« SPIEGEL ONLINE Attacks FOX News | Main | Bush And Rice in German: Read For Yourself »

Comments

Interessant auch die Auswahl des Bildes. Der Betrachter nimmt zuerst das Bush-Bild mit dem erhobenen Daumen wahr (was Stärke symbolisieren soll, aber für SPIEGEL-Leser dazu gedacht ist, zu provozieren, denn ein grinsender und entschlossener Bush muss automatisch etwas furchtbar Schlimmes bedeuten), bevor er den Text liest. Das Ergebnis: Zusammen ergibt das eine explosive Mischung, die undifferenziert und unreflektiert dem Leser sein Gehirn wäscht, falls das nicht schon vorher der Fall gewesen sein sollte, denn wissenschaftliche Studien beweisen, dass Medienkonsumenten vor allem das bevorzugen, was ihre Ansichten widerspiegelt. Nächste Woche freue ich mich dann schon über die ganzen Leserbriefe, bei denen man am meisten darüber erfährt, wie solche Leute ticken. Ungemein wertvoll zu wissen, mit wem man es zu tun hat.

@Downer:

"Der Betrachter nimmt zuerst das Bush-Bild mit dem erhobenen Daumen wahr (was Stärke symbolisieren soll, aber für SPIEGEL-Leser dazu gedacht ist, zu provozieren, denn ein grinsender und entschlossener Bush muss automatisch etwas furchtbar Schlimmes bedeuten), bevor er den Text liest."

Meinst du nicht, daß du ja jetzt ein wenig zu viel reininterpretierst?
Wenn Bush nicht als Bösewicht abgebildet ist, muss wohl der erhobene Daumen herhalten.
Wenn auf dem SPIEGEL-Titelbild Bushs Amtseinführung vor dem Kapitol abgebildet wäre, hieße es wahrscheinlich, der SPIEGEL rücke Bush in die Nähe der Nazis, wegen der römisch-imperialen, totalitären Kulisse mit den riesigen Fahnen.
Wenn auf dem SPIEGEL-Titelbild Bush mit seinem Hund abgebildet wäre, würde man hier schreien, das Bush als Aggressor dargestellt werde, wegen der sichtbaren Zähne des Hundes.
Ich möchte mal das SPIEGEL-Titelbild sehen, das Bush enthält und mit dem Davids Medienkritik zufrieden ist.
Wenn dagegen ein Mullah mit Rauschebart auf dem Titel wäre, wäre dies vermutlich eine beschönigende Darstellung der Mullahs, denn so ein alter Mann mit Rauschebart sieht ja eigentlich ganz gemütlich aus.
Noch niemand hat diesen SPIEGEL bisher gelesen, ihr wißt noch nicht einmal, ob der Jubel-Ami Henryk M. Broder nicht darin schreibt, aber die Meinung über den Artikel steht schon vorher fest. Wenn das mal keine Vor-Eingenommenheit ist.

Gee what an interesting consideration.

OT: I am sure this fine publication covered the human shields prior to the start of the war in Iraq. I am equally sure they presented this as a noble cause and the courage of these individuals.

Well where are the human shields now? Why are they not there now guarding the polling places and the voting booths?

I guess for this fine publication and those who agree with its vile the support of fascism is a more noble cause than the support of freedom and liberty.

Again this says so much about germany. Probably more than most of us really want to know.

Chomskybot, du bist immer so herrlich harmlos! :-)

Warum? Es mag das eine oder andere antiamerikanische Titelbild in der Vergangenheit gegeben haben, aber das hier???

I wish the media would make up its mind here. Its kind of getting confusing. Is the Iraq situation a disaster, a "quagmire" and a Vietnam-film style disaster OR is the situation so under control that Bush is planning to attack other countries to steal more oil? It surely cant be both or is Bush suddenly so dumb and eeeeeeevil that he can do both? Come on media make up your mind please. Otherwise I will have to presume that the ability for it to be both a disaster and a stable base to launch a further war must be a sign of rabid prejudice in the reporting rather than representing an actual reality.

Doughnut Boy Andy

You present this as if there were two points and you are asking the media in general and the germans in particular to be able to connect these points with a line.

Get real please. This is impossible. Why do you think they are in the media? They surely could not make a living doing anything else. As for the germans, that is just another story all together. Shall save that for another time.

The only person in germany who seems to be able to connect any dots was the bild endorsement of GWB. It was not because he endorsed GWB but because of the logic used.

This is a perfect example of connecting the dots actually. An endorsement of GWB is met with outrage but it was made for all the right german reasons. Those who endorsed Kerry were for all the wrong german reasons. So one cannot expect the germans to take those actions that are in there best interests.

The two dots will never be connected. How sad. And this is a nation not in decline?

Andy,

well, to be hounerst, I can`t see your point in the case if Iraq. Free elections and even better free minds are on the way, according to a survey the swiss newspaper "Weltwoche" has done a few days ago, 88 % of the iraqi kurds purpose to take part in the first free elections in the Middle east since an eternity and 66 % of the iraqi people are optimistic and think things are getting better within less than a year than today.
These facts are great, and, well, how can anyone say now it wasn`t worth it?
And a diseaster, is it really a diseaster? Iran with atmic nukes would be indeed a diseaster for Isreal and the stability of the whole Middle East, keep that in mind!
Moreover, if you`re talkin` about oil interets, don`t forget France (Elf) and Russia (Yukos) and to be realistic, you have to mention them first, haven´t you ?!?!

