« Global Warming: Dangerous Thought Verboten in (most) German Media | Main | German Media: No Time for Counter-Demonstrators »

Comments

@Tropby,
Your trolling aufhetzenden tactics to hijack this thread are incredibly transparent - you'll do anything to draw attention away from the bizarre psychology which would make someone characterize a defensive missile shield as a form of aggression. You are frightened to comment on it or offer your thoughts (if you actually have any) on what German politicians are saying about it.

Naval vessels from all over the world take shots at ships and submarines which threaten merchant shipping. It happens every day right now with the French navy shooting at pirates off the coast of Africa, and various navies taking shots at aggressors in the Straits of Malacca and parts of the Indian Ocean. This does not make them "at war" with Africa, Malaysia, etc.

I'm glad you liked the Hoyerswerda comment since I obviously recognize that your bizarre dogma can only come from such a place. The history sources you are using to back up your hyperbolic claims not recognized historians but fringe element conspiracy theorists. So, how can you expect us to take your accusations seriously when you have no credibility?

Now, when you are ready to discuss "Trying to Legitimize Missile-Shield Hostility in Germany" - let us know. Otherwise, we'll just ignore your trolling. Tschuss!

I don't see any reason for Missle-Shield Hostility in Germany.
But from the Russian viewpoint it may be seen as a preparation for aggression.

Tropby made three charges earlier; concerning the amount of trade, the sinking of the Lusitania and the Nye committee. This trade with Europe was only 1%-3% of the yearly GDP of the US during these years. The bulk of this trade was in commodities, which except for copper and precious metals, had not been considered war materials until Germany declared that all material entering the war zone to be contraband. The Germans chose to define war material as anything entering this area and later any ship at sea. During the entire war the only items of war material that reached Europe were small arms ammunition and some 15,000 Liberty engines(used maninly in French and British airplanes and trucks). More than half of the goods shipped went to neutral nations not the belligerents.

The Lusitania canard has been dealt with here and in thousands of books and papers. The sinking was the result of the accidental interception by a Schweiger's U-boat when returning to port. While the warnings the Germans posted in US papers were generic as they made no mention of the Lusitania just that all ships entering this area were at risk. The primary cause of this sinking was that Germany had declared all shipping around the British Isles fair game not that the Lusitania was carrying war materials or that Churchill wanted the US in the war. Armed or not, neutral or belligerent and finally passenger or merchantman. The US had twice fought wars to maintain its rights to free movement on the high seas.

The Nye Commission did not even address munitions sales during WWI but rather only studied the industry from 1919 to 1934. Nye's claim that the US was supplying 52% of the world's armaments is not annotated in fact contradicted by the conclusion of his report when noting that the US was still 3rd in sales behind France and Britain. Nye's chief adviser during these hearings was Alger Hiss, a Soviet spy and convicted perjurer.

Germany and the other NATO nations are beginning to realize what a huge blunder they made in not supporting the US in the initial stages of BMD. Now that it appears that the US might allow these nations to participate bilaterally not collectively means that they have no say in the deployment or use of these new technologies via either NATO or the EU. Especially now that the reality has set in that Iran's possible nuclear arsenal can hit targets in Europe and Europe aside from financial inducements (bribes) has no effective countermeaseure available to secure its citizens.

I think an important aspect of this issue is overlooked. Both the US and russia use the defense shield as a means to separate the EU. The US use very clever the minority complex of smaller EU states and their aversion of being patronized by Germany, France. Russias very strong overreaction on the shield, in turn, is a clear attempt to make the gap in the EU on this topic even larger. As the EU is rapidly gaining influence and thus a threat to the hegemonial plans of both the US and Russia, they can only profit by provoking an open conflict on this issue.

"One should always look at different opinions, as listening to Your own positions mouthed by people of a similar sentiment does not improve the mind."

Wrong. This is BS. There are limits to discourse. Discussing with Commies is like discussing whether the earth is flat. Discussing with Islamists is like discussing with Goebbels.

Historically the nations of Central Europe should not fear either the Russians or the Germans they have always acted in a trustful and noble manner.

They continue to do so today.

Tropby - "...quoting Islamic religious law at the Islamist´s heads."

A honest infidel should be proud to leave Quran and Hadith exegesis to the Muslims.

If you involve in it then you are a dhimmi. Like those "Antiimps" in the oil crisis, when they learned to stop worrying and love King Feisal, or like the Kaiser, who believed that "If we can stir the Mohammedans up against the English and Russians, we can force them to make peace."

