Posted on 09/01/2013 2:08:48 PM PDT by tobyhill
Chancellor Angela Merkel and her challenger in Germany's upcoming election have both said they wouldn't participate in military action against Syria.
Merkel said that "Germany will not participate" in a military strike as she faced center-left rival Peer Steinbrueck during a televised debate Sunday before the Sept. 22 vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So what is Obama’s big coalition?
France!
They don’t want to back Al Qaeda, either..
From England, through Germany, to Russia,
ONLY Obama-the-Undocumented Moslem Tyrant Impostor
from Indonesia and the DNC appears to support al Qaeda.
And we all know how reliable an ally France is.
The only support I ever want from France is in the form of champagne and Brie.
LOL!
Is anyone surprised that Germany isn’t interested in helping the Syrian people rid themselves of the despot that gasses his own people. Germany has been allowed to depend on the U S for its military needs ever since WWII. So they probably aren’t in much of a position to provide help, and certainly haven’t exhibited any will to engage anybody in combat.
It is time for us to tell Germany that they are on their own and we are going to bring our military personnel and material home. We could use it to protect our southern border and get a lot more bang for our bucks.
This is exactly why Germany is doing what they’re doing.
May I remind you of the performance of the French army during WWII.
The irony is that the French surrendering so quickly may very well have saved all of Europe from going “Bolshevik”.
And may I remind you how France bailed out of SE Asia after the US became involved?
European countries would have to be insane to help the terrorists who already have massive amounts of weapons gain control of Assad’s arsenal. I don’t get France going along with it. Don’t they already have a problem with Muslims out of control in France?
First of all, what makes you so sure that the Syrian despot is the one who fired the gas? Second, what business is it of ours who kills whom in an internal civil war? I can tell you from experience that once you take sides in a civil war, you make yourself a legitimate target everywhere in the world. Why would Germans want to create a new set of enemies seeking revenge for their buildings, their bridges, their water and sewage systems, their airfields, and their friends' lives? Costs should be counted before "little wars" are launched, because an act of war legitimizes retaliation against the aggressor.
Germany has been allowed to depend on the U S for its military needs ever since WWII. So they probably aren't in much of a position to provide help, and certainly haven’t exhibited any will to engage anybody in combat.
If the United States wasn't so trigger happy and didn't stick its nose into every other nation's business, we wouldn't be teetering on the economic brink right now. Over the last two decades, we have fought and spent ourselves into exhaustion. Perhaps a little dose of German reticence would have been wise.
It is time for us to tell Germany that they are on their own and we are going to bring our military personnel and material home. We could use it to protect our southern border and get a lot more bang for our bucks.
Hear! Hear! I agree with your last point completely. And not that it matters, but so do most Germans.
Italy and Germany have depended on Iranian oil more than all other nations combined.
One thing I always found interesting in Germany - the Brits claimed some prime river-front property in the major cities and kept it. We, on the other hand, kept giving property back bit-by-bit over the decades. The Brits figured they earned that land with blood; so did we, but we sold it so much more cheaply.
(AGI) - Berlin, Aug. 26 - After having a protagonist role for peace in Lebanon Italy asks to take part in the 5+ 1 group that negotiates with Iran on nuclear. Foreign minister, Massimo D'Alema in an interview to "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" asks a place near to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. "We are Iran's most important commercial partners with Germany and we are pledged in Lebanon with Hezbollah. So we have the right to be included in the negotiation with Iran. The goal is not a new conflict but talks aimed at preventing Iran from having an atomic bomb, he said. Italy searched for a greater G8 involvement in the negotiation with Iran but it remained excluded from the 5 plus 1, the group that started a negotiation with Tehran offering incentives in exchange for the suspension of the uranium enrichment program. This exclusion was due to the fact that Rome was not part of the European trio (France, Germany and UK) that had tried the first mediation with Tehran and represented the EU in the 5 plus 1. D'Alema remembered that the United Nations and the EU had not a role in the Iraqi crisis, and warned that the new opportunity in Lebanon could not be missed now. "It is a very difficult mission full of unknown points but it is worth pledging or the only alternative would be a new burst of war" he said. The foreign minister, was sceptical on the possibility of a new UN resolution for the mission in Lebanon asked by the US. "I'm sceptical about it, because in these situations they always open long negotiations. The strategic plan is clear and the resolution was completed defining the rules of engagement. If they will make a new resolution soon I agree with them but the most important thing is getting there as soon as possible (In Lebanon)" he said.
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.