Posted on 04/14/2008 4:30:19 AM PDT by Renfield
Europeans have been hyperventilating over their self-perceived victories vis-à-vis the United States at the recent NATO Summit in Romania from April 2-4. France and Germany Thwart Bushs Plans, ran a triumphant headline in the Hamburg-based Der Spiegel. Europe Waits Out the Bush Administration, read another. Only One Lame Duck Here said the London-based Guardian in commentary that waxes giddy about Russias growing stranglehold over Europe. NATO Should Disappear said the Madrid-based El Pais.
But behind the spin, the 26-member NATO Summit (arguably the most important such gathering since the end of the Cold War) exposed a security-dependent Europe that is divided, weak, and fickle above all else.
Consider Spain, for example, where newly re-elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was far less concerned about Spanish (or European) security than about getting some one-on-one face-time with US President George W Bush. Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist pacifist who is arguably the most anti-American leader in Europe today, is (unsurprisingly) one of the only such Europeans never to have been invited to the White House.
But in the Byzantine logic of Spanish politics, that elusive visit to the Oval Office (to see an American president who is broadly despised by most Spaniards) also happens to be the main litmus test by which Spaniards will judge whether Zapatero gets promoted from provincial politician to international statesman during his second term.
Thus Zapateros permanent non-relationship with the most powerful leader in the free world has become something of a media obsession in Spain, with the issue generating many miles of ink in national newspapers.
Imagine, then, the internecine recriminations when Zapateros much-vaunted mini-summit with Bush lasted all of about three seconds just enough for Bush to shout three words (which brings to a grand total of 18 words the two leaders have exchanged during the last four years) that appeared in newspaper headlines all across Spain: Hola, Hola, Felicidades. (Hello, Hello, Congratulations, referring to Zapateros re-election.)
Zapatero then took to the podium and tried to persuade bemused members of the Alliance to merge NATO with the United Nations! And, just for good measure, the prime minister also announced that Spain would not be sending more troops to Afghanistan, with or without the UN.
Not surprising, then, that Zapatero was captured in a politically devastating Summit photograph sitting in isolation, while the rest of the leaders present were huddled around Bush at the other end of the conference hall. The picture, which made the front page of every newspaper in Spain, opened up yet another pained debate about Spains declining influence in the world since Zapatero took office.
Then take Greece. It refused to allow Macedonia to join NATO because Greece wants its northern neighbor to change its name, which Greeks say jeopardizes their claim as the only the rightful descendants of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC).
The controversy erupted in 1991, when the former Yugoslav republic declared its independence from Belgrade and took the name Republic of Macedonia. Although more than 120 countries have now recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its current name, Greece says the name proves that Macedonia harbors implicit territorial claims on the northern Greek region also known as Macedonia. Never mind that by joining NATO, Macedonia would provide Greece with much-needed stability on its northern border.
Then consider Germany and France, arguably the greatest free-riding beneficiaries of American security since World War II. At the Bucharest Summit, they (together with Spain) refused to extend NATO Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine because they were afraid of provoking Russia, thanks to Europes growing dependence on Russian energy.
Germany, for example, already imports 35 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, more than any country in Western Europe. The problem of energy dependency is being exacerbated by leftwing energy policies that are phasing out the countrys production of nuclear energy in favor of increased reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, Germanys (and Europes) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) will give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security.
Europeans, in any case, know that keeping Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO will not appease Russia for very long. Indeed, the Germans appear to be looking for a face-saving way out of Europes long-term geo-strategic dilemma. On March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled Towards a European Ostpolitik in which he suggests that Europes future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia. Say what?
Well, if Germany insists on turning Europe into a province of Russian, then debates over the future of NATO will be moot anyhow.
In France, meanwhile, the government on April 8 faced down a vote of no confidence, as leftists accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous Atlanticist drift that risked turning France into Bushs poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan under pressure from the Americans and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.
With allies like these, expect trouble ahead for transatlantic relations, regardless of who occupies the White House next January.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group
“No, we denounced the crimes committed by both sides along with the rest of the council.”
Come on mate, in all honesty, thats merely paying lip service to international norms and legality. Im not arguing against it, its just the method that countries use in war. Proxy wars, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
“congressional legislation authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom”.
