwitz. The huge problem though is that Germany is much too willing to "cooperate" with the ones who would like to create a new Auschwitz. That's why I claim that Germany(and the EU) is, with or without its will, moral accomplice to murder and attemepted murder.

@phil

Germans were once willing to die for an ideology : Nazism. Today they enjoy a freedom given to them but not earned. To generalise : they make perfunctory fantastic statements on issues whose basis lies in the very ideology held sacred too Americans : freedom, liberty, democracy. This mockery can only be described as contempt. Period.

@James

Understanding Germans needs a little more than your statement. What you´ve stated would never explain the risk and the achievments of the revolution in 89 in the GDR.

JOe,

thanks, I understand better now what you are getting at.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are consistently rated among the most oppressive regimes both politically and economically. They may have made overtures to Israel (even dramatic ones in Egypt's case), but Christ, when Iran has had freer elections, you know something is amiss in these countries. They are dictatorships, and yet receive generous amounts of American funding. Why? The only reason I can think of is stability in a powder-keg region full of conflicting religions and ethnicities, not to mention oil. Whether or not this is a laudable goal, it is clearly at odds with American rhetoric, and makes them at least as hypocritical as Germany.

Plus, maybe I'm just ignorant, but wasn't the contraversy surrounding the Israeli security wall not whether or not they could build one in the first place, but whether or not they could build one on Palestinian land?

Ralf,

Another example which is probably even worse becuase it influnced so many people.

This leads many Americans like myself to question what we receive from our MSM and in particular CNN.

For the longest time between 1991 and to the end when Iraq was freed we got a very different picture of what Iraq was about than the reality there. I dare say most people who really tried to follow this issue faced the same problem. I do not care if the coverage is from Europe or the US. In fact, only last week the AP wire service got upset here in the states with a newspaper that changed insurgents to the word terrorists. The AP’s position was by doing so the paper was putting their reporters in danger. These reporters were in some way embedded with the terrorists. This has become apparent to many here when we get reports of car bombs going off and we have almost live on the spot coverage.

I know CNN has some following in Europe. I know this because so many of my German friends ask me about it. They think if I am seeing the same thing as they are seeing how in the world as an intelligent thoughtful person could I ever support GWB. Well we do not see the same broadcasts. CNN has been very careful to keep this away from the American people. It is always interesting to talk to people who have seen the same event reported by CNN I and CNN US. This comparison is usually made on the same event in a very short period of time. The differences are like night and day.

So in the case of CNN much of what it reported about Saddam was nothing more than propaganda which too many people took on faith to be true. I am sure there were and still are MSM organizations that do this. I would say it is not limited to just to the ME.

Below is something that was published in the NYT:

EDITORIAL DESK | April 11, 2003, Friday

The News We Kept To Ourselves

By EASON JORDAN (NYT) Op-Ed 808 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 25 , Column 2

ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, says now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, world can expect to hear many gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about decades of torment; says he has tales as well, learned during 13 trips he made to Baghdad over last 12 years to lobby government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders; says he saw and heard awful things that he could not report because doing so would have jeopardized lives of Iraqis, particularly those on CNN's Baghdad staff; says secret police terrorized all Iraqis working for international press services; says some vanished forever, others disppeared and then surfaced later with tales of being tortured; says one of CNN's Iraqi cameramen was abducted, beaten and horribly tortured; says he is still haunted by story of woman captured by secret police after speaking with CNN on phone; says plastic bag containing her body parts was left on doorstep of her family's home; drawing


Combine this with the report that was at the beginning of this thread....

Now you might see why so many Americans 1) do not trust MSM 2) think most Europeans do not have a clue about what is going on in the world.

Add that to their love for M Moore and for the most part we think the lot of you are moonbats not worth listening to. This includes your elites and espeically your governing class in france and germany and the other members of the chocolate summit along with greece and of our the brave spainards.

Ernie,

Here is something I am sure you can agree with. I see you apparently missed it when I posted it before.


"Everyone knows it was the US that was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. They could have stopped the asteroid but didn't. Have they denied it? No. Have they shown any proof of their innocence? No. Why? Because IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL


As for aid to Egypt, it was done a very long time ago. When Egypt made peace with Israel. It was the type of diplomacy now being practiced by Berlin, which I call checkbook diplomacy. It was an attempt to buy off Egypt. So while you might in some way object to this, it has prevented another war between Egypt and Israel. This aid started in 1979 and the results have been the longest period of peace between those two nations. Without Egypt all the other arab nations knew they could not attack Israel and expect to win. This is changing with Iran.