@Downner und Chomskybot
Nein, es wird nicht zu viel "reininterpretiert." Wer die Spiegel Leserbriefe schon mal genossen hat weiß, dass Downer absolut recht hat. Schade, dass wir einige Exemplare nicht werden hier geniessen können.

@Joe and Doughnut Boy Andy
You guys are on target tonight.

Dear David,

This is my first time posting on your blog. I really appreciate you taking on the demons of the German media, and bringing insight to other Americans, such as myself, that not all Germans are "moonbats" (term for crazy Leftists).

As for this Der Spiegel piece, this is not really suprising, since Der Spiegel profits from whipping up anti-Bush, anti-American sentiment in the German public (and who says anti-Americans can't have the profit motive! Capitalists!). I voted of GWB for two reasons. First, and the most important of all: he has a clear plan to tackle down terrorist organizations and stop the proliferation of WMDs into the wrong hands. Another reason would be seeing the look on the faces of the European elite and the professors and the moonbats here at my school, UC Berkeley, the day after the election. (Man! You got served, bitches!)

Anyway, I just found your blog two days ago, and I have been perusing through your archives especially the October and November archives. The peeps at ZDF and ARD were not pretty chipper when they heard Bush and his party triple spanked the Democrats. As for left-wing media bias in America, Americans are now fed up with the traditional media outlets, thanks to the predominantly conservative AM radio, blogs, and a resurgent conservative movement on college campuses. I hope the same thing occurs in German universities and the German media. It took Americans about 30 thirty years to see the media for who they really are. Since you have this blog, have you thought of having your own radio talk show to engage the German left on the battle of ideas? God speed, David!

@ Joe and Christian

Sorry perhaps my post wasnt as clear to all as i thought it would have been (I shouldnt watch TV and comment gleichzeitig) I was addressing Spiegel and not Medienkritik or its posters. I certainly dont believe that Iraq is a mess or that Bush wants war for oil. Quite the opposite as I believe that Iraq is going to be a success, Iran is a mess and that "old europe" wants "peace" for oil among other reasons. I was merely trying to note that the two views that the Spiegel has (i.e. that Iraq is a mess and that Bush wants more war) are totally contradictory and that this is a sign of blatant prejudice because it can only be one or the other. My point wasnt that i present there being two differing points but that the media does and they are opposites but they are presented as a line (I dont mean as in math here of course). This shows that the only line is to bash Bush, there is no other line. It has been something that I have noted a lot in discussions here in that people are willing to believe opposing views as long as they are against Bush. It is the most obvious sign of prejudice there can be. I hope this makes sense now.

A conservative movement in German universities? Not gonna happen. I also have little hope for the German public at large. Not that they wouldn't be receptive to some honest information, it's just that they aren't likely to get it - the Left is in firm control here.

@ Joe

Now I am getting confused. My last post should just have been to Christian as after reading and *concentrating* I see you did get what I meant.

@beimami

Yes "on target" until I started watching the football :-)

Andy,

Your first post was not at all confusing.

My comment is the media elite and germans in general could not connect two points with a straight line. It does not really seem to matter what the two points are.

Pick two.

As an example you have a new party being formed which is going to be to the left of the spd.

Now could any one really believe that what germany lacks and needs is more socalism. Well it would seem so... LOL

So more taxes, less freedom, more entitlements is the new path to happiness and a bright future for the germans.

This is the future zeta and those like him are building. These are the choices and the history they are making. As before God's speed and good luck.

You know I just realized I could be totally wrong about this idea of connecting two dots.

One has to assume germans can actually see two dots to be connected. It appears this might be trying for them too.

Iran the next war? I certainly hope so. In fact, that's why I voted for Bush.

But why would this be of concern for the Germans? They've made clear that they do not want to participate in America's wars. And, in the long run, it really doesn't affect them, - except, of course, that some German business deals with the present Iranian regime might be thwarted (and I can't imagine the average German would really worry about corporate deals abroad).

Germans continue to imagine that they need to have an opinion on the matter, and make themselves heard. Yet why not take a stand on, let's say, Maoist insurgents in Nepal?

If Germans really think that Americans ought to take their opinion into account, they shouldn't have abandoned America in the first place. Americans owe nothing to Germany, - while the same could not be said for the German people.

Carl Densing deserves our attention. He's comming from UC Berkely, the Belly-of-the-Beast. That's where the Moonbat hatchlings go to dry their wings. Moonbats are vulnerable, frightened and confused at that stage. Give 'em hell Carl.

@ Chomskybot

Denkst Du ernsthaft, der erhobene Daumen ist Zufall? Die Jungs und Mädels beim Spiegel sitzen vor einem Archiv mit Taudenden Bush-Photos, und wählen sich für ein Cover "Der nächste Krieg" ausgerechnet das Bild eines gut gelaunten, den Daumen hebenden Bushs? Angesichts des von SPON nun über Jahre gepflegten Images von Bush als dümmlichem, zynischen, skrupellosen Kriegstreiber? Meines Erachtens genau so ein Zufall wie etwa damals die zufällig doppeldeutige Bildunterschrift "Wird Amerika wieder demokratisch?" Wäre es TIME oder selbst der Focus, würde ich den "benefit of the doubt" gewähren. Aber beim Spiegel gibt es dazu nicht mehr den geringsten Anlaß.

