Replies

Using the words of De Gaul to describe a relationship that is Trans-Atlantic generally is intended to flavor the conversation in a negative way.

First off, that comment is wrong. There are aspects like "trust and culture" that go beyond shear economic or security interests. Frankly, our position with Israel from a pure interest perspective is not a good one. The cost of backing Israel, the political damage with other Arab states suffered, the enemies who have benefited from this situation (i.e. Iran, Russia etc) by far exceed what we will ever get back from Israel. Let me make this real clear - We back Israel for reasons that go beyond shear “national interests”.

Second off, that argument is typically used by those who for convenience use it. When it fits into their agenda they say “Nations have no friends, only interests”, and if they were attacked someone like this would by the largest –Schreihals- out there saying that NATO has an obligation to help Germany, that the US has an obligation to help Germany….. It is a fake moral relativistic argument again. I’m not saying that the US should not help Germany in crisis; rather my position is that “fair weather friendship” as he is trying to justify at times using the arguments of De Gaul is bogus.
--
“Economic competition is great, but that should not allow us to view the US other than what it is: one of our closest allies!” You wrote-

The problem here is that people loose focus. You can divide issues different ways. Usually people do not look at the macro level which I have spelled out numerous times.

1. International, regional and national security including citizens abroad
2. Access to strategic resources
3. Free mobility of people, idea’s, goods, and services
4. Patent and copyright protection

Of course we can break down and delve into much much greater detail on every one of those topics in itself.

If you look at ANY nation where you have a true collision of “interests” which Atlantic Bridge likes to talk about (i.e. China, Iran………) you realize that fundamentally these are the root issues. Many of the issues raised are in reality micro level issues. They are issues that are ‘politicized’ and get great levels of media publicity but are in actuality not vital. Atlantic bridge in this instance uses the “red herring” more or less.

“Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)” http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Red%20herring

Ultimately- what happened in Germany in 2002/03 was that national election politics dictated foreign policy and international relations to include positions on alliances and international affairs in which Germany only had a marginal role to begin with (i.e. Iraq). No matter how one try’s to slice it, that was unjustifiable.

But that is water under the bridge for a discussion with you since you’re not the one trying to justify it. Looking to the future, it is important that NATO be built into the security umbrella it needs to be.

The UN is incapable, corrupt, impotent…. you name it – in regards to security concerns they fail except one other run the show and all they do is take credit for it (i.e. Haiti, Iraq 1991, Korea 1950s….). The UN is a great place to talk and tell the world what you think, distribute food to people in aid (sometimes). The UN can NOT deal with the security issues faced by the western industrialized world.

As he brings fourth hypocritical arguments of US ‘unilateral’ behavior reference Iraq, it is people like he who inherently think anti-NATO and throw out BS arguments as if the UN should have been the proponent on the Iraq issue. The UN can’t fix themselves, let alone the Iraq problem. Pointing the finger to an organization no one uses for security concerns is as ridiculous as stating NATO didn’t want to help when Germany and France block all efforts to engage NATO on this matter. NATO is the ONLY ‘multilateral’ organization which has the true structures, professionalism, and competencies to deal with the security threats we face collectively. It is again ironic that people like Atlantic Bridge put the words ‘unilateral’ in their mouth yet they want to create military structures outside of NATO control within the EU.

If everyone pulls on the rope in the same direction, we can get to a desirable outcome. The alternative is a disjointed partial effort which brings little. A true US disengagement in this war would spell catastrophe for Europe. It would be worse for Europe than for North America which is out of range, has less Muslims, and is less dependent on oil as Europe. Ironically ‘some’ who are hiding out and don’t want to do much would be those hit hardest in the long run if the US assumed exactly that position which people like Atlantic bridge wished would happen. Is France going to protect Europe with their “Grande Nation”? After all they did offer to put Germany under their nuclear protection. That’s sarcasm in case you hadn’t noticed, but an idiot like Atlantic Bridge really sees it this way! His stupidity gets greater- in part he plays the argument: “If we do nothing and say nothing the Islamist will leave us alone”. That’s pathetic, especially since this is coming from the same person who tries to see himself as: “Deutschland, wir sind wieder jemand.”

Here is my position and it has been consistent and it is not anti German: The threats to Germany’s security need dealt with, even on the footsteps of the Hindokusch as someone once correctly stated. Das ‘Status quo’ wird sich nicht halten lassen. Man kann nicht erwarten das die Vereinigten Staaten den politischen, wirtschaftlichen, und militaerichen Druck ausgestellt werden, während man in ihrem Schatten im Hintergrund die noch schlecht macht aber von ihnen profitieren möchte! Beispiel: Ueberfluege von Gefangenen. Es ist die Verteidigung dieses Blödsinns was mich sehr irritiert und wo ich auch nicht ein Blatt vor dem Mund nehme.