"Ich habe jahrelang davor gewarnt den Islamismus so mit Füßen zu treten und herauszufordern, und ich bin in ganz Europa verlacht und als Türkenbold verhöhnt worden ... Sie alle (-engl. und russ. Politiker-) haben in ihrer hirnverbrannten Dummheit, Verbohrtheit und unerhörten Selbstüberhebung trotz aller meiner Warnungen den Islam verachtet, mißhandelt, beleidigt, und auf ihm jahrelang herumgetrampelt, bis er endlich nicht mehr ausgehalten hat... jetzt noch einmal Eingriff von außen, durch "Reformvorschläge" pp., ... dann muß, ob er will oder nicht, der Sultan des Propheten grüne Fahne entrollen, dann wird es "Allah" in allen Ecken Asiens und Afrikas ertönen, und mit den Christen ist es dann zu Ende..." - Wilhelm II, according to Ahmad Gross

The Islamic cemetery of Berlin is already from the Bismarck years, but the leaning towards the Caliphate only fully developed after the prophet of goosestepping was made obsolote by the same contradictions that had produced him a generation earlier.

Now since you seem to believe the Islamic elites were interested to listen to your exegesis of the scripture on the green flag, don´t you think they may already have their fixed interpretation of the accompanying pictogram and how to apply it to your neck?

For those who can read German - the trip of Angela Merkel to Poland is finished:

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID6523446,00.html

"Zusätzlichen Zündstoff hatten die Pläne der USA geliefert, in Polen Teile eines Raketenabwehrsystems zu stationieren. Merkel habe in den Gesprächen mit Kaczynski deutlich gemacht, dass die Frage nicht zu einem Spaltpilz in Europa werden dürfe, hieß es aus deutschen Regierungskreisen. Die polnische Seite habe signalisiert, diese Frage auch in der NATO weiter zu behandeln."

Merkel has excellent diplomatic qualities - like a nanny she has visited the stubborn child and educated them to get back on the right path. I think the problem will be solved in the near future - the rockets will be stationed in GB under NATO control, and everyone will be happy.

joe, from your perspective, is Germany in Central Europe or in Western Europe?

For an orientation, the geographical centerpoint of the European Union as of January 3, 2007 is in the bundesland Hessen.

Matz - "the rockets will be stationed in GB"

The threat is from Persia, not from Iceland. Why should Merkel reject Polish, Romanian etc. offers to serve as a debris absorbers for their Northwestern neighbors, especially if they make such offers without expecting a formal request in the first place?

I can only hope that the Eastern European nations will be strong and wise enough to do what's necessary for their own and their allies' security. Let's be honest: The defense system is useful, necessary, worth the money and should be installed. Period. There's no reason at all to classify this as an "aggressive" act towards anyone. No one would renounce a lock on his door out of fear that potential thieves might get angry.

The reason why old Europeans are "skeptical" is simple: Anti-Americanism. Every simplest self-evident proposal has to be questioned, debated, opposed and belittled for the simple reason that it has been put forward by the US. Ugly and shameful, but that's simple today's state of the Germany's media / left-wing politicians / a big part of the public opinion. And seemingly Merkel gives in to them - once again, I might add.

I for one am grateful to the US for once again trying to improve our common security. I wish they wouldn't have to deal with these childish attitudes of our leaders.

"Why should Merkel reject Polish, Romanian etc. offers to serve as a debris absorbers for their Northwestern neighbors, especially if they make such offers without expecting a formal request in the first place?"

Because the correct order of decisions must be followed. Military projects of this nature are not suited for bilateral agreements. First Europe decides if it wants that defense shield, and how it will be integrated in a global security system. Only then can be decided where it will be stationed.

Perhaps it has something to do with german dependence on russian natural ressources (do we get oil from them, too?)...

"Military projects of this nature"

What the hell are you talking about, Matz? Of which nature is it in your opinion? The Polish didn't ask the EU either when they bought F-16 Fighters from the US, and neither did they have to.

This system is basicly a SAM system designed to take out small and fast targets like ICBMs at high altitudes. Similar to the Patriot system's usage against SCUDs in the 1991 Gulf War, only working this time and at much higher altitudes. It should be capable to deal with a limited number of missiles, but it would be of NO use against a massive land-based ICBM attack as Russia could launch, not to talk about submarines. This is not the "Star Wars" program with fancy killer satelites envisioned by Reagan in the 80s. If this system triggers a new arms race, it will only happen because Russia was waiting for it.

But this won't happen, because it is just plain obvious that all Russia is really doing is exploiting the current diplomatic situation in hopes of further separating the Western Allies and isolating the East European member states. That they can make such an attempt with success speakes volumes about certain "Western" countries.

