Posted on 07/04/2008 10:15:51 PM PDT by MsUnderestimated
I'm also not in the least interested in answering to your insulting assumptions. Been there, done that. Doesn't work. Your whole show is a broken record. You don't answer to what I say, there is no arguing with you. I don't feel I'm even being noticed when I answer. In this part you even quoted one sentence, without then answering to it in the least.
Also, that is what I said. We suck on the teat of free trade and whatnot. Maximum gain for minimum investment. We didn't order it, we won't pay it. Try not protecting us.
Wrong answer, you did order it for 50 years during the Cold War, you did order it with missile defense even now; and yes, you do suck on globalization and the global economy while doing little to nothing for it and bad mouthing it the entire time.
Your economy will end if it's not fed gold, cesium, platinum, oil and other strategic resources required for an industrial and technological based economy. These are resources you buy in a global market place, one you do nothing for other than consume.
Your cars, industrial machinery, chemicals and other major goods are shipped around the world on open free water ways; water ways that take you through places like the Mediterranean (Libya), off the Coast of Somalia (Pirates), through the straight of Hormuz (Iran) or Malacca (Pirates). Your people do travel on open airways around the world, you do want regional stability in the Balkans, a war you ASKED for and were the political instruments behind. But no worry, the Schmarotzer usually has selective memory.
As an information based society you do need intellectual property rights enforced (patent, trademark, and copyrights), you do require the free flow of people and ideas on open channels of communication.
Yes, your people do have an unsatisfiable apatite for goods and services that have names like LG, Samsung, Hitachi, Kia, Daewoo, Hyundai, Hankook, and others, but you would do nothing if this trading partner, another free republic ruled by law were invaded by a despot regime from the North. It’s become EXPECTED that you’re useless, look at Israel and your two ships there.
Yes, you are exactly that which you can't accept, a Schmarotzervolk. Ask any kid sucking off his parents at 30 something if he's a moocher and you'll get the same sort of responses one sees from you and your people at large. Could you imagine the outcry by your people if we abandoned your people in a Noncombatant Evacuation Operation (NEO) in Africa somewhere (And we have done them, picking up your citizens as well)? Several times even! People like you and in fact most your countrymen take it for granted, even expect and demand that when they call upon NATO it answers the call as in the Balkans, and seven years later when 2,800 Americans die in an unprecedented attack, you do what? As little as possible. Yes, you do order it, but there is no reciprocation.
You ride in our shadow, and like Switzerland in the Cold War not flinching twice about taking Nazi and drug cartel money even stand to benefit by not helping and standing on the sidelines when doing business in places like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria……... Do you know who the major trading partner in Europe is for Iran? There are benefits to being a weasel that go beyond not paying for defense, lower threat levels, and less political pressure. But nonetheless, you’re still just a weasel. It’s not the weasel part that bothers many, it’s the fact that as a weasel you actually try to lecture us, or even put yourself on a pedestal declaring yourself moral and smarter for having done nothing, once again. I guess that best defines the difference between your people and mine (The conservative camp in our respective nations). We feel remorse, regret and guilt because of Vietnam; not because we fought there, but because of the outcome of the war, the people we abandoned when we left, the veterans returning home to an ungrateful nation…. You on the other hand also see Vietnam as a negative experience, but your argument would be that we should have never tried to contain communism, should have just left those people to be condemned like in Rwanda, and today people like you actually try to use Vietnam as a rhetorical club not even realizing that it’s a self defeating argument.
The reason why you get away with this behavior is because damage caused by sacrificing NATO or cutting you out of the economic benefits of certain areas even though you didn’t do anything there is even worse. The alternatives are worse and something even if disproportionately little is still better than nothing. So yes, do you do “something” and do did you pay some money on occasion. But it would be as if I put a band aid on a gushing head wound and then washed my hands free of any more work and responsibility. Imagine a scenario where Berlin is blockaded and we gave you three DC-3s and said, “There you go, we did our part.”
Think of it this way, what would be the consequence if we said Germany was not covered by Interceptor? What would happen if we began cutting out nations from partaking in the economic fruits of labor in areas where we and our allies bled? If we cut you (or others) off or cut you out of the picture we damage security institutions and/or cause a reverting to a near colonial era where certain nations control the economic output and resources within these regions, a horrible precedent with really bad outcomes for sure. You’re tucked away within the EU and NATO and no one can really force you to help, that has to come from you, and what we’ve seen over the last years is unimpressive. The US on the other hand is in a peculiar situation where she can’t shrink from her obligations. We are the leader within NATO, and ANZUS (The Pacific version of NATO), we are in a leading position even outside these security institutions when it comes to a broad range of Western security concerns. We can’t pick and choose when we will play, we can’t even really change our mind without causing a disaster, or decide to only help a little, and the consequences of our refusal to help would doom security institutions and in many cases change the outcome of war all together. If S. Korea is attacked tomorrow, we will fight, just like we would have defended Germany had it been invaded, but when we are attacked, you might help us a little, or maybe not.