Die USA haben die NATO und UN gegründet gerade weil man nach dem ersten und zweitem Weltkrieg eine multilaterale und sehr intervensions orientierte Position einnahm. Man versteht das ‘Isolationism’ nicht funktionierte auch wenn man wie die USA sogar noch mit großen Ozeane getränt und fast unabhaenig war in Bezug zu Rohstoffen. Das Problem heute ist das wenige wirklich international sich für ueberhabt etwas engagieren wollen. Der durschnitliche Deutsche sieht keine Verantwortung oder sogar Verpflichtung gegen über S. Korea würde Morgen N. Korea den Süden angreifen. Man sieht keine Verpflichtung Australien zu helfen in Ost Timor usw. Aber Urlaub, Handel, usw das ist natürlich akzeptabel. Der Status ‘Schmarotzer’ ist nicht völlig aber schon großenteils angebracht fuer manche innerhalb Europa (Und Deutschland ist da noch nicht einmal so schlim in wirklichkeit in dieser Hinsicht!). Genau wie Österreich das von dem Einsatz im Balkan enorm profitierte aber sich als neutral wenig rührte, ist die Haltung mancher kaum ehrenhaft oder sogar moralisch bedingt wie unser Hellt es hier auch versucht darzustellen. Es sind lediglich ‘scheinheilige’ Argumente die einfach in dem Moment ins Kram passen und so sich schnell jedoch kaum durchdacht in seinen Wörter wieder funden.

Was haben die USA den in Ost Timor den verloren? Nichts, außer das wenn wir nicht eingreifen oder helfen würden DIES das unmoralische wäre! Das nichts tun wäre der Vertrauens Bruch mit den Australier.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?storyID=123020899

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Astute

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1999/n09171999_9909162.html (Das war vor vielen Jahren und ich war da auch dabei.)

Ich bin ‘STOLZ’ das wir unseren Verbündeten helfen. Das ist sehr anders wie manche hier die versuchen das Handels Schroeder’s zu rechtfertigen.

Langfristig bin ich sogar für den Ausbau der NATO innerhalb dem Pazifik und auch die redefinierung dessen Rolle. Die jenigen die alles beim alten halten wollen, das sind die jenigen die wenn nötig schnell für Hilfe fragen, aber kaum freiwillig helfen wollen. Eine redefinierung der Rolle NATO erzwingt einen Lastenausgleich.
--
Das mit dem WWII ist faktisch nachvollziehbar. Man hatte unter den Alliierten Staaten einfach mehr von allem - Mehr Menschen, mehr Resourcesn, mehr Wissenschaftler, Forscher, Inginuere, und mehr Industrie. Man konnte einfach nicht mithalten in fast jeder Hinsicht. Das ist nicht ein runter putzen Deutschen Begabniss oder Fähigkeiten. Es ist einfach das Groß Britannien und die USA zusammen gerechnet viel viel mehr Potenzial hatten und wenn dies einmal richtig zum rollen Kahm, waren die Resultate schnell und hart spuehrbar.

To make it short and to get to the fundamental question - I called Red6 a "Gesinnungsnazi" since I have reasons for it. Let me quote him:

While this may hurt, there is a lot of truth to the FACT that during WWI, WWII and the Holocaust destroyed a lot of some of the most viable male population in Germany. It’s not rocket science nor am I talking about you personally.... ....When you’re talking about total war between nations and a country fights in WWI, then has the Great Depression, then WWII where 3.5 MILLION are killed and these are the most viable stock you have, when the Holocaust kills are causes hundreds of thousands to leave (And these were productive, educated and largely even patriotic people) you have serious issues later. What you end up with is a society that has been beat down not through a pacification of some US program (Again the we are victims attitude) but rather a society where the aggressive, healthy, most capable were killed off or fled. Even after WWII Germany experienced a huge exodus of people. Werner von Braun and many others were among them. Germany pumped itself out. What you ended up with was Homo’s, the sick and weak, socialists, deserters……

You find it here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1567870/posts?page=50#50"<

He defines Germany in a strict social darwinistic approach while he is obviously intellectual unable to understand Darwinism (read my answer to this BS). His conclusion of this is that he and his compatriots are the new "master-race" to rule the world (and besides of that - Germany).