Interesting info, Alex. I thought that the system could intercept any ICBMs, at least if they are directed at the US. How many of these interceptor-missles will be deployed?

Like tropby indicates, Germany still feels superior to all others, especially the USA. Germany good, USA bad, enough said.
I would welcome the US leaving NATO and at least abandon Europe militarily. It is time. Europe, especially Germany will eventually be in lock step with Russia. The only thing we don't know is when. After all, the socialist mindset is closer to that of russia.
let's start pulling out now before we waste any more of our tax dollars on a declining continent. Europe, start defending yourself from whatever will try to destroy you.

Alex,

"What the hell are you talking about, Matz? Of which nature is it in your opinion? The Polish didn't ask the EU either when they bought F-16 Fighters from the US, and neither did they have to."

It is of a nature that forbids doing it on a bilateral scale. You cannot compare that to Poland buying F-16 with german tax money... after all, in the F-16 would still sit Polish pilots.
I wonder what US reactions were if Europe would try to station military missiles in, say, Brasil? "Oh, nice idea, good luck!"? ...

"I wonder what US reactions were if Europe would try to station military missiles in, say, Brasil? "Oh, nice idea, good luck!"? ..."

or better, Mexico...

"I wonder what US reactions were if Europe would try to station military missiles in, say, Brasil?"

"Military missiles". The point here is a specific defensive system with specific capabilities, aimed against a specific threat. We are not talking about offensive surface-to-surface or cruise missiles or anything like that. So either address the specific system in question and how it could threaten Russia or shut up.
Besides, Poland is not a potential enemy of Europe, but a member state, so your comparison makes no more sense than the uproar in some European countries. You're making yourself look really stupid now.

The assumption being made is there would be some purpose for the euros to station missiles in say Brasil.

Of course if the euros have both the capacity and the will to undertake such and action, then it only reinforces the position that NATO should be dismantled sooner rather than later.

It is good to find another person in Germany who supports the dismantling of NATO.

Addendum: The missiles of the system in question don't even have warheads. Zip, Zero, None. The destruction of the target is solely achieved by kinetic energy on direct impact, which would be hard if not impossible to achieve against a controled and counter-measure equipped platform like airplanes. It's sole purpose and capability is intercepting a limited number of Ballistic missiles. Russia has no point at all. And neither do you.

Franz,

You are missing the entire point being made.

Matz sees no threads from any place. He lives in a Rodney King/euroland world where everyone just gets along with everyone else. Just look how well that has worked in Europe over history.

Franz

It depends on how you define Europe. I do not define Europe as the EU. It seems as you do. Then again there are many who consider france and Germany to be the only US allies that matter. While this might be true for the germans and the french as well as some democrats, I do not. In fact, I consider both to be if not enemies of the US at least hostile to the US. There actions indicate they are.

If one reads what the euro elites have to say about the EU, they want it to extend eastward all the way to Russia. In fact, many want to include Russia in the grand EU of the future.

As to where germany is, I do not think it is in either in the west or central Europe. Germany is acting more like one of the former Moscow controlled satellite states from the Soviet Empire. Their positions on more and more issues seem to align them with Russia than the US. Call this the new self confident germany.

Alex,

of course my comparison makes sense - Poland is a neighbour of Germany, so is Mexico to the US. You didn't answer my question - what would US reactions be, if Europe would start deploying missile and radar technology in their backyard, without asking for their approval? Just answer the question, no personal affront is needed for that.

"The missiles of the system in question don't even have warheads."

Not yet. Perhaps.

Systems as this one should not be under exclusive control of a foreign country, too much potential of misuse. That's why we are debating beside the topic here - the problem is not the system per se, but the way it is politically handled by US, Poland, Czechia. Bilaterally without incolving the EU, this is bad political style.
But given recent signals from Poland I am quite optimistic that this will eventually become clear to everyone, and the system will be built, but under NATO control, and will perhaps even involve russia.

"Not yet. Perhaps."
[...]
"That's why we are debating beside the topic here - the problem is not the system per se[...]"

Oh get the fuck out of the way. See how you try and weasel out of it after you have been served? You have no idea what you are talking about, yet that doesn't concern you as long as you can spill your Anti-American foam all over the place. You are a joke and beyond hope.

At least he doesn't completely denounce the probability to build the system, like others do. That he otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about and is replacing knowledge with anti-American prejudices is as obvious as it's common these days.

Mir,

"is replacing knowledge with anti-American prejudices"

huh? which of my comments in this thread did you interpret as antiamerican? I'm certainly not happy with some american actions, but I hope that doesn't disqualify me as antiamerican.