Cited in your Congress as Cassus Belli, I dont think it washed elsewhere. Certainly not in the UN.
And do try to find a copy of Global Disorder. I know what you’re expecting it to be, but honestly it isn’t. It really is a very interesting look at the future state of the world.
“And in doing so removed a petty dictator who was the wall that stopped and diverted Shia Iran. “
Stopped and diverted Iran from what? Iran was then, and still is a terrorist state. This ‘wall’ against Iran was the same guy who sent his obsolete fighters to Iran for safe-keeping against the allies. He funded and harbored international terrorists, just like the Iranians do.
” Now, with Iran as the only regional power, we arent in better shape. Thats a geo-political fact my FRiend.”
Actually, the democratically elected government of Iraq is using their forces to battle Iranian backed militias as we speak (or type,lol). And the U.S. military is in Iraq, creating a serious deterrent to any conventional aspirations of the Iranian regime.
“Going to war to remove murderous dictatorships will bring peace and stability and avoid future conflicts.”
That is the most interesting paradox I have ever heard in my life. Stunning!
Going implies heading towards. War doesn’t bring peace (!), and this is one of the conflicts that going to war was to prevent!
Semantics I know, but fun.
I doubt the Iranians would be so obvious as to use conventioal means. I mean that their influence is now so much greater since the regime change in Iraq. They have a natural kinship with the Shia in the South of Iraq, and although the Sunni’s dont exactly love the Shia, the one commonality between all the them is a mutual dislike of the West, and America and Britain in particular.
“He (Hussein) funded and harbored international terrorists”
Never heard, seen, read, or otherwise come across any factual document that said as such. If anything, they maybe harboured the PKK, but Iraq was a Secular Socialist Republic, and the Baathist system would never have dealt with religious fanatics. He claimed to in later days as he knew that was the best way to get his Arab brothers behind him.
“Cited in your Congress as Cassus Belli, I dont think it washed elsewhere. Certainly not in the UN.”
On the contrary. Many other nations participated. Regarding the UN, the action was authorized by UNSC Res.678, which authorized [the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions]. ‘All necessary means’ includes military action.
” I mean that their influence is now so much greater since the regime change in Iraq. They have a natural kinship with the Shia in the South of Iraq, and although the Sunnis dont exactly love the Shia, the one commonality between all the them is a mutual dislike of the West, and America and Britain in particular.”
Actually, the Shia-led government in Iraq is using their forces of Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis against the Iranian backed militias. The Sunni sheiks have formed an allaince with the coalition against both Al Qaeda and the Iranian backed Mahdi militia.
“Never heard, seen, read, or otherwise come across any factual document that said as such. “
If you read the international legislation relating to Iraq, you will see that Saddam was in violation of his obligations relating to terrorism. (ie, UNSC 1441). We even captured international terrorists like Abu Abbas when we liberated Iraq.
We can interpret a single thing a multitude of ways.
A vigorous argument. Cheers.
Nope. Since we have all his documents left (even his uniform with saber) it is quite easy to verify that it has been that way. We even have his flight book that showed that he was flying until April 1945.
The far most successful fighters in WWII (if we talk about some individuals) were Germans due to their technologically superior material and due to their longer experience.
Americans i.e. never saw such long operation times and were replaced much faster then their German opponents.
Read and learn. The most successful fighters of WWII:
NAME/KILLS/WAR/country
Erich Hartmann 352 WWII Germany
Gerhard Barkhorn 301 WWII Germany
Guenther Rall 275 WWII Germany
Otto Kittel 267 WWII Germany
Walter Nowotny 258(2) WWII Germany
Wilhelm Batz 237 WWII Germany
Erich Rudorffer 222(12) WWII Germany
Heinrich Baer 220(16) WWII Germany
Hermann Graf 212 WWII Germany
Heinrich Ehrler 209(5, 220?) WWII Germany
Theodore Weissenburger 209(8, 252?) WWII Germany
Hans Philip 206 WWII Germany
Walter Schuck 206(8) WWII Germany
Anton Hafner 204 WWII Germany
Helmut Lipfert 203 WWII Germany
Walter Krupinski 197 WWII Germany
Anton Hackl 192 WWII Germany
Maximilian Stotz 189 WWII Germany
... many many other Germans ...