Have you ever heared him to argue about "THE" German, "THE" everlasting Frog, "THE" Brit, "THE" Pole etc. etc. etc. I had the strange privilege to know some real nazis from back then. They used exactly the same arguments and exactly the same verbalism Red6 does. It makes me sick if I even think about it.

There are many different attempts to define nazism. Most people here see its economic "socialist" part as its major feature, because they can declare this ideology then as "leftist". We both know that this is BS. The major feature of nazism is its scorn of human beings and human life.

If your read the posts of Red6 he often said that Germany and the US have all the same interests and therefore it is the basic duty of Germany to back everything the US are doing. Although we share indeed some concerns, there are many things we Germans do not want to mix in because of our well-understood own interests. I.e. It is true that I (like most of my compatriots) have mixed feelings about the sense of the Iraq war. I see the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a justified reason for the war (as a humanitarian aim), while I do not believe into the officially pleaded reasons for this war like (irrelevant or not existing) WMDs. While I understand that violence is necessary to enforce the security of a nation (like Israel contra Hamas) I do not approve the use of millitary force to accomplish economic interests. Furthermore I will never back the excessive use of violence against civillians. I.e. I can not understand that it shall be just to hunt terrorists with air raids in a occupied country. Imagine our millitary bombard Hamburg with 1.800 kg (guided or not) bombs in a terrorist round-up without any warning. We would never do that and the Americans would not do it in New York either. Those 12 year old boys on the streets of Bagdad are well aware of that and they also know that their lives are just second-rate to the west. This is dangerous and it is indeed a crazy "Abenteuer" to me, since their hate will fall back on the United States sooner or later. I am sure that the outcome of this war will not help to contain terror although it helped the Iraqies to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It is rather the start of a new vicious circle of terror and violence.

If we talk soley about German interests - like Red6 proposes - the question will be what we can do for OUR country there.

1. Our security situation will be worse if we go into Iraq since we would make ourselves a target for the hate of those younsters that grow up in Sadr-City and elsewhere now. The existance of the US-bases on our soil is dangerous enough if we see it from that point of view.

2.Our economic relationship to Iraq is already excellent. The import partners of Iraq are:

Turkey 25%, U.S. 11.1%, Jordan 10%, Vietnam 7.7%, Germany 5.6%, Australia 4.8%.

Source:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm<

BTW- It is quite funny to me that many of the key coalition members obviously have no economic benefit from their huge investments (i.e. the US buy 53.4% of the Iraqi oil and spend millions and bazillions there and their export quote is really not that impressive if we compare it with their efforts - not to speak about the UK or Poland).

3. The relatonship to the US would be better, on the other hand we would still be the unconditional vassals of America. The undiplomatic "no" of Schroeder has the positive effect, that we emancipated us for the first time from the omnipotent US after WWII. That overdue step (no matter if it was made by that moron Schroeder or not) opened us the way to our own independent policy. Somebody who defines his own policy can do it again in another situation. Politically the outcome is not that bad, since -after the change to Merkel- America knows that they have friends in central Europe but no viewlessly idiots with slavish obedience. Something fundamental happened in the trans-atlantic relationship.

4. If Saddam Hussein would have owned some Sarine warheads would they have been a threat to Germany? No.

Therefore: The only reason for our participation would be humanitarian. So we come back to the question of the beginning of this circle - is this a war that was fought because of humanitarian reasons?

Red6 does not care about humanitarian things, he cares about interests. Just listen to his argumentation. He does not care about human beings or human life. This is the reason why I think that his thinking is simular to the one of the nazis. A certain form of selfish and brutal primitivism. His stance towards Germany is dominant. He want to see Germany as a submissive protectorate of America. Something de facto occupied with a obedient puppet government.

This is the reason why I confirm my statement again: He is a Gesinnungsnazi. Period. Somebody who is malign. His intention towards Germany is negative. And - to say it frankly - somebody I do not want to see in our country.

Nevertheless he is too ridicolous to care about, since he represents only a small and completely irrelevant fraction of Americans. America is a great nation with great people that carry the light of freedom around this world. Maybe they made faults like we do, but the intention of most of them is good. They learn from their faults and they are able to listen. This is their difference to Red6. This is why America is a friendly nation to Germany and Americans are friendly to Germans. Anyway the relationship has to be redefined in many points since most of the old parameters changed. It is contraproductive to stick to old things that are overdue since they only raise false expectations on both sides of the Atlantic.