The arguments used to prove and self rationalize amoral, apathetic behavior and spin it as some sort of superiority are ALWAYS based in Heuchelei und Schadenfreude. Example: http://www.dmko.info/coffinposter.jpg (Schadenfreude)
Let me give you concrete examples beyond Afghanistan which I have made my point with. When the international community and even within Germany voices screamed for help in Somalia Germany DID respond and send some troops. But where were they? In the North, far away from the hot spots, and that was by design! Did they ever attempt to engage in any operations to take warlords off the streets? Nope. In fact the Germans spent much of their time on very well protected and bunkered up bases but accomplished very little. So why were they there? Because when the voices screamed for intervention politicians wanted to reap the benefits, but NO ONE wants to be the one with their name associated with casualties. Look at what happened after the 2006 Lebanon War. Same deal. What the fu%& are two German warships going to do? The weapons come in over land, and so do the Hezbollah fighters. Your politicians once again offered their help, which really meant nothing other than they got their Kodak moment in the MSM. UNIFIL has about 27 nations playing in it, and Italy has the ground component commander with about 21 nations having troops on the ground, and the Germans have their ships patrolling, glad you haven’t suffered any casualties or that this hasn’t cost you much, very “intellectual.” What will you accomplish there? http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil
A long time ago I use to rationalize the Germans and why they are the way they are. Then I just gave up on that. My words probably do sound spiteful, but that’s not even the intent. It’s just the truth, and I am part German, speak the language, and grew up there. I stopped trying to put a “positive spin” on why the Germans would want to see lots of GIs die in Iraq. I stopped trying to explain why Germans would laugh when US jets get shot down in the Balkans, in a war the Germans pushed for and stood to gain from! I just quit pretending as if the Germans don’t wish us harm, because after a while I understood. There are in Germany deep ideological differences because of the socialist and secular society it’s become, and we're a largely religious nation and symbolically and literally a very open and free economy (capitalist). Maybe not for you, but for many we epitomize the antithesis of the big socialist nanny state; think about how a Gregor Gysi thinks of us. I realized that within the German psyche, even in the conservative camps there is envy; a pure envy because we are the leader, we are the biggest economy, we are the most powerful militarily, we do have more patents than anyone else, we will bring home more medals than anyone, we do lead the way in security establishments, we set the trends, we are nearly culturally dominant in the West ……….. Why do the French spit on Lance Armstrong, a cancer patient who won the tour de France more than anyone else? It's the same thing. There is a desire to see oneself in pole position and we do identify ourselves with our nationality. There is also human nature that likes seeing the big man fall, even if this means damage to oneself by him falling on top of you. The German deep down inside cheers if we have bad economic news, even if this will mean they will follow suit, because guess where ½ of all Porsches are sold? Guess what bad economic news in the US means for Mercedes, BMW, Audi…..? I realized that there are even still some hard feelings from WWII, despite the fact that the US is the most benevolent nation on earth. Why do you think German troops wanted taken prisoner by the US? The French had very different occupation plans in 1945………. What nation has ever been conquered by another, and then had the victor turn around and rebuild governmental services, prop up the economy with an artificial exchange rate intended to stimulate growth and a Marshal plan?????? But even there the German won’t talk about what WAS (The Marshall Plan); he’ll talk about some hypothetical nonsense like the Morgenthau Plan, which did NOT happen, and he will claim that the only reason why we did this is to build a “Bollwerk” against the East. Our benevolence is turned into selfish behavior, according to the Germans. But why, why would people be like that? Because the German DOES live in a world where even though they sit in the same boat with us in security and economic terms, where there are some cultural and genealogical ties, they have an animosity towards us and want to minimize us whenever possible. Ever notice the near obsession German papers have with the US?
Is this fiction or real? http://www.dmko.info/covers1.JPG You don't need to answer.
Yes, Germany is militarily irrelevant. I'd like that to be different. But that won't happen today, and it probably won't happen tomorrow. And even if we weren't, I wouldn't be in favour of projecting influence the way the USA deem it right. And I find it cute that if we play by the rules of the game, maximum gain for minimum investment, we are now a Schmarotzervolk.
I accept that Balkan thing as one situation where the USA really helped Germany and Europe without being strategically involved anyways. So thanks. But the USA didn't win the cold war for us. They won it for themselves. They did not choose to control Middle and South America for us. They did not involve themselves in the Middle East for us (except if us maybe means the British). They did not even protect Germany after the 2nd World War for us. These were strategic decisions, and while I am thankful for the protection after WW2 and the help on the Balkans, let's not pretend the USA don't have their own agenda. Gladio for example made clear that Europe can not choose to be protected. They WILL be protected.
Your ideas about Israel are even more unrealistic. Do you really believe Israel would tolerate a robust German task force really able to do things? The idea was funny if the reality wasn't so sad. We're still barely on speaking terms with Israel. I'm fairly clear about what the ships do down there, we sent em down there as a feel good mission. We sent em down there so Israel could have a reason to stop the war, which they wanted because they had no concept beyond destroying some of Hezbollah's military equipment, and they had already done that.