Schau' mal in diese Leserbriefe der "taz" heute oder der FR am Samstag. An nur zwei Tagen Bush als Fanatiker, Irrer, Idiot, heimlicher Satanist, Kriegsverbrecher, schlimmer als Saddam, Gefahr für die ganze Menschheit. Und das sind die Leserbriefe, die AUSGEWÄHLT WURDEN, folglich a) relativ repräsentativ und b) relativ eloquent sind. Mal Dir den Rest aus, und frag Dich, ob das alles nur auf "Zufällen" beruht.

From "Spiegel Online English Site"

URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,337091,00.html

January 17, 2005

RANCOR IN THE US RANKS

US Military Personnel Growing Critical of the War in Iraq

By Georg Mascolo and Siegesmund von Ilsemann

US military officials are becoming increasingly vocal in their criticism of the war in Iraq, telling Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that more troops are needed to prevail over the insurgents. Moreover, recruitment is down and more reservists and members of the National Guard are being sent to Baghdad.

The war is over, at least as far as Darrell Anderson is concerned. Anderson, a 22-year-old GI from Lexington, Kentucky, deserted a week ago, heading across the US' loosely controlled border with Canada. When his fellow soldiers in the First US Tank Division, stationed in Hessen, Germany, ship out to Iraq for their second tour of duty, he'll be in Canada.

Anderson spent seven months in Iraq last year as a part of a unit assigned the dangerous mission of guarding police stations in Baghdad. He was wounded by grenade shrapnel during an insurgent attack, was awarded the Purple Heart and allowed to spend Christmas at home in the United States. But instead of returning to duty, Anderson fled to Toronto.

Now he's a deserter and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. If apprehended, he faces several years in a US military prison. In justifying his desertion, Anderson says: "I can't go back to this war. I don't want to kill innocent people." He talks about the constant pressure soldiers face to make decisions in the daily grind of war. Once, when a car came too close to their Baghdad checkpoint, his commanding officer ordered him to shoot, even though Anderson could only make out a man and children in the vehicle. The soldier refused. "Next time you shoot," his commanding officer barked.

On another occasion, the safety on his automatic weapon was all that prevented Anderson from losing control. "I was holding a heavily injured comrade in my arms, there was blood all over the place, and Iraqis were cheering all around us," he recalls. "I was so furious that all I wanted to do was kill someone, anyone."

Anderson has now applied for political asylum in Canada. His attorney, Jeffry House, was once one of the 50,000 draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Deserters who are now fleeing to Canada to avoid the Iraq war have reawakened memories of an exodus that took place more than thirty years ago. House says: "Every day I get calls from at least two soldiers looking for a way out."

Revolt no longer Rare

Deserting US recruits -- once a rarity -- are not alone in their search. Three months after being reelected and immediately prior to what is expected to be a triumphant inaugural party to mark the start of his second term, US President George W. Bush will be hard-pressed not to reevaluate the strategy for the deployment of US troops in Iraq. He faces massive doubts among the members of his own military, who are becoming increasingly vocal in their opinion that the US war with Iraqi insurgents is being conducted with insufficient manpower and equipment. Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, warns that his troops in Iraq have "deteriorated into a broken force."

A revolt seems to be taking place within the ranks. Even though daily bomb attacks in Iraq and the latest death toll of 1,361 US soldiers have yet to trigger any significant reversal in US public opinion, and even though President Bush reiterated last week that the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein, Bush's soldiers and officers seem increasingly convinced that the opposite is true. Almost without warning, America's armed forces, superior to any of the world's other militaries but faced with severe personnel shortages, are suddenly encountering almost insurmountable obstacles -- politically, strategically and financially.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld particularly faces growing criticism. In light of the disastrous situation on the ground in Iraq, even fellow Republicans are quietly demanding his removal and calling for a change in strategy. Rumsfeld bears the brunt of the blame for the precarious situation in which the US military now finds itself. The Iraq war has cost US taxpayers more than $150 billion to date, with the Pentagon spending $4.5 billion a month on its campaign in Iraq.

And there appears to be no end in sight, at least for the time being. Rumsfeld, in an attempt to boost morale among his frustrated troops, has said that he expects the Americans to withdraw from Iraq within his second four-year term as Secretary of Defense. However, only the most optimistic of the president's closest advisors believe that the situation in Iraq will improve in the wake of the January 30 elections.

Retired general D. Brent Scowcraft, national security advisor under the first President Bush, sees the election as providing nothing but "substantial potential for expanding the conflict." Last week, Lieutenant General Thomas Metz, commander of US ground forces in Iraq, openly admitted that regular elections are no longer a likely scenario in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. Because a quarter of the Iraqi population lives in these provinces, the question arises as to how meaningful this election, now called into jeopardy by increasingly violent attacks, can be.

Even though the 125,000-strong Iraq security forces are not even remotely capable of keeping the peace in their own country, politicians in Washington have already begun debating the possibility of a withdrawal of US forces. During Congress' Christmas recess, many lawmakers were forced to respond to questions from their constituents who wanted at least some indication of whether there is an end in sight to the US' bloody adventure in Iraq. Last week, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell confessed that he hopes the withdrawal will get underway this year.

Retired four-star general Gary Luck has been sent to Iraq to determine how and how quickly the United States can withdraw from the Iraqi conflict without losing face. Within a few weeks, he is expected to provide Rumsfeld with an unfiltered assessment of the current situation and of the overall US Iraq strategy. According to retired general Sir Michael Rose, the well-respected former commander of Britain's contingent of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, "the Americans' current strategy clearly isn't working."