Hiroyoshi Nishizawa 113(87-174?) WWII Japan
... many many other Germans ...
Juutilainen, Eino Ilmari 94.17 WWII Finland
... many many other Germans, Fins and Japanese ...
Ivan N. Kozuhedub 62 WWII USSR
...last but not least your all time fighter hero...
Richard I. Bong 40 WWII USA
Source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Elevon/aces.html
We Germans are still deeply impressed. :)
At least I do not derive from this list to the genetic capability of your compatriots like some others here would do if the facts would be topsy-turvy.
Going to war to remove murderous dictatorships will bring peace and stability and avoid future conflicts.
Only if you are
1. able to win such a war which is difficult for a democracy like the US. If i.e. Obama will be the next president and he surrenders in Iraq the situation will be much worse than ever before. Iraq will turn into a Iranian/Turkish province then.
2. able to spare the civilians. To my knowlege the US are i.e. still forced to use air support for their movements in Baghdad although they declared the misson accomplished in 2003. Bombardments and police actions are something different.
3. able to draw the people of the invaded country on your side.
Do not get me wrong. I pray for success in Iraq. Nevertheless not every crusade is a satisfying experience for those who have to suffer it unregarded of its justification.
Sorry to digress....but
THIS is a cool name...
Richard I. Bong 40 WWII USA
Yeah...dick bong..Mr Dick Bong.
Sorry...still a teenage at heart...
There was a fierce discussion in Germany during the beginnings of the Iraq war among the SPD (the party that supplied the chancellor Schroeder back then) and the Greens (the party that supplied the foreign minister Fischer back then) to close the German airspace for offensive operations since they are forbidden by the German constitution (Grundgesetz).
BTW - the American deployment in Germany has practically nothing to do with German security. It is rather a problem for us because your GIs represent a target for terrorists who would not really be interested in Germany if the deployment would not be there. Your troops in Germany are operating the hubs for your world-wide missions in the ME and Africa. There are practically no defensive units (except of a few F-16s in Spangdahlem) left on German soil. They would not be nesseccary either. Our security is practically based on our own army and on French nukes. The threat is quite limited anyway.
Nope. Completely wrong. 660 and 678 were resolutions dealing with the first Gulf war. The important resolution was 1441.
The legal background is the charter of the United Nations:
Article 2 - “... All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ...”
If we talk about other nations:
On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council resolution 1441 did not authorize any “automaticity” in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were force to be used. Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue. To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that “there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
Beside of the question if this war was illegal or not it has to be said that the fall of Saddam Hussein was a honorable aim. Nevertheless the original justification of this war is (from a European point of view) somehow absurd. Even Colin Powell conceded that his argumentation in the security council was wrong:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3596033.stm
In a logical conclusion the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (usually not exactly a man of clear words) said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."
Of course we can say: "Who cares"? The UN is a talking shop and Annan a corrupt idiot. Nevertheless a bad taste will remain. Personally I think it would have been much better to tell the world simply the truth which was:
1. The US do not care about the UN, its peacenik rules and the opinions of other nations governments.
2. The existence of Saddam Hussein is a threat to the US. Therefore he has to be eliminated.
3. US firms are interested into the natural resources of Iraq just as the rest of the western world. There is a common interest of all western nations to see those natural resources under the direct control of the US.
4. In a secondary action the US try to establish democracy and civilization in a muslim country.
“Nope. Since we have all his documents left”
Yeah, and I have documents showing that Hillary dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. Your tale makes no sense. The allies had air superiority over western europe by mid-44. The Nazis were in a critical shortage of experienced pilots. Our Mustangs, along with other allied fighters, ran out of viable military targets, resorting to strafing anything that moved. It’s not like Charley Fox was targeting Rommel, he was just another allied fighter that shot at anything that moved. If the Nazis still had a viable air force at this time, their higher-ups would have been able to move freely within their own country without being shot at. How did Operation Overlord succeed if the Nazi’s still had viable air support (it wouldn’t have). You’ll also note that the pilots you listed got a vast majority of their kills on the Eastern Front. For example, let’s examine the first pilot you listed, Erich Hartmann. Of his 352 victories, 345 were against the Soviet Air force. Any ground offensive by the Nazis on the Western Front needed heavy overcast to succeed, like the Battle of the Bulge (which still resulted in failure for the Nazis, even with heavy overcast.)