Haha, die Vietnamkeule. Ja, ihr wisst sichert wie das ist, wenn ein Krieg im Argument immer gegen das eigene Land verwendet wird. Niedlich.
I am not here to belittle Americans or because I wish to see US soldiers die. Yes, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, although I hope I am wrong. In my opinion, Iraq was morsch even before the USA went there. In much the same way as the KuK monarchy was morsch before WW1. I see no exit that leads to a stable Iraq, as it was before. I think in the long term Iran will profit from this. It's in no way the same as it was in Vietnam. There were some parallels in how parts of the war were conducted, but all in all it's a totally different scenario.
And honestly, I don't envy you for your position. All the poison you are spitting at me is coming from exactly this position. I envy Switzerland.
I admit that these are just speculations, and that I maybe unconsciously exaggerate the importance of Germany in Europe, because I love my country and that might distort my perspective on what my volk is capable of.
It’s simple to understand:
Pre 1989 Germany’s back was to the wall. There was no playing around with national security because the threat was real, direct, large, imminent, and perceived by the people. Even the left leaning SPD would not dare play games with security issues, and the “necessary” decisions for self preservation were made. Schmidt took a black eye because of the Pershing. But think about that for a second, an SPD politician took the stage and argued FOR nuclear missiles to be stationed in Germany.
Post 1989: The threat is real, but more abstract, further away, not quite as large but more unpredictable and irrational, and the Volk has no threat perception. The problems are distant, the average person can’t really understand the threat posed by Islamists, and likewise the political landscape as well as demographics in Germany has shifted even further left after the Wende. The Germany post unification is one where games are played, where security issues are of low importance (Except when needed as in the Balkans)....... Today security issues are on the table to be played with.
Germany post 1989 is not only not carrying it’s own weight, but playing political games with issues of international security, as witnessed with missile defense, Iraq, Iran, Bad Ailbling, logistical flights from US governmental planes (non-DoD)............. Think about this, the Greens were talking about denying over flight rights for the DoD in 2003...... Germany today is a place where imaginary threats of Global Warming, and imaginary solutions like Kyoto, dominate the political stage. Every antenna is a secret NSA eavesdropping facility according to the layperson, even TACAN navigation, and older VHF communication antenna is spying on the Germans. Any noise is too loud, a piece of chaff (plastic and aluminum strips) left on an airbase sends off alarm bells, an M-8 chemical alarm system causes a major media incident (Think about that one! A smoke Detector was a story in Der Spiegel for an entire week), every ammunition bunker suddenly becomes a secret US chemical weapons storage facility years past...... it’s comical. Game playing, what am I talking about? When Germany is heavily involved politically in instigating a war she will benefit from, but then years later politicians play with the issue of Depleted Uranium which our A-10s fired in the Balkans. Bottom line, the German no longer feels he needs the Ami, and national security is a low priority, there is a deep rooted animosity towards the US, and the German wants to do as little as possible on the world stage.
So from our perspective, while you are an ally, we can’t depend or trust you and even have to mitigate risk because of that. Why do you think the US reshuffled everything through Europe the way we did? Because it’s cheaper to build new installations, because it’s easier on command and control or logistics to be spread out all over the place? No, we reshuffled our forces and even other governmental agencies in Europe (particularly out of Germany) so that we are less susceptible to damage when some Schroeder/Fischer decides to play games. When the wall fell we had roughly 280,000 troops in Germany, and after the drawdown we had massive infrastructure (even excess capacity), so it was easy and cheap to consolidate everything in Germany. Germany for the US was like an aircraft carrier in the middle of Europe from not only where the USAF and Army operated from, but all governmental agencies to include FDA, FAA, CIA, NSA, FBI, Department of State………. Intelligence collected in other places was processed there; field offices for the FAA and FDA were based in Germany that did their business all over Europe……. Germany was the hub for US governmental, intelligence, and defense organizations from which we would reach into North Africa, the Caucasus, and Middle East. It is actually quite unfortunate, because what happened under the Schroeder/Fischer years amounted to a breach in trust and confidence. It went beyond not doing anything and just mooching; it went into the realm of sabotaging the US and Coalition effort within NATO, the UN, and Europe. Threats were made to EU states volunteering help, nations were paid off not to assist us, an additional resolution within the UN was blocked, any NATO involvement was blocked…….. If you’re not going to do anything, it you’re not the one paying, shut up and stay in the background (That’s not meant personal, I’m talking abstract). Germany wasn’t in Desert Shield/Storm, she hadn’t been part of the containment over 11 years (And no, you didn’t pay for that either)…….. It was our pilots getting shot at on a weekly basis. It was us that had to mobilize forces and build up in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait two times, it was our Special Forces dying in North Iraq and working with the Kurds, and it would be us fighting this war too, just like the last one. But Schroeder seized the opportunity in 2002 to turn this into a German “Wahlkampf” theme and took the issue Iraq into every living room. You see a problem here? This would have NEVER happened pre 1989.