Recruitment Getting Tougher

The Pentagon's original plans called for the withdrawal of US forces by September 2003. After that, a small protective force was to remain behind to guaranty security in postwar Iraq. Until now, however, only US allies have withdrawn their troops, including Ukraine, which announced its plans to withdraw just last week.

The increasingly heated debate in the United States over withdrawal from Iraq is being fueled by the fact that US forces stationed in and around Baghdad have long since ceased to consist entirely of professional military personnel. 40 percent of the 150,000 US troops in Iraq are army reservists or members of the National Guard. These troops, whose service normally consists of occasional weekend drills and yearly exercises, are people who have long since turned to other more or less successful careers. Now, they have been forced to temporarily abandon those careers to serve in Iraq, an obligation hardly any of these part-time soldiers had expected.

As a result, both the Army Reserves and National Guard are having trouble recruiting new members. "It's the mothers who are warning their kids about going to war," complains Sergeant Kevin Hudgins, a Tennessee recruiter. "In the past, the kids saw it as an easy way to pay for college," says Curtis Mills, a veteran who was severely wounded in Iraq. The National Guard is currently 30 percent shy of its recruitment goals. To make up for the difference, it is introducing an incentive system under which new recruits will receive up to $10,000 to join the National Guard.

Indignation is growing, especially among reservists once derided as weekend warriors. Although national guardsmen and reservists are generally assigned to support positions, their jobs as mechanics, drivers and cooks are also dangerous, as demonstrated by last month's suicide attack on a military mess hall near the Iraqi city of Mosul.

National Guard commander Steven Blum has asked the Pentagon for $20 billion, with the bulk of the requested funds earmarked for re-outfitting his troops, who were previously treated as second-class soldiers when it came to equipment. "I would have felt safer in a Volvo than in our Humvee," complains Richard Murphy, who was compelled to serve for 15 months in Iraq. In Alabama, veterans and schoolchildren even forged home-made armor to protect jeeps when their local National Guard troop was given its marching orders.

The regular armed forces will also find their patriotism severely tested in coming months as the Pentagon uses every trick it knows to extend tours of duty by up to one year. A new rule, for example, prohibits soldiers from leaving the service if their unit is scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq within three months' time.

How Can Security Be Improved?

Proposals being considered to improve the security situation in Iraq also show signs of desperation. For the first time, regular soldiers are being offered training to fight insurgents. Until now, such special training was reserved for members of the elite forces and for marine infantry troops. Part of the training includes a marines' training manual written in 1940. Some is helpful, but parts are completely antiquated. For instance, there is a section labeled "working with animals," (mules, mostly) and another on "mixed-race" companies. According to the manual, such companies are unusually "unmanageable due to a lack of strong character."

Models that have long since been discarded as failures are hectically being revived. For example, US military advisors are to be embedded as supervisors and support personnel within units of the new Iraqi army, who have the dubious but well-deserved reputation of fleeing the minute they come under fire.

Precisely the same recipe was incapable of stopping the Vietnam debacle 40 years ago. Military officials are also talking about forming death squads, whose job would be to track down and eliminate the insurgents within the territory they control or to which they normally withdraw. This would include foreign territory beyond the borders of Iraq. It's a strategy that was largely discredited during civil wars in Latin American in the 1970s.

These experiences have led military personnel in particular to call for a rethinking of Washington's strategy. The Pentagon's civilian leadership has not been faced with so much criticism from within its own ranks since the Vietnam War. Retired general D. Barry McCaffrey is even concerned that "the army will lose its base in the next 24 months." General Peter Schoomaker, the current Chief of Staff of the US Army, has already warned Congress against drastic consequences, saying that "it may be necessary to augment the regular armed forces," something that Rumsfeld wants to avoid at all costs, mainly for budgetary reasons.

To maintain a security force of 150,000 troops in Iraq in the longer term, the United States will in fact need three times as many soldiers. According to military planners, a third of these troops would be preparing for deployment, a third would actually be deployed, and a third would be involved in post-deployment work or on vacation.

This approach would thus require 450,000 troops to be available for Iraq at all times. However, the entire US armed forces, which would provide the lion's share of this military force, currently comprises only 500,000 troops. It's mainly because of these anticipated personnel needs that US military commanders are opposed to Rumsfeld's pet project -- converting the US armed forces into a relatively small but highly mobile high-tech commando force designed for lightning missions throughout the world. Military commanders argue that although this concept may have ensured the US a rapid initial victory over Iraq, it cannot guarantee peace in Iraq.

But it is precisely the military's desire for more troops that could unleash a public debate over the reintroduction of compulsory military service -- a discussion that no Washington politician of any stripe truly wants to tackle. The threat of a general draft could trigger a massive exodus to Canada which, until now, has only been an option occasionally resorted to by American opponents of the war. But even the few deserters that have already fled have put the Canadian government into an embarrassing bind.

