« Marcia Pally on German Hypocrisy | Main | SPIEGEL ONLINE: A New Start or Just More Cheap Tokens? »


It's kind of fun to make fun of Germany for surrendering. I'm especially fond of making fun of France. But the truth is, they really don't surrender all that easily. On the contrary, European powers have a habit of starting wars with their shenanigans. And fighting to the bitter end; not surrendering until they lose very badly. Sometimes they even manage to lose twice in the same war. France, I think, is the best at that. So, when I see all the negotiating and appeasing going on, I get a bad sense of deja vu.

"It is better for them to accept Iran's nuclear right in concrete terms," Elham said.

I think Iran had better accept the possibility that, if they persist with this nonsense, they might get something "nuclear right in (their) concrete."

This could be appeasement as well as cheating the devil. Frank-Walter Steinmeier has said that expressing threats is "dangerous", but of course there are more dangerous options. It looks as if the Iranian regime is trying to become a freerider on Angela Merkels new popularity. These clowns think they can put their parody of international law into her mouth. This attempt of hostile entanglement is the rhetorical counterpart to Ahmadinejads pursuit of terror attacks in Germany.

Iran has cheated the IAEA, so its NPT privileges are suspended like the license of a drunk driver. That is why we needed to hold these EU-3 talks in the first place. The probation officer has to decide the next steps for that case. The Iranians can lament about the "inalienable rights" of their terrorist regime until the tea is cold, but the privileges we're talking about are as alienable as a driving license and not something as inalienable as human dignity, to which they lack basic respect.

There must be no working groups, no collectives, no collaboration, no cooperation, no linkage diplomacy in which officials are going to lobby each other until they get bored. The Iranians have their NPT rights suspended, hence the requirement to comply with the suspension of their nuclear program or be referred to the Security Council.

If the voluntary trust-building measure of the IAEA - treating Iran as if it had already ratified the Additional Protocol even hough it has not - is not sufficient to make Iran go the path of disarmament like Libya - the only other nation which has this special "as if"-status at the IAEA - then they need their noses poked into the 2003 Tehran Declaration where they promised to "commence ratification procedures." How far have they got? That is the litmus test for these talks.


OT - Deutsche Welle: Leading German intellectual goes to Israel - Marcel Reich-Ranicki was featured as death candidate in a thriller of a close friend of Gerhard Schröder

I thought this was a media watchblog. But obviously it is just a neocon propaganda blog.

Most of the people using the terms "neo-con and neo-conservative" don't even know what they mean. Do you matterhorn? What does that have to do with a Iran in possesion of nuclear weapons anyway? Do you think a Iran with nuclear weapons means a safer EU? A safer world?

Of course not. My point is that this blog pretends to watch over german media and to critisize anti-american reporting. But this entry shows that it is just about bashing Germany and to repeat again and again what sissies mainstream germans are. Which is perfectly okay. I just wonder why you hide behind this fair-and-balanced-media-watch-thing.

Note from David: Check this:
"Davids Medienkritik is a collection of critical postings written by those who run this blog (David and Ray) on the German media. Occasionally we also publish political postings that have no connection to any particular media organization, particularly if the topic is current and plays an important role in public discussion."
Of course we are particularly interested in topics that expose the extent of hypocrisys in German politics.

"I thought this was a media watchblog. But obviously it is just a neocon propaganda blog." Thus wrote Matterhorn.

There is no difference.


matterhorn, could you define "neocon" for us?

Just so we're all on the same page?

"Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives."

"Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite."


Note from David: "a greater acceptance of the welfare state" - hmm... that makes the CDU/CSU look neoconservative, right?

David: Of course not. For those who can read: it says "compared to other U.S. conservatives".


Given your defintion came from wikipedia, it is a bit wrong.... but that does not matter at all.

Just say they have different values than you do. We all will understand just what you mean.

BTW it really does not matter where you stand on this. Socialists are socialist no matter the color or flavor.

A neoconservative is the opposite of a stability fetishist.

(Does anybode really expect whacky Ahmadinejad could stabilize himself?)

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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