There is now serious debate as if this should continue. It might until such time as there is some resolution about a Palestine state.

Egpyt annually gets around $1.3 billion in military aid and about $615 million for social programs. (In August 2002, the Bush administration said Egypt’s human rights record was so poor that Washington couldn’t support Egyptian requests for additional aid—the first time the United States had linked Egypt’s aid package to its human rights practices.)

As to where the fence is and is not, this is just one of the many issues the euros have with both Israel and the US. I would say an even larger one was when GWB stated publicly for the first time last year there would be no right of return. Everyone knew this to include all the players but no one had stated it. So the euros took this as an opportunity to try and score points with the Arab nations. They too knew this was also not going to happen so not many points were actually scored.


The US does not provide the Saudi’s with anything. They asked us to leave after 9 11 and we did. Our relationship with them might be closer than some of the other customers of their oil but at this time not significantly so. Where the US does have an advantage is the Saudi’s realize we will protect them from some outside threat.

I for one do not see the problem in protecting the world oil supply. Oil in fact does run the west's economies. It is no different in that sense than protecting the world's shipping lanes which the US does mostly alone.

@ Joe,


Protecting the world's oil supply by supporting the current regime in Saudi Arabia seems like a dead end to me. And sure enough I recently read a piece on why many neo-conservatives have gone 'green' in recent time. Finding viable alternative energy sources would lessen America's dependence on oil. Joschka Fischer and the Greens influencing the neo-cons:-) Maybe not quite.

Here's the link:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112608/

Phil,

Yes the idea of an alternative to oil as a source of engry has been talked about since Carter but little has been done. This is one of the reasons the US continues to do research on the use of coal as there is enough coal in the US to last for more than a century.

As for protecting the Saudi's that is just a real fact of life. One does not have to agree with it or even like it but in everything there is a degree of reality.

Much as I do not consider france to be an ally of the US, we are both in NATO for now. That too is a fact and a reality.

We have our own home grown Greens. They are very similar to your own. We even have our fair share of moonbats.

For example moonbat reaction to Sunday.

All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?

I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullsh--. They have to know that the Americans don't want them to have power, because they know that Bush is in this for the oil, and now that he finally has it he's not going to let it go. This election is a charade. The fact is that the Iraqis have suffered during the past two years more than any people on earth at the hands of the American gestapo. Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself.

OR--I just thought of this--maybe they're smiling because they're using the Americans [sic] own game to defeat them. They're voting in candidates who they know will widen the resistance, take the fight to the streets, and finally drive the occupying forces out of their country. Perhaps they're smiling because--right under the American's [sic] noses--they're planting the seeds of a bigger and more effective resistance movement. Wouldn't that be fitting? Use *'s own tools against them?

We can only pray that this is the case. Becuase [sic] if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed. Bush's inaugural speech left little doubt that he has other countries on his list to spread "freedom" to. They will be his next targets, and the world will burn because of it.

Let's hope the resistance got voted in, or if not, they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election.


These "Americans" would make great members of the German spd. Now if we could only get them to move. Today your nation is as close to a model as they have as any in the world.


BTW few of us actually consider these people to be rational. I am sure you see them all the time on either CNN or the BBC as the angry Americans unhappy with their government and GWB.

I kind of think of them as democratics on drug and feeling their inner selves. Should any of them actually vote they would be dean supporters. Even he is a bit mild for them but better than the other options.

@ Joe

'As for protecting the Saudi's that is just a real fact of life. One does not have to agree with it or even like it but in everything there is a degree of reality.'

I guess you are saying that protecting the Saudis is pragmatic. Yet negotiating with Iran is not?

As for the rest of your post I agree. No matter if you were opposed to the war or not, you should always be for free elections.

Phil,

You can choose to do whatever you want with Iran as long as you insure they dismandle their enrichment program and have in place a means to continual verify that.

The US has had a bit of experience with that with RNK. It was one of Clinton's great victories. You can see how that turned out. We have in many ways been down that path.

Of course, if you fail and this is always the very hard question for the euro's.... what then.

Go to the UN and do what? Sanctions. They do not work. They have never worked before. And of course you are going to hear all of these teary stories of straving babies, etc.

So then what? The eu3 and especially your nation have ruled out the use of hard power. What do intend to do surrender?

The single best option is for Iran to fail from within. The best way to do this is to make Iraq a huge success story. Unfortunately, the latter is going to take both time and a huge effort.

I am not sure there is enough of either of those.

So in one sense the clock is ticking. Good luck.

If you fail, your worse nightmares might be the results.... and .... yes, before it is over you will have a bigger dog in this fight than you can at this point believe...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

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