Until now, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has responded evasively to asylum requests filed by US soldiers. "We are a nation of immigrants and I have no intention of discriminating against anyone," he explained. But even though the Iraq war is as unpopular in Canada as US President George W. Bush himself, Martin knows full well that Washington would view Canada's granting asylum to GIs from south of the border as an open insult.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

My comment: Well great! The "Spiegel" editors victory mouth of Ilse man and George Mascolo may write what they think, and most leftists want me to remain calm. That Hamburg news magazine "the mirror" could be done once decided again too far. "The criticism at the Pentagon boss increases, its separation in view of the zermuerbenden, involving heavy losses everyday life in the Iraq behind reproached hand even by party friends is demanded, strategic reorientation demanded", wrote victory mouth of Ilse man and George Mascolo in the "mirror". The clay/tone of this quotation displeases me, because it sounds National Socialist.

The "Spiegel" authors of Ilse man and Mascolo exceeded the border of the professionalism. "20 billion dollar guard commander steven Blum requires, is called of the pentagon particularly for the re-equipment of his sometimes only second-class equipped troops" it in the current expenditure of the "mirror". Mr. von Ilsemann and Mr. Mascolo, where are your vouchers, which support this statement? Why don't these "Spiegel" editors admit that they are anti-American adjusted? Why do they let only come those military to word, which practiced at US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld criticism? Why do these "Spiegel" editors of Germany want to instigate population? Why was the close time of the "mirror" too short for the present US-American government? Why does the editorship of the "mirror" prove to the USA opposite ungratefully? Victory mouth of Ilse man and George Mascolo - these men are a zumutung. People like it worsen the German-American relations.

Translated from German into English by Google ;-)

No, no, no, I hear Damascus is nice in the spring.

Bevor die Korrektur kommt: Ja, der stellt formuliert es als Frage, "Der nächste Krieg?" Tippfehler meinerseits.

Washington is divided. Attack Iran and drive pro-democracy Iranians to the defense of the motherland. Don't attack Iran and allow the mullahs to distribute atomic weapons to terrorists. If the U.S. attacks, it might delay democracy in Iran. However, if it fails to attack, the U.S. might lose 100,000 people and a city or two. As usual, Der Spiegel will criticize either decision. Fortunately, America's future does not depend on declining states like Germany and Fwance.

Und noch ein Tippfehler. Der Spiegel, nicht "der stellt"... (Und nein, ich habe nichts getrunken... :-))

PacRim Jim


Now there are two dots to connect.....LOL

@ Joe

"You know I just realized I could be totally wrong about this idea of connecting two dots.

One has to assume germans can actually see two dots to be connected. It appears this might be trying for them too."

Dont give up on an idea I´m just starting to like! LOL I dont think the problem Europe has is its answer but the fundamental understanding what the question is. Europe clings to its tradition and culture with an arrogant nostalgia for what has been a bit of a disaster. In Germany at least there are groups from differing political viewpoints that are addressing the real situation. Generally they all see that individual freedom and democracy are the key issues at the moment and the USA is the motor for positive change in this respect. Its refreshing to talk to all of these groups ;-) Europe has a lot of baggage and its amusing the way it is often treated here like a patient at a shrink. Its an interesting and very suitable take.


@PacRim Jim and Joe

Just my guess here: I think that the Pentagon´s chief factor is time. There are two bombs ticking here. 1 is a nuclear Iran but the second is democracy. With Afghanistan and soon Iraq both come February democracies then Iran is surrounded. When Bush calls for democracy he is speaking as much to us as to the Iranian people and when Iran talks of UFOs being seen and the shooting down of drones and its willingness and ability to defend itself then its BS. A theocracy like Iran cant judge its public opinion by polls because they dont have free and fair ones to give a proper picture. They are testing the water. The Iranians will be watching the Iraqi election very closely and the ball is then in their court. Once the US proves it is serious about democracy, when a democratic Iraq becomes a reachable reality, then the game might change quickly. The Iranian students have always said they didnt want a war but they know too that once Iran goes nuclear then the situation will get messier. The scary thing is we are probably talking here about less than 12 months. The US will not let Iran go nuclear, its just a question of whether there is an uprising first or at least some sign from the population that they will help out.

I agree that whatever happens the Spiegel will still find a reason to blame the USA though (even though its currently trendy to support the Iranian student movement).

@ Del Hoeft
Thanks for the special mention. I am currently a sophomore at UC Berkeley, and a member of the Berkeley College Republicans, the most reviled and hated club on campus (We currently have 350 members). Though there are vocal moonbats here in Berkeley, there is a strong and growing minority of conservatives and moderates here in Berkeley who are fed up with the entreched anti-American academia. The professionial moonbats force us to "drink the kool-aid," but fewer students are now willing to do their bidding.

In addition, I am also a staff writer for the California Patriot, the only conservative or right-of-center magazine publications. Since we do not get any school funding for our magazine, we mostly get our money from private donations, especially private donors in the mostly Bush-supporting states who just want piss off Berkeley.

As for this current issue with Iran, attacking it will retard the democratic movement in Iran. Furthermore, it will destabilize the fragile democracy in Iraq, and further stretch the resources of the American military. However, America does not need to launch a full attack on Iran if it does have nuclear weapons. Israel, with its superior airforce, will only take a few hours to fly down to Iran and bomb any nuclear facility the Iranians have. Fifty bucks says the Israelis have the coordinates to the Ayatollah's bedroom!

@PacRim Jim
It's true that Washington has a tough decision on its hands. As for now, attacking Iran should not be an option. Though both Iraq under Saddam and the current administration are threats, the one difference is that Saddam's Iraq had no democratic movement to speak of, whereas the democratic movement in Iran is growing, albeit slowly and cladestinely. If the democratic movement in Iran crescendoes in the coming months, the mullahs in Iran will have a tough time on their hands and will divert their attentions to quelling a student revolt.