What exactly was “Der Deutsche Weg” Schroeder talked about? It was EXACTLY that which you deny. Defining strength through inaction and standing up to the US, never mind the despot in Libya, Saddam, or Iran, no strength is when a German chancellor defines strength as saying “Nein” to the US and playing games as he did, and yes, it did have positive feedback from the Volk, and that tells me a lot.
The incredible thing about Germans is that they don’t believe in the Domino theory, or do they?
“And if you care for my assumptions about the aftermath of WW2: If you had decided to dissolve Germany, or let it starve, or really any other option than that which you picked, the whole of Europe would now either be communist satellites, a nuclear wasteland, or a mixture of both. “ ***When it’s one self, then of course different standards apply as with others.***
The irony with Vietnam and a German using that war in his half baked anti-war arguments is that the divided Germany was facing the same threat, and was essentially in the same situation. The problem is that when the typical German leftist uses this war in his argument, he doesn’t realize that all the reasons for the war were proven right after we withdrew and the armistice was broken and the South fell, as the entire region fell apart with Laos and Cambodia following suit and Thailand being attacked (Which we propped up and began poring massive resources into as soon as the withdraw from Vietnam was politically inevitable). I wonder, where do most Germans talking about Vietnam suppose those MIG21s, SA2 SAMs, and PRGs our guys were dealing with came from? Was it the massive industrial and technologically advanced economy Vietnam had?/sarc When a German uses the Vietnam War in some example, he usually is constructing a self defeating argument, which is if he knew better wouldn’t use, but he doesn’t know better, and that’s why he uses it. All the German knows is that Vietnam “feels bad” and so the association is there based on a “feeling” not anything substantive and factual. It’s an appeal to emotions essentially. The Vietnam argument from a German is usually as shallow as some statement like, “Kein Blut fuer Oel.”
As too Israel, you do exactly what I stated, rationalize doing nothing. The UN requested help, the Israeli’s would LOVE involvement, and like in the Balkans, a place occupied by German troops in WWII and some did make the historical hang up argument there too, it’s a “non-issue,” except when it’s a convenient excuse. In fact, I would argue 180 degree the opposite! BECAUSE it is Israel, this was an opportunity lost to do the right thing and to mend the past. But instead what the word saw was a Germany that sat on their hands and sent two ships. Your historical argument is exactly the same sort of BS that has been floated for years and applied elsewhere. If German troops stood in Lebanon and stopped the flow of arms across the boarder, the firing of rockets into Israel, or the kidnapping and murder of people, do you think the Israeli’s are going to complain?
Unfortunately this is too often the reality: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/pirates-free-german-ship-off-somalia
Germany today is a nation that doesn’t carry its weight and will play games, a nation that will pay ransom to drug cartels, pirates, and will gladly do business with the pariah’s out there and when people like you try to spin this somehow as noble, honest, moral, and intellectual, even as an act of strength, some people, especially those paying for our collective security and interests might not be so appreciative. Those who remember Germany asking for help in the Cold War and seeing GIs killed at the hands of RAF terrorists, those remembering Germany asking for help in the Balkans, they don’t see your minimalist and do nothing stance post 911 as noble, strong, intellectual, or moral.
The world is upside down too many Germans. When you stand to an allies side it’s portrayed as weakness, even after 911; but saying “Nein” to the US and making big shows of Bad Ailbling or Iraq, that is seen as some great German demonstration of sovereign power. “Wir sind wieder jemand!”
As to your beliefs about Iraq, this will entirely depend on the next elections. The fate of 26 million people more or less depend on the outcome in November. As with most of these missions, “they take time.” There is a reason why we are still in the Sinai 26 years later, why nearly 10 years later we are still in the Balkans (But since you gain from that intervention and support it, that timeline does not seem extraordinary to you)……… Iraq is simply a war where a line was drawn in the sand between the liberals and conservative camps; it’s a political battle ground for people with names like Kerry, Obama, Schroeder, or Chirac. It’s a place that has become a reality TV show for the “Spanner.” People in general know little about the war, and even the cause for war today has been narrowed down to a single slogan, WMD. People know little about the threat, our organization, the geography, the people of Iraq, the task at hand or what is needed to get to the finish line with a positive outcome. It’s all about where people see themselves and Iraq is essentially a sounding board for their greater ideological convictions. Seriously, listen to people talk about Iraq, few have any clue what they are talking about, most don’t even remotely make sense, but they do tell a lot about themselves when they speak.