Back to the topic: I really would be interested if someone will admit that the missile shield is not solely a military, but also a political issue. It still has to be debated if such a system is useful at all, if it's secure technically and protected from misuse, what effects it has geopolitically, and if the money could not be spent otherwise more effectively on counterterrorism. The debate is just starting seriously, and we are not yet at the point where we can discuss where to deploy missiles.

There is a US position (pro) to this issue, and there is a European position (mostly against). For example, the Czech don't like being selected as the place for the radar system. No one can seriously expect that one side will totally give in.

The US are a sovereign nation and have the right to do bilateral negotiations, and so does every other country, but everyone doing so must bear the political consequences. This is why I am quite optimistic that this issue will go in the right direction, because I think that it's inevitable that eventually reason will prevail.

Matz, your questions have already pretty much been answered. If you have differing opinions, then why don't you give us *your* answers? Then it will be more obvious why your objections are based on old European ivory tower mentality and on typical anti-American sentiments.

@Matz,
"Both the US and russia use the defense shield as a means to separate the EU."
-Please elaborate and tell us exactly how and why you think this is true. Separate the EU from what? Each other? And please see if you can present a logical explanation for how a US funded anti-missile umbrella stretched over Europe is somehow designed to separate the EU?
Europe seems to do a a fine job of dividing itself without any outside help.

@All,
By the way, lost in this discussion is that the missile shield is a 100% US funded project. At a time when the EU (which has a combined GNP equal to the USA) regularly kicks us in the teeth at the WTO, should we still be giving them free defense handouts?

Also, if Europe makes too big a fuss about this free gift, don't be surprised when the US changes plans and deploys the system in space.

For those who can read German - people in the Czech Republic aren't quite enthusiastic about this project:

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID6526172,00.html

Matz, Are you saying that if I watch the Tagesschau I will get the real scoop abut world affairs? Germans are so superior , they should lead the world in all areas.
I do believe that after the WWll, The USA should have left Europe and let Russia excert her influence. What a wonderful life that woud be for the Germans? We would have saved a lot of money and heartache.
I also believe that the 13 billion Dollars in the German Marshall fund should be removed and used for other, more deserving countries It could be used on a rotating basis, definately not for Germany any more.
Since America can't do anything right, I would be in favor of becoming independent like Switzerland.

Hector07,

don't you know the maxime "divide et impera"? It's the same as with the so-called "coalition of the willing". Of course they first designed that shield because they think it's useful, but to get it done easier, they actively divide Europe, instead of seeking a solution with Europe as a whole. If Europe remains parted, all the better for american interests in the future. This doesn't exactly sound nice, but it's simply politics.

Mike H. - "The same thing goes for the German Army. They are following their assigned duties. Could everyone do me the favor of staying off their back."

When the Bundeswehr designed its adoption of the Patriot missile interception system, the original concept of a main defense direction was dropped. No joke:

"The radars will provide full 360° capability."

When such a system is designed designed as if it were to serve to keep wounds open instead of keeping them closed, something is deeply wrong in the head(quarter)s from the top deciders down. Do those moral equivalency fetishists imagine deploying this and a couple of blue helmets into the Beeka valley or what?

Matz - "First Europe decides if it wants that defense shield, and how it will be integrated in a global security system. Only then can be decided where it will be stationed."

Are you implying Angela Merkel and her allies had illegitimately overruled Javier Solana in any way? Are you saying the decisions being made as events unfold were not justified on the grounds of the assessment of Persian intentions in the Solana memorandum?

joe - You are missing the entire point being made. Matz sees no threads from any place.

Do I? Matz is in the same situation as Mr. Krause junior, including the Stockholm syndrome. BTW, the current hostage blackmail attempt mostly lacks most the surreal undertones of the Susanne Osthoff affair, if that hostage was an equally enthousiastic dhimmi she would have addressed her plea to Steinmeier than to Merkel, but apparently she´s just too scared for such nuances.

What I find most instructive at this point is the Russian attitude. From the perspective of a Persian missile, Moscow is as close as Athens, and Berlin as far as Krasnojarsk. It appears that when those spoiled KBG brats look through the bottom of a bottle of Wodka, President I-Am-On-A-Jihad looks still funnier to them than the Smertnizy.

As to the story Matz linked to, is there any practical necessity for military antennas to be installed close to a civilian village?

Franz

This is much to do about nothing. It can be handled very simpily. The US should ask Germany if it wants to be included in the protected zone or not. Then Germany can decide what it wants to do. Berlin becomes responsible for its decision and can explain that to its citizens. The US can get on with getting on.