However, If there is a clear proof (i.e. actual Iranian documents, confession of Iranian defectors) that the Iranians are using their nuclear facilities for military purposes, other than utilitarian ones like electricity, and have a clear intention to launch nuclear missiles at an European city (that seems to be the farthest range of an missile launched from Iran), that it is a pretext to go to war. And this time, France and Germany can no longer oppose military action (baguettes go bye bye!). When the wolf intends to enter the chicken coop, the farmer can no longer say "Shoo!" He must shoot the wolf, and beat it with a stick to make sure it's dead.

bush SURE does SEEM to GET a LOT of SPIEGEL cover STORIES.

@Carl Densing
Don't be Eurocentric. Iran's first targets would be Israel and Americans in the region. Besides, Iran has submarines and ships, both of which could deliver A-bombs anywhere. The U.S. cannot wait until Europe feels imperiled. Don't worry, we will not ask Europe to help. That bridge was burned long ago.

Believe me or not, there are Iranian students who dislike mullahs, but who want their country to have atomic bombs.

Carl Densing

Given you are still a bit young but at the same time obviously very bright, you get a pass here.

It really will not matter if Israel takes out the nuclear program or the US. The US in this case will share equal blame. You forget to most of the euros and arabs the Jews and Americans are the same, to be equally hated as war mongers.

I'm not so sure that it would be all that easy for Israel to take out Iran's nuclear sites as some of them are said to be in underground bunkers and it is not certain that all sites are even known by US or Israel. If we don't take 'em all out in one strike, then get ready for a retaliatory strike at Israel and American ships in the area. This is not a slam dunk by any means.

@Joe

True, most of the European and the Arabs hate the "war-mongering" Jews and Americans. But what are they gonna do when either the Israelis or the Americans confront the Iranians? More vocal hand wringing? More American/Israeli flag burning on the public square (these protestors seem to have an ample supply of American and Israeli flags)

There will ultimately be opposition from the corners of Europe and the Arab world. However, urgent priortities come first. Win the battle against a nuclear Iran first, then worry about the battle of the hearts and minds later.

I am waiting for the E3 representative to come back from Iran waving papers in the air and proclaiming "Peace in our time." That is the only thing yet missing.

I can't believe the insanity of anyone thinking any nation can accept a nuclear Pearl Harbor? Can Europe be serious when for the last 20 years the powers that control Iran have been regular in their issuing of "Death to America' and "Death to Israel" propaganda? They expect the US not to be listening and take seriously such proclimations?

@Sock Puppet of Doom and Joe

It appears that European soft power is working...........not! True that Iranians have the capability to launch an attack on Israelis and Americans in the region, they also have their missiles have a range of at least 3,000 to 6,000 miles, far enough to hit Western Europe.

Also, not only have they issued "Death to America/Israel" fatwas, but they also end each "parliamentary" session by chanting that piece of drivel. The Americans are serious about dealing with Iran. However, Bush has largely left the Iranian problem to the European 3, while he concentrates on Iraq. While Bush has made some progress in Iraq (elections are in a week, and Shiites and Kurds participation might hit as high as 70%), the European 3 is still trying to negotiate with the Iranians, hoping that the mullahs will see the light. Iran is Europe's diplomatic quagmire.

The USA/Israel would have to take out all Iranian nuclear facilities in order to verhindern a nuclear attack on Israel. One hit - that is all the Iranian mullahs need. How much time does the USA/Israel have left to stop those islamistic extremists?

A recent cover of the New York Daily News: "IRAN NEXT!" in huge letters. Worse, better or the same as Der Spiegel?

Douglas,
we live in a time where we are all connected by our media and the internet. So it is important to be aware of the network between all groups, the good ones and the bad ones as Al Kaida. And of course the societies are connected too, our media - the liberal and the conservative and all kind of media with differrent opinions. Hateful media and hateful people is a new problem because of these new methods of communication.

We can see many hateful people working in "peace" organizations. NGO and other people who use a hateful language against Israel and the US.

People still think these words like peace organization (or whatever) means a good goal, good people, good interests and trust them.

We have to show worldwide where hate is an agenda: in the media and in the "peace" movement and NGOs. That is the first step, to stop the support of them.

In Germany a man names Guilliard is part of the peace movement. He was in the news with supporting the Iraqi resistance and 10 € for Iraqi resistance. Now he spoke at this meeting on 22/23 of January 2005:

"Für ein friedensaktives Jahr 2005!

Strategiekonferenz der Kooperation für den Frieden am 22.Januar 2005 in Frankfurt/M

10 - 18 Uhr im DGB-Haus, Wilhelm-Leuschner-Str. 69-77

Programm:

1. Begrüßung und Erläuterung des Ablaufs der Konferenz (10.00-10.15)

2. Einführungsbeitrag Andreas Buro: Vorstellung von möglichen Zielen für die Zeit 2005/6 und deren Begründung anhand der zu erwartenden friedens- und militärpolitischen Entwicklung; anschließend Diskussion im Plenum über mögliche weitere Ziele (10.15-11.00)
Vorabversion:
Der längste Weg beginnt mit dem ersten Schritt
(buro2201.doc)


Peace is wonderful. Peace for all even more wonderful. But when Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism is a virus in these groups and when hate is their base, then we have no real peace movement any more.

"Der Rechtfertigung, es handle sich bei der Besatzung um Kampf gegen den Terror, müssen wir entgegentreten.
Terrorismus und religiösen Extremismus gibt es zwar tatsächlich im Irak, (wenn auch im geringe-rem Ausmaß, wie es die US-Propaganda glauben lassen möchte), sie sind aber offensichtlich eine der hässlichen Folgen der Invasion. Terroristische Gewalt gegen Unbeteiligte, Entführungen und Enthauptungen etc. gehen fließend über in die allgegenwärtige Gewaltkriminalität, die seit der Zer-schlagung jeglicher staatlichen Ordnung durch die Besatzungsmächte den Alltag beherrschen.
Angriffe des militärischen Widerstands auf die Besatzungstruppen sind – unabhängig davon ob wir sie für sinnvoll und politisch oder moralisch für gerechtfertig halten – kein Terror und sind auch nach geltendem internationalen Recht legitim.

3. Wir müssen uns und anderen klar machen, dass die Bewertung der Besatzungspolitik keine Frage des politischen Ermessens ist: Es handelt sich, wie oben skizziert, um eindeutige und systematische Verbrechen, mit fürchterlichen Folgen für die Bevölkerung. Wer, wie die Bundesregierung, diese Politik unterstützt, macht sich mitschuldig.
Eine gute Möglichkeit hierüber Öffentlichkeit herzustellen, sind Veranstaltungen im Rahmen der internationalen Tribunale über den Irakkrieg."

Außen- und sicherheitspolitische Ziele

1. "Keine deutschen Soldaten in den Irak und keine Unterstützung des dortigen Krieges!" Zur Begründung: Die Bundesregierung steht unter starkem Druck, sich mehr und mehr an diesem Krieg und Nachkrieg zu beteiligen. Schon wurde ein Ausbildungskommando in die Golf-Region verlegt.(1) Diese Entwicklung zeigt einen nächsten Schritt des Interventionismus an. Es ist wichtig, und zwar auch für die längerer Perspektive, ihn zu verhindern.

Das ist von Joachim Guilliard.

Joachim Guilliard:
Thesen für eine Kampagne gegen die deutsche Beteiligung an Krieg und Besatzung im Irak
(ziel1.doc)

Der Terror wird erklärt mit Besatzung. Die Ziele der Terroristen werden gar nicht benannt, der Terror wird insgesamt verharmlost. Haß auf die USA macht blind.

Politiker im Irak werden als Marionetten dämonisiert. Damit hat die Friedensbewegung dieselbe Rhetorik wie die Terroristen. Darüber muß nachgedacht werden.

Warum? Es mag das eine oder andere antiamerikanische Titelbild in der Vergangenheit gegeben haben, aber das hier???

Posted by: Chomskybot | January 23, 2005 10:06 PM


@chromskyboot

..es mag sein???? ansonsten kannst du alles sehen mit deiner rosanaivbrille oder ??

seit mehr als zwei jahren tauchen staendig neue titelseiten in der deutschen "presse" und ebenfalls im deutschen fernsehen auf.

selbst n-24 kann es nicht lassen sugestiv werbung fuer ihren eigenen sender zu machen und dabei bush in den dreck zu ziehen.

ich denke das diese "macher" einfach darauf aus sind den "europaern" ein neues selbstvertrauen einzublasen und dabei nur an ihre verkaufszahlen denken.

von journalismus kann da keinesfalls mehr die rede sein.es ist gegenseitiger "schlag(zeilen)austausch" mit geringem informationsgehalt.

beim genaueren vergleich diverser online ausgaben dieser "scheisshausblaetter" wirst auch du,als halbblinder,feststellen, das "abschreiben" total "in" ist.

Ich kann immer nur wieder nur staunen über die Heuchler im Schröderlager und am rechten Rand der Union . Ihre Betroffenheit z.B. über die unsäglichen Vorgänge im sächsischen Landtag wäre glaubhaft, wenn nicht immer wieder die klammheimliche Freude über "gelungene Darstellungen" der gemeinsamen Feinde USA, Freiheit und Demokratie in Spiegel, Stern u.ä. zu spüren wäre. Diese Rituale werden schon lange vom "Volk" durchschaut und als Aufforderung verstanden. An diesen Titelblättern dt. Medien geilen sich echte "Volksgenossen" auf. Es wird sicher nicht mehr lange dauern, bis die Fronten geklärt sind und sich auch der letzte Feigling wieder traut zu reden, wie er wirklich denkt. Spiegel sei Dank!

@Joe
So more taxes, less freedom, more entitlements is the new path to happiness and a bright future for the germans. This is the future zeta and those like him are building.

Talking about connecting two dots, how do you connect me or anything I wrote so far here on Medienkritik with more socialism, more taxes, less freedom and so on?

OT
@Carl Densing- What was the final outcome after your on-campus, pro-Bush, rally. The one that pissed-off all the arabs (mostly Palestinians), and got so much national attention. For those who don't know, the college republicans held a pro-Bush rally at Berkley (known for being more liberal than the German media, if you can believe that), and got harassed by protesters. Mostly of arab descent. Some of which, said that they would happily blow themselves up FOR THE CAUSE.

An die Deutschen in diesem Blog:


Warum schreibt Ihr nicht e-mails an den Spiegel bzw. an deren Hauptwerbekunden, in denen Ihr den Boykott des Magazins bzw. der Produkte eben jener Hauptwerbekunden ankündigt: Das ändert die Einstellung des Spiegel keinen Deut, aber seine Redaktion weiß, dass ihr populistisches Treiben auch seinen Preis hat. Und sei der noch so gering.