There is a dichotomy between what people think and what is in Iraq, since it’s become a political and media orgy. What I can say for sure, is that there was a plan, things like this take a long time, and that the basic nature of people is that they do choose freedom when given a choice regardless of where they are and what religion they have. Even a people that voted for a Hitler, who voluntarily raised their right arms and before that obeyed their Kaiser, even they with no real democratic traditions to speak of (Weimar was too short to even count), chose freedom and a republic when afforded the option; and even they took years before they were self sustaining. It took Germany ten years before their Bundeswehr stood up in 1955, it took three years before their currency came around (Deutsche Mark), and the first parliamentary elections weren’t until 4 years after wars end. It took longer to have a Constitution than in Iraq, and contrary to the German fairytale, there were both Nazi and Communist terrorist groups active in Germany for years after WWII with the sole objective of resisting the Allied powers and/or over throwing the FRG’s government. In fact, the US Constabulary basically was the law of the land all the way into 1952 when this police function was handed over to the Germans. ***It takes time***
However, we have already accomplished a lot, and at this point, believe it or not, Iraq is damn near safer than Afghanistan! No kidding, casualties are down, attacks are down, some of the militias have laid down arms……. (Der Durchbruch gelang dieses Jahr)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/terror/main4221986.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4221986
At this point it’s about reconstruction and nation building and it is likely that combat troops begin returning home, not because of politics, but because the situation on the ground allows it. It is not just possible, it is likely that even a McCain will begin withdrawing troops within his first term, and no, I don’t expect Iraq to implode after that. However, a premature withdraw, hastily and politically motivated, fixed to a rigid timeline like Obama wants can turn back the clock.
Failure isn’t defined by meandering through a minefield of cliché and contemporary argument picking out a new one by the day to pin some idea of failure on. ***As you rightfully stated, failure will be defined when we leave and if Iraq stands or falls.*** However, the media has created a perception of failure by throwing mass quantities of garbage out there, most with high gloss pictures in magazines with names like Der Spiegel. Ever so often they have a new angle, a new theme (the mobs raiding, electrical power, election dates that can’t be kept, oil production, fuel rationing, etc.). Ironically few go back and check or report on the fact that Baghdad today has BETTER than pre war power, and that much of the fuel shortages were because more people could travel and move about than ever before, which BTW, the fuel rationing is over too. Few look back and say, “So what do you have to say for yourself since oil production is near pre-war level?” Nope, all the media and doom sayers do is move on to a new topic, a new theme. What is it now in Der Spiegel I wonder? I don’t read that trash, so I don’t really know. Der Spiegel only interests me when I want to feel the “Zeitgeist” of the German left. The fact that Iraq has satellite TVs, internet, and cell phone access (not allowed under Saddam), a growing economy, increasing oil production which is near or at pre-war levels doesn’t seem to matter. Is it entire regions that are self governing and where US troops are not even in the lead anymore that will convince people of success? Were the elections which had a higher voter turn out than most Western nations convincing that the people do buy into democracy? Is it their schools, universities, courts, police that are doing their jobs that will change the mind of the doom and gloom pundit? Maybe it’s the streets packed full of cars like never before because people can move about freely and have the money to do so? Maybe it’s the per-capita income which was $600 per year in 2003 and is around $3,700 today (2008)?
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPIQ.gif
While some talk of doom and gloom:
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/08/provincial_control.jpg
“Failure, quagmire, another Vietnam!!!!!!”…… and yet things are moving foreword quite well.
While I understand why you think the way you do, I assure you, things are very different than the media portrays. Already in 2003-2004 when I was there, things were hardly as bad as portrayed and some areas were actually safe, believe it or not. You need to realize, most of the deaths and the bombings etc. occur in specific areas that are hot spots. Even Baghdad has large areas where you “could” walk unarmed without body armor and nothing will happen. But then there are areas where it might be smart to only drive in with an armored vehicle with lots of firepower etc. The pictures you get on your news, come from specific places and they always tend to be the “same” places. Hell, if you really wanted too, you could vacation in Iraq, Kurdistan. But this is so far out of the “Weltanschauung” you have that it’s beyond your ability to accept it, at least from me.
If Obama wins, you might be right, Iraq may fail as a unified state and we’ll resort to a divided Iraq where places like Kurdistan are still in our court. Yes, that would mean a power expansion for Iran, and it would be bad. If McCain wins, Iraq will succeed as a nation, it’s not far out of reach at this point. If we fail in Iraq, that will be a real disgrace, it’s like running a marathon and being in a leading position and quitting at mile 25.
Damn nice novel your writing here.
Minimization: These are real arguments!
• We only invaded Somalia for the untapped vast oil reserves.
• We only invaded Afghanistan to build a pipeline through it.
• We’re invading Panama to hold onto the canal past its return date.
• We only helped Germany so for our own self interest (The Bollwerk) in the fight against the Soviets. Ironically, we were helping “Before” relations deteriorated, but that’s lost in the German revisionist history also.
• We were in Vietnam for the vast tin (Zinn) reserves, according to some experts of the time. Like there isn’t enough tin in the world./sarc
• Haiti, Liberia, Libya, Iraq, Balkans.............. It does not matter, as soon as US boots touch the ground, oil just magically bubbles out of the ground and spills all over the German newspapers.
• Hell, even our aid to the victims after the Tsunami was just to “buy the favor” of the Muslim world.
