Yea, Naradar, it's no better than Iraq. Took Drama in school I'm guessing.
Here's how it works Naradar. The admin in office is going to pick people that reflect their values. If it's a Dem in office they sure the hell aren't going to appoint conservatives and vica versa. Get it ?
BOSTON (AP) — Six House members, members of the military and parents of servicemen went to federal court Thursday to try to prevent the president from launching an invasion of Iraq without an explicit declaration of war from Congress.
Now that the Week of Duct Tape is nearing the end and Home Depot has a bump in reciepts, I think it's a good idea to end this silliness and drop down from Code Orange.
Al Qaeda has ripped the NATO alliance into separate factions and had half the country running the hardware store. It was great comic relief, but if they whacked us now, everything they gained by instilling fear would be lost. The alliance would come together and the country wouldn't face its challenges like weasels.
U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials.
Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan.
Officials said it is not clear what relationship Sad has with the Tehran government, which on Thursday denied congressional testimony by CIA Director George J. Tenet that al Qaeda terrorists are in Iran.
The new reports are the first time senior al Qaeda terrorists have been identified in Iran. Earlier reports have indicated other al Qaeda fighters have been granted refuge in Iran from neighboring Afghanistan.
Whatever faction is to blame, it doesn''t change the fact that the alliance is divided.
You make it sound like half of NATO is divided. 16 of 19 countries from NATO back the U.S.A. on Iraq and for providing a defense of Turkey. Which is called for in the treaty BTW. To me it does not sound like NATO is that divided. And for the record, thanks to France, Germany and Russia, the U.N. is going to go the way of the league of nations. Nato will also suffer because of France and Germany but I think NATO might be saveable.
And, for the record, this isn't a new war, this is a continuation of the Gulf War -- we've been there ever since, policing the no-fly zones, and this is a direct result of Iraq throwing out the inspectors.
Personally, I think we should downgrade NATO and invite the UK and Turkey to join NAFTA :^P
And, for the record, this isn't a new war, this is a continuation of the Gulf War -
Well said! Saddam has been in breach of the treaties he signed at the halt of the Gulf War. Now it is time to resume hostilities. Seems most people tend to forget that.
Rick,
I agree. Blair does have big.... The people in his country are against the war. Sometimes, to be a true leader, you have to buck public opinion and do what is right. History will tell if he and Bush are making the right call.
Tom Daschle as Senate Majority Leader in October of 2002:
"We do know that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to U.S. security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
Tom Daschle as the Senate Minority Leader in January of 2003:
“We have yet to see any evidence that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction.”
Hey .. the man’s a Democrat and a liberal. The media will let him get away with this stuff.
Remember the source first of all. I doubt Rumsfeld or anyone in the admin would come right out say it that bluntly even if true.
I have seen stories as recently as last week that well before any of the current rift over Iraq, that we are looking at reducing our troop presence in different countries. This debate has been going on for a while now and well before this took place. It's being spotlighted more because of the current situation.
To me it makes great sense to do so, Whether it be Germany, Italy, Japan or S.Korea. THe cold war is over and different threats are faced today (obviously) It's also one of the reasons many of these nations have weak militaries. Why would they ? When we were protecting them and footing the bill. They seem to have overlooked that whole silly little WW2 and Cold war thingy that we spent billions on and lost lives to win. If the people of these nations don't want us there, so be it. I prefer not to be there. It takes another argument away from the fringe types who see it as an example of imperialism. It appeases those who want us out, saves us money, but the biggest advantage of all. It would make these countries realize the true cost of defending themselves. It might also make them realize that they had it pretty good.
Well if we do pull out, it will still be our falut anyway. The cry then is that we "abandoned" them. Just remember whom is abandoning whom right now today.
Rob -- "Remember the source first of all" -- which is why I asked if anyone could find it anywhere else. I don't trust the UK press.
I agree that we are overdue for a pullout from a lot of places. It should have been done long ago, as quietly as possible, perhaps over a period of time, while encouraging the host countries to replace us with their own defenses. Now, if we pull out of anywhere, we'll look like the kid who took his baseball and went home. It may also look to the fanatics as if we're chickening out. I don't give a rip about world opinion, but the terrorists hit the WTC because they thought we were too fat and weak to respond. What they think of us DOES affect how they act.
Europe needs to remember who saved their bacon. They also need to remember that it was the U.S. who was attacked by terrorists, and our response to it should at least be considered respectfully, whether they agree with it or not.
will be interesting to watch though because I dont think there would be an increase in german military.
a) as far as I know Germany isnt even allowed to increase the numbers very much and
b)would be extremely hard to sell to the public:-) and not because of social spending, but because of the dislike for a german military(even though thats getting better, since floods etc)
no one disputes that. And a whole generation or more has descended on the globe since that. For how long do the Europeans have to pay penance?
In this country there is an ongoing debate on reparations to black people for slavery and denial of civil rights and Jim Crowe impositions and such barabarities. An argument used forcefully is that these events are sins of the past, crimes of fathers should not penalize sons etc. In my opinion a similar approach to American largesse and magnanimity in rescuing Europe is applicable.
And there is of course the argument that the brown Iraqis can be bombarded into submission, while the Caucasian Europeans had to be 'saved'.
They also need to remember that it was the U.S. who was attacked by terrorists, and our response to it should at least be considered respectfully, whether they agree with it or not.
The Iraqi ties to the terrorists are tenuous at best. We should be smashing to smithereens the origins - the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Pukistanis. The response to terrorism should be centered in NWFP of Afghan/Pukistan border, Kashmir and Asia.
And by the way, do study and research the terrorist evisceration the nation of India has had to bear from the same AQ and Islamic extremists who mauled us. We perennially ask India to exercise restraint and show patience when it desires to nuke the source of the terrorism - Pukistan, the American ally. The world is asking the same of the US wrt Iraq.
It was a power struggle not a war and if any credit is due, it goes to the current Pope.
You Ray Gun afficianados can keep to your fantasies. And by the way, this power struggle is responsible for some of the most heinous excesses in Africa, Asia and South America. Makes the Jewish holocaust look trivial.
For over thirty years this country has been trying to overcome the effects of slavery and Jim Crow (welfare, affirmative action, etc.), which incidentally are in the PAST. We continue to do things -- some which work, some which don't -- to try to create a level playing field. Furthermore, this is an INTERNAL problem, which the country should rightly address.
Defense of Europe -- OK, what is Europe "paying penance" for? We've been defending them for over fifty years. That is something