@Ralph

Although I am not German and my written German sucks I have some points to make about your idea. Although it may let off a little steam to write to Spiegel it doesnt really get anywhere. Spiegel know their market well and get away with this rubbish, indeed make a profit from it. I wouldnt rule out writing to the Spiegel but I find weblogs like this and No Blood For Sauerkraut for example as a much better option. I give German friends the links to them and also like collecting the different articles that are posted here that are well written and showing them to friends too. Its good and important to keep informed and aware of this for discussions in pubs or at work with the "not quite enlightened". Any letter anyone may write to the Spiegel isnt likely to get further than the bin. Its also good fun to discuss opinions and media bias here, seeing the different points of view and getting different sources and infos. As for a "boycott" of the Spiegel, I dont like "boycotts" as such and dont think that anyone here actually buys the mag. I only glance at it online now and again to make sure that David and Ray arent making this up! LOL Writing to companies who advertise in Spiegel is perhaps a good idea though.

The issue of the bias in the Euro ( such a German ) and US MSM is a real factor in why we are having to work so much harder toward the lofty goals espoused by GWB last thursday

I am sure there are plenty of people in the arab world would do support those goals, lots more who would if they could be weaned from the propaganda for a short while - and a few who want to exact opposite.

The problem is that too much of the Western media elite parrot the propaganda of the last group and so keep the silent majority in check

If we could all unite behind the message then we could make real progress

@Roman Thomas

The pro-Bush rally was actually at San Francisco State University, which is about 10 miles from my campus. You may not believe it, but that campus is more liberal than Berkeley. So that makes Berkeley the more conservative of the two.

During that said rally, one of the female members of the pro-Palestinian group came up to the Republican table, and told all its members that she wanted to blow herself up, and kick out all the Republicans from campus. The pro-Palestinian group had also threatened most of the members of the SF State Republicans with death threats and crude verbal attacks reminiscent of the Nazi verbal attacks on Jews in the 1930s.

The situation here in the general Bay Area (Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco) has not simmered down. Though the verbal assaults have subsided, conservatives, and especially Republicans, are still under suspicion by the locals. In addition, the stuff that the German media propagates, by reading this blog, is light weight compared to what the dried-up hippies of this area do to delegitimize the President and dampen American support for our troops and America in general.

@David Kaspar
I am getting the impression that Der Spiegel is Germany's New York Times. Is Der Spiegel a daily or weekly publication? Though the editors at the New York Times think that their words are gospel to the American people, its readership is declining to the point that peeople just see that paper as one big joke in the journalism industry. With this blog, the days of Der Spiegel biased, anti-American reporting are numbered.

Der Spiegel ist a weekly publication but there is also Spiegel Online. There you find daily reports and publications.

@Ralph

I wrote already tons of letters to the SPIEGEL (years ago I even got two of the less interesting ones published) but as Andy already pointed out it didn't get anywhere.

Then I stumbled over David's Medienkritik and found blogging more useful than writing for the SPIEGEL bin. That's actually how "No blood for Sauerkraut" started.

In the beginning I even send them a copy but after I'd read about Jeffrey Gedmins strange encounter with a SPIEGEL writer I dropped it as a waste of time.

I also thought about boycotting the SPIEGEL, but as it still is the best German news magazine, blogging was the perfect way to take my personal revenge while still having an excuse to read it. ;-)

@carl densing
So you don´t even know Der Spiegel is a news magazine (hint: THE COVER!!! - actually, it is THE news magazine in Germany), but you already know that it is anti-American and biased.
Keine Ahnung aber eine Meinung >:->

Actually- has anybody here had a chance to read the new edition? Cause I guess that would be a good thing before condemning it...

You know, I kinda hope that Spiegel's right on this one. I mean, at this point the most dangerous nation in the world is either Iran or North Korea, and let's face it, we've got Iran surrounded.

As much as I know that the German media is biased, I did want to say that if the Spiegel had information to back up that claim, not mere speculation, then that's a news story worth reporting. My problem is that they ignore alot of pro-Bush stories.

Finally, I agree with poster Ralph when he encourages the German's reading this to write in to Spiegel. Not that I think Spiegel will care. Thanks.

@fuchur

"Actually- has anybody here had a chance to read the new edition? Cause I guess that would be a good thing before condemning it..."

Ok so I havent read all comments above BUT I dont think that anybody has been condemning what was in the actual Spiegel as it has only recently come out. People are merely commenting on the cover which is surely OK if they have seen the cover. As for not reading it, a hell of a lot of people dont read this magazine in Germany BUT almost everybody in the country will see this cover when they go to the newsagents or supermarket. Surely then the cover alone has an impact? Surely then we can judge this by looking at the cover? Any debate thereafter on US foreign policy guesses is purely specualative and hasnt pretended to be anything else or do we have to read the Spiegel to make predictions about that as well?

BTW how do you pronounce "fuchur"? LOL

@doughnut
Meet the Fockers, eh? :)
It´s pronounced like it´s written, I absolutely don´t know what you mean :) .
(btw, Fuchur is the Glücksdrache from Michael Ende´s Unendliche Geschichte. I thought everybody knew that!)


As for the cover: ok, so it is not Bush friendly. But "digusting" and "trash journalism"?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

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