“...last but not least your all time fighter hero...
Richard I. Bong 40 WWII USA. We Germans are still deeply impressed. :)”
He’s not just my hero. He’s a hero to every man, woman, and child in Europe who enjoys living in freedom. Without the brave sacrifices of men like this, they’d be living under Nazi tyranny. I would think that modern day Germans would be happy that these brave men risked their lives to oust a hideous regime like the Nazis, who killed millions of their own. Mocking America’s WWII generation doesn’t exactly do much for you on a web-site like the Free Republic. I’ll assume that a majority of Germans are happy and thankful that the Nazis were ousted from power by the allies, and I’ll assume that you are as well, but just aren’t very good at expressing it.
“2. able to spare the civilians. “
No, we killed civilians in Germany and Japan, and both wars gave us peaceful allies.
“To my knowlege the US are i.e. still forced to use air support for their movements in Baghdad although they declared the misson accomplished in 2003. “
That related to the mission of the carrier. The media and others that oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom attempted to misinterpret that.
“3. able to draw the people of the invaded country on your side. “
A good point. You’ll not that we have formed alliances with the Sunni sheiks and we support the Shia backed government of Maliki against al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias.
“There was a fierce discussion in Germany..”
You had claimed that ‘There is rather understandable fear in YOUR DoD that future German governments could kick out the remaining American installations and/or close the German airspace..’. Who in our DoD expressed such fears? Did you just make this up?
“It is rather a problem for us because your GIs represent a target for terrorists who would not really be interested in Germany if the deployment would not be there.”
Al-Qaeda has repeatedly demanded that all German troops leave Afganistan. Their failure to do so makes them a legitimate target, from al-Qaeda’s point of view.
“Nope. Completely wrong. 660 and 678 were resolutions dealing with the first Gulf war. The important resolution was 1441. “
The ceasefire agreement was based upon Iraq’s acceptance and compliance of 660 [ and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) ]. This includes any and all relevant resolutions by the council.
“On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441...”
UNSCr 687 [authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660]. All necessary means includes military action.
” Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue. “
You’ll note that the text you posted reaffirms that the council never made ‘such a determination’.
“Personally I think it would have been much better to tell the world simply the truth which was:
1. The US do not care about the UN, its peacenik rules and the opinions of other nations governments.”
The fact that we cited the resolutions within the congressional authorization indicates otherwise.
“2. The existence of Saddam Hussein is a threat to the US. Therefore he has to be eliminated.”
This was cited within the congressional authorization.
“3.There is a common interest of all western nations to see those natural resources under the direct control of the US.”
The natural resources are in direct control of the democratically elected government, per UNSC 1546.
“4. In a secondary action the US try to establish democracy and civilization in a muslim country.”
This was cited within the congressional authorization as well.
Yeah Yeah. Everything that does not fit into your Hurray-America image is not the truth. My “tale” does make sense.
Usually it is idiotic for a airforce to use flight instructors who are needed to grant for new pilots in battle. Germany was short on experienced pilots and had many enemies. The Luftwaffe was forced to fall back on everything that was available. That much is true. Therefore my Granddad saw some action.
Just take a look onto the most successful German pilots of WWII. Most of them survived. Erich Hartmann as the one with the highest score survived and was a officer in the west German Bundesluftwaffe later just like Gerhard Barkhorn (the German ace number 2) who also joined the Bundesluftwaffe. Even our by far biggest hero (in military aspects - politically he was a as*hole), Hans-Ulrich Rudel survived the war. (BTW - the father of Rudel who has been a reverend baptized my mother in 1944.) Somehow the Dick Bongs were unable to shoot our pilots down. Practically all of them fought until last day. Your unqualified BlahBlah that Germany was unable to start planes in 1944 and 1945 is complete BS. During the last days of the battle of Berlin i.e. the Russians lost 200.000 men alone. Or ask your own veterans if the Battle in the Ardennes was funny for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudel
The few new German war machines - no matter in which field - were far better than anything that America could throw on the field at that time. A average Panther tank had a kill ratio of 4 Shermans i.e.. German soldiers had far more combat experience than their American counterparts. The reason for the allied victory was simply the numeral superiority. The Mustang was a good plane - no doubt about that. Nevertheless your kiddies who operated it had no chance against (in the case of my Grandfather) pilots who had 10 years of professional experience and sat in a powerful plane. Unlike my granddad most of the German pilots at that time were of course also bad equipped boys since the resources of Germany were exhausted. After all Germany lost the war and there were some reasons for it. BTW - my Grandfather was specialized on B-17s, Lancasters and Liberators and carefully avoided allied fighters since the bombers were the problem of Germany and not the fighters. Therefore his body-count-ratio (a bomber had 7 crewmembers) was enormous.