Tell me, at what point does the German feel like an idiot when beating his “Kein Blut fuer Oel” drum and blaming the Tsunami on the US and global warming?
And of course these are things said by a people that like to quote DeGaule (A French Nationalist) when convenient, “Nations have no friends, only interests.” Ever hear a US politician or the US people say this to you?
But no worries, like the Cold War, as with the Balkans, we’ll forget and forgive Shroeder’s and Fischer’s words and actions, your Greens, PDS, WASG and others screaming about missile defense when that Iranian ugly head starts to pop up. ***There is a big difference between people demonstrating and when politicians and local leaders play games using the powers of their offices to damage our collective interests, that’s something you want to ignore.*** There will always be those who scream this or that, but when the leaders of a free nation like Germany, sitting in the same boat with us, make statements to the effect that Iran is no threat, that the war on terror is all but George Bush’s imagination, that missile defense will start a new arms race and destabilize the world; and when they take ***actions*** that damage progress in security developments, all to pander to leftist and anti-American sentiments and save their hide politically, that’s irresponsible and goes far beyond just not doing anything. Sure we also have anti-nuke demonstrations, we also have anti-war demonstrations……… But what are our political and national security “actions.” What are the official positions of our government and what are our intelligence, security, and defense apparatuses doing?
Deeds, not words.
“In my opinion, Iraq was morsch even before the USA went there. In much the same way as the KuK monarchy was morsch before WW1. I see no exit that leads to a stable Iraq, as it was before. I think in the long term Iran will profit from this. “
If we succeed and Iraq remains a viable nation after we leave, it will be a complete success, even if bombs go off here and there, which will of course be the new argument for failure by the MSM at that point. A republic of Iraq will be a real problem for Iran. Iran is internally not as stable, peaceful, and unified as most think. Like the Cold War where West Germany was a powerful and damaging influence for the DDR, Iraq will affect Iran. Iraq as it struggles to survive will expend resources fighting the same bad guys we are. They will essentially do some of the work for us and we have to expend less. The war in Iraq has created a giant $hit magnet in the Middle East, and while the self proclaimed intellectual will use this as some argument of failure, it’s actually exactly what you want. It takes the fight to them, and out of the streets of NY, London, Madrid...... Hell, Coalition forces have actually captured and killed European Islamists, as in Muslims with a passport from a European nation that traveled to Iraq to fight or blow something up. It’s a fight that is more on “our terms.” An Islamist caught in Iraq fighting us does not fall under US or some European countries laws, we can operate using tools and techniques that would be forbidden elsewhere. It’s a sandbox, where we set up a big meat-grinder, and they keep coming, and that’s OK.
Iraq is a great location, it’s the “highground” from where we want to fight. There’s the holy shrines at Karbala where Mohamed’s sons are buried (Helps make blue light to attract the $hit flies into the zapper: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26296-2004May14.html That was the unit I was in), and it’s located between our friends Syria AND Iran. We would be “Insane” to give up this place, but as you rightfully and probably know, Obama is political enough to do just that. Do you really think Iran isn’t expending its resources in fighting us and Iraqi’s in Iraq? Do you really think we’re not pushing back on them? Do you really think we didn’t expect Iran to be a player in this even before we went in? Do you think we’re going to advertise everything we’re doing?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4180087.stm
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/us__israel_operate_in_iran.html
Who do we have to answer too when launching a U2 in Iraq? If Iran fires anything heading Westward, where will it fly over or across? If we want to put several divisions on the boarder to Iran, who other than ourselves will question this? I could be wrong, but I think it’s a pretty permissive environment for the military and intelligence organizations to operate from.
This is a war, a concept the Germans still deny. It is fought on many levels: militarily, politically, economically, with intelligence, in the media………. Iran is one of the bad players and they’re in the mix, but don’t think all is lost with Iraq, or that we even got bogged down and are stuck with no way out (The opinion you have). Maybe we like the place, and maybe many in the security and defense establishment would like to stick around for a while because we’re so close to our friends the Syrians and Iranians, and are finding a lot of nice AQ, Ansar al-Islam, etc types there that we’d like to talk to a bit. We even have Iranian “guests” who we hold onto for a while: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/25/africa/web.1225iraq.php
Just realize while you buy the media horse $hit of doom and gloom, last year in Germany you had 2347 murders, we took 900 (for all reasons, 1/3 being NONcombat related and 2007 was the worst year) casualties in Iraq. Actual combat casualties was about 600, and that was “the worst” year. As a soldier and a motorcycle owner, I was more likely to die on the road with my motorbike, than in Iraq, but that’s not a “shocking doom” story, right? Just some weird statistic for you, LOL. But I would be the first to admit that casualties are no metric of success. As politically incorrect this sounds, the casualty only has a political value and is a metric politician’s worry about because they talk in terms of feelings and emotions, and worry about pictures etc. Often such as in 2007 when our casualties were highest of any year, we were actually setting the stage for the success we enjoy today. The surge, which pushed hard, brought results, but also casualties. An Army bunkered up on a FOB and doing nothing might not suffer any casualties, but they’re not accomplishing much either. It’s a paradox that a military finds itself in, since achieving results almost always increases the exposure to risk factors and inevitably brings more casualties even in peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. It’s that simple, if you want to accomplish something, the risk goes up.
http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2007/index.html
What will likely happen if Obama gets elected and Iraq declines? We will probably resort to a divided Iraq, where those easy to maintain and hold areas will remain and continue to have some US presence, though more in the background. It would still not be a complete failure, but it would definitely not be the overwhelming success we want to achieve.