Franz,

What is a bit funny about the Matz link is the idea that the Czech Parliament will decide this issue.

Sounds like the way the so called EU constitution has been ratified in most nations of the EU.

@Matz,

"don't you know the maxime "divide et impera"? It's the same as with the so-called "coalition of the willing". Of course they first designed that shield because they think it's useful, but to get it done easier, they actively divide Europe, instead of seeking a solution with Europe as a whole. If Europe remains parted, all the better for american interests in the future. This doesn't exactly sound nice, but it's simply politics."

-I'm well aware of the maxim but do you have anything to support these accusations beyond conjecture? Are you just assuming that a divided Europe is in US interests (this does not align with stated US policy on integration in the European Union)? Read for yourself here: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/ Also, don't forget that one of the stated aims of the Marshall Plan was to encourage European integration.

-Back to your unsubstantiated allegations...If anything, the US bringing the issue to NATO would only lead to another heated debate which could cause Europe to divide itself again (this concern has been stated to the global press more thsn a few times). If anything, by approaching the issue bilaterally, the US is seeking not to divide its allies.

-Germany finds itself trying to balance its interests between Russia and its western neighbors and allies (something which has happened at least since Bismarck). Thus, Steinmeier's critical (if insincere) comments are expected since Germany is playing the balancing act once again. That the German media would then portray the US position in such a cartoonish distortion, is not.

Again, do you have anything to support your accusations beyond conjecture?

Why in the world would any European nation want to build a missile defense system in Brazil? Do the penguins in Antactica have IRBMs now? OMG, the US is threatening to blow up mammals that dress like plutocrats.

>> The US should ask Germany if it wants to be included in the protected zone or not. Then Germany can decide what it wants to do. Berlin becomes responsible for its decision and can explain that to its citizens.

That's the best way in my opinion too. On the other hand, our media (and with them a lot of the decision makers) would probably decide that we don't need the protection, since we don't have enemies, given that we are pacifists and the world's conscience, with rainbow flags in one hand and candles in the other. At the same time they take for granted that when one day a rogue state or terrorists would threaten Germany and shake their ivory towers, the US would probably help us anyway.

Mir,

I would hope the US would not do that.

The Germans could just die from some unknown enemy. Of course, Germans would never take responsibility for their actions and would in some way blame America or at least those would were still alive.

And you are correct. I remember a few months ago when france was making noise about using their nuclear force against terrorism. The Germans wanted the US to guarantee their safety under its nuclear umbrella should a terrorist nuclear attack occur in Germany.

The question the US should have asked at the time is WHY.

Like most things the US State Department does or more to the point fails to do they should have told Berlin sure we will do that and part of how we are going to do that is to station a missile defense system in Europe.

Have any problems with that.

joe, in a sane world our nations would be natural allies and friends. The decision of my government in this case would be: Yes, we need a missile defense system - let's build it together with our allies.

Unfortunately, this isn't a sane world.

By the way, this isn't only a question of whether Germany or Poland are the targets of missiles. The system makes already sense for us if we can prevent attacks on our allies.

joe - "The US should ask Germany if it wants to be included in the protected zone or not."

There is something that is different from the time of the NATO-Doppelbeschluß.

Reagan era Germany had a three-party system, two big ones and a smaller one that could change sides.

Current Germany has a five-party system, two medium ones and three smaller ones that can freely arrange.

Today it needs two parties to switch sides simultaneously to achieve a turnaround.

There also is a more fundamental consideration with regard to this. In the Reagan era, Bonn was asked due to its then role as the warden of Berlin. Since 1990, Berlin is sans tuteur, and to paraphrase a lokal saying, this is a good thing. There is no single decider who could be asked such a question, and again, that is a good thing too.

"What is a bit funny about the Matz link is the idea that the Czech Parliament will decide this issue."

I am not certain whether our all-too often betrayed Eastern neighbors are aware of the political opportunity they are facing. They can build that radar right on top of one of these abandoned slave labour uranium mines in the deserted regions of the Erzgebirge, keep a few ruins for a museum, and invite Ban Ki Moon for the opening ceremony.

If anything, the German interference on this bilateral issue is giving us a good excuse to save our money and not pay for a system to protect Europe. If they don't want a defensive missile umbrella, why should we bother (and pay)?

@Mir - "The system makes already sense for us if we can prevent attacks on our allies."

I would add, some of which have been continuously singled out by name as targets of terrorist missile attacks in the threats.*

≎

The touchstone for Putins Gabala proposal is whether it is an offer to all of NATO and not just some bilateral deal.

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