It might be a waste of time to discuss anything with you since beside being irrelevant you are deeply struck into your hurray propaganda. On the other hand you might learn a lesson. America had brave and fierce fighters like Dick Bong, but after all we also had a few of them. Everybody can be lucky that your GIs fought down nazism, but connecting the bombardment of Germany with heroism is simply not possible for a German patriot. Maybe you are able to understand that.
Hes a hero to every man, woman, and child in Europe who enjoys living in freedom.
Freedom? BuHuHaHa! This is a relative concept. Germany is not really free since the will of its people is not transmitted directly into practical politics. The German system is called representative democracy which means that the people have the possibility to nod the ruling politicians through all 4 years. If you want to do something in German politics you have to be a member in a party. Since all German parties have practically the same “social democratic” programs it does not matter in which party you are or for which party you vote. At least you have the right to express your discontent. After the war there was only limited American interest into German freedom. The US wanted a predictable ally in the cold war and used Konrad Adenauer as their "shadow man". Therefore concepts as German neutrality (like Austria) and reunification never had a chance although there were related offerings of the Russians during the 50ties. I am quite sure that the German people would have preferred such a solution to being divided and bound in NATO back then.
Switzerland is free i.e..
Just like 80% of the German people (there are related polls). The necessity to deploy troops in Afghanistan is not understood by the vast majority in Germany. Therefore it is impossible to send real combat troops into the fight to southern Afghanistan. It would be political suicide for every thinkable government in Germany. Merkel knows that she would get toasted.
The problem might be that if Russians or Chicoms do the same one day you lost all your moral justification to say no. In Europe America is not seen on the good side anymore by vast majorities since 2003. The recent years have been a public relation disaster for the US. Governments may act different than their people want them to but in the long term the public opinion can not be ignored. Simply think of Spain (if we talk about the article that was the trigger of this discussion) whose leader Aznar ignored the public will to stay out of Iraq. His candidate lost his election and now you face such "partners" like Zapatero. The same can happen anywhere else in Europe.
“Erich Hartmann as the one with the highest score..”
Like I said, the pilots you mentioned racked up a vast majority of their victories on the eastern front against the Soviet Air Force. Hartmann, for example, of his 352 victories, 345 were against the Soviet Air force.
“BTW - my Grandfather was specialized on B-17s, Lancasters and Liberators and carefully avoided allied fighters since the bombers were the problem of Germany and not the fighters. Therefore his body-count-ratio (a bomber had 7 crewmembers) was enormous.”
You had previously claimed that ‘When the war was practically lost for Germany he saw some quite successful action against angloamerican bombers with his Focke-Wulf 190 D-9 in 1944 and 1945. He had an easy game with your poorly trained but quite well equipped kids in the skies.’ This makes no sense either, as our Mustangs, which you claim he ‘carefully avoided’, provided full escorts for these bombers by late ‘43. He, therefore, would have had to deal with our Mustangs as well.
“It might be a waste of time to discuss anything with you since beside being irrelevant you are deeply struck into your hurray propaganda. “
I just state facts. Since they contradict your bizzare interpretation of WWII’s timeline, you label these facts as ‘hurray propaganda’.
“Germany is not really free...”
lol.
“I do not care if it was illegal or not. “
Now that I’ve debunked your insinuation that it was.
“Nevertheless the whole world is convinced that it was illegal.”
I’m guessing you don’t have enough validity to speak for ‘the whole world’. Perhaps there was an ‘understandable fear’ at our DoD. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
You don't always get what you want when you start wars, kill millions of jews and get your a$$es kicked by the Rusisans and the Americans. But then, you probably know that.
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.