—
While your people still smirk about the invasion of Poland and dream about what a great success that was, we invaded a country that knew we were coming (No surprise attack like Poland), they had years to prepare, they knew us fairly well and how we operate, we had to deal with temperatures that go up to 122F (50C) in the shade! Dust storms and sand, open terrain that allows us to be fired upon at long ranges (Little cover and concealment), limited roads that can support our advancement, cities the size of Baghdad with 5.6 million (bigger than Warsaw) inhabitants, in a country larger than Poland by nearly 1/3, and our national industrial base and senior leaders were on the other side of the PLANET (Think logistics and communications)! Now we did this in 21 days, or three weeks, Germany took nearly six weeks, and suffered 16,343 KIA (About 40 TIMES our casualties), but you’d consider the invasion of Poland a complete success. Please fact-check me. LOL
What we pulled off in Iraq, is without precedent. Never, has a country attacked another country this size, fighting in larger cities, with so few casualties and so quickly. It’s never been done. And that was “failure.”
How does one create the illusion of failure? You have Der Spiegel write about how we are “bogged down.” Stories about how we are running out of batteries. How we are running out of food. How we are running out of fuel. How casualties are mounting, the bloodiest battle will soon start, Baghdad…………. Before long, someone with no perspective, no understanding or context, would have to believe that it’s all over for us! It would be the reasonable thing to believe! But things moved forward quiet well, as they are now.
Also, I know that the operation in Iraq was a tremendous success for the USA, and I'm certain it was very well executed. But the whole fight was like putting Mike Tyson against a 4 year old and now you tell me: "That babe had a mean left hook."
So you'd say the USA does not lead war out of interest, but out of friendship? Wars are not strategic decisions? Is that what you're trying to say?
I admit that the problem of the homo oeconomicus, the profit-maximizing actor, is often questionable on the personal level, for example because explaining selfless deeds with the gain of self esteem is not exactly useful. But on a larger scale, and especially in international relations, the homo oeconomicus model is almost never wrong.
Heh, touché.
But let me repeat: Israel and especially the IDF would not stand for a large amount of German troops sent under UN mandate. The idea that we can help pacify the Middle East is nice in theory, because that would of course be a very good way to repay a debt. But the UN is incapable of doing this. We wouldn't even want a UN capable of doing this, at least I'm not too keen on a world army restructuring the world as the UN sees fit.
And the Vietnam conflict was a colonial one: The people of the Far East had already tried to negotiate their independence from the West, and France had denied them that. So obviously the only place they could turn to for support was the Commies. In my eyes that is the problem with Domino: In a bipolar system, if you are unhappy under the rule of one side, you always have to choose the other side for support, because if you want to fightr a war with Russia or the USA, national power does rarely cut it. But that does not necessarily prove you want to be ruled by that other side, as demonstrated by Vietnam.
Als Kosten des Krieges für die Vereinigten Staaten wurden vom Kongress etwa 61,1 Milliarden US-Dollar errechnet; 52 Milliarden von diesen Kosten wurden von verschiedenen anderen Staaten bezahlt: 36 Milliarden wurden von Kuwait, Saudi-Arabien und anderen Golfstaaten bezahlt. 16 Milliarden wurden von Deutschland und Japan bezahlt. (genannt: „Scheckbuchdiplomatie”, da sich die Länder nicht aktiv mit ihren Soldaten am Krieg beteiligten).
Believe it or not, yes. Many of our operations, like in Somalia, or Haiti, had absolutely NO economic or security benefit to us. The DoD falls under civilian authority. The People in the US do believe in using their forces for humanitarian, peacekeeping, or even peace enforcement operations that have absolutely no benefit to them. What did we get from the Balkans? What do they have there for us? Rocks? We have those in the US too. You’re the ones dealing with refugees, you were the ones threatened by the regional instability, and you’re the ones that even have economic interests in Croatia, NOT us. Why did we go to war? And even here it’s possible to create a self interest and minimize, which indeed was done.
Applying your reasoning I could say Mother Theresa was a heartless selfish bitch just trying to “buy her ticket” to heaven. You can take anything and minimize it. But at some point you have to ask yourself if you’re just being an idiot and @sshole for doing so.
If we wanted the fastest, cheapest, and easiest answer in Iraq, we would have chopped off the monsters head, left the IIS and Iraqi Army in tacked, and said we’re the new sheriff in town. That would have worked too. And even there you see the German minimizing us and even attacking an effort to democratize and pacify a nation, a route that isn’t the easiest. Think about that one! You might not perceive it as such, but your Volk is more or less hoping for failure, stood in opposition too liberation, and does nothing for a process to bring Iraq up as a republic, a free nation, und man ist man noch Stolz mit diese Haltung.
Wars, how they are fought, what the desired end states are, are largely influenced by the ideology, morals, and prevailing attitudes and values of the society fighting them. I don’t think the Wehrmacht had the same approach we do. I don’t think the Russians have the same approach or end state in mind in Chechnya. I don’t think it was a good thing to be conquered by the Ottomans or Persian empires years past....... ***Yes, the US has a commitment to certain principals when it goes to war, and HAVE (as in I can give examples) fought numerous wars that have had no benefit to us as a nation whatsoever, other than appease a society that has deep rooted Christian and democratic values.***
As I said, you give a lot of insight into yourself with your statements, and there is a reason why Germany can’t be expected to be dependable when we’re attacked. You have no friends, only interests, as in Iran or Russia…….. Who does Schroeder work for today? It’s only “interests” my friend. If I were you, I’d be demanding he’d get hung!
"Sundays, one's tenderized by Maischberger (influential ARD political talkshow anchor) and Mondays, one gets crumbed by the SPIEGEL."
I know that while all information provided by FR are excessively positive, often to a degree where objectivity is lost, the SPIEGEL's just doing the opposite. The SPIEGEL has once been a comparably objective and investigative magazine, even if it has always been leftist in its paradigma to some degree. This objectivity and quality is rarely the case anymore, and you don't need to convince me of that, I found that out years ago when SPIEGEL changed its direction after Augstein died.
But even the SPIEGEL (and various other rather leftist magazines and newspapers, for example the TAZ) have argumented with the Allies' perception of World War 2: If the World does not stand up against agressors, how is our way of life to prevail?
Where you are wrong IMO is that Germans want to see the US fail. It is simply that Germans see the US fail, which is caused by facts, but also caused by the prediominant media bias in Germany. You from your standpoint are convinced that the bias is playing a much bigger part than the actual facts. I think both are pretty even, because I don't see myself influenced by the German bias a lot ( yeh I know, different standards) and I still think that many of the main problems like the Kurd question have not yet been solved, have barely been touched up to now. However, most Germans are convinced that the conflict in Iraq is bound to fail, and they condemn the US for destroying the lives of Iraqi civilians. But while many of them, as you pointed out, think that the ruling class of the USA is 'evil' and greedy and whatnot (which is the same they think of their own ruling class), they actually have a pretty high opinion of US democracy and the US people. Apart from that there's the fact that the USA rule the world nowadays, and of course a special set of rules applies for our rulers. These are the reasons why they consistently hold all of what the US are doing to such a high standard.
These people would like to believe in cutting out the cancer, but due to German history they judge everything that's happening to such a ridiculously high standard that everybody, even the USA, is bound to fail. They do not want the omelette without breaking the eggs, they just can't stomach breaking the eggs and they would rather starve, because Germany's identity crisis is so deep that it has clouded people's judgement regarding the world they want for a long time. There are Germans who question Germany's right to exist after what happened in World War 2. While they are a radical minority, the question whether we can somehow assume a position of judgement toward anyone is burned deep into every German's mind. That is probably the most important reason why many Germans almost enjoy wailing over US decisions and their bad sides: Because it justifies staying in Limbo, because it eases the pain of considering yourself not worthy of judgement and responsibility if you realize that no one is. Funny how the lesson learned from one conflict can be so different depending what side you're on.
The situation that a major part of the German population will support ANY war that is not obviously defensive (in the sense that we are attacked - militarily - directly) will not happen soon. Germans are fed up with projecting military influence and they are convinced that no good can come out of it. How do you imagine an administration to rule against that? How do you expect them to justify a higher military budget? Even then it is changing, in small steps. It has already started with restructuring the military from a defensive to a mobile force against the will of a majority of the population. It could only be done in the context of the European Union, in that "wasn't our decision" kind of way. I just hope that you understand how few options any German administration actually has in this regard, if it wants to stay in power for some time.
In the interest of my own country, I would really like to see us ready and willing to project military force. The UN is mostly just a tool to delay decisions of people who matter, which is as useful as it is problematic, like it or not. And no one wants the UN as a political player on its own.
Europe may one day be able to decide on military issues, which is something that Germany definitely hoped for, so we could play with the big boys again. No one likes a military that doesn't do anything. No one likes a military that is not allowed to fight. But chances for that happening any time soon are looking increasingly dark.
Germany, on its own, will still need a long time to get to a point where conscious and decisive projection of power can happen outside of an international defensive context. However you judge that, it's a political reality, and for it to change it is not necessary that people listen to reason. It is necessary that people act according to reason, and that they face the consequences of that, which would very probably be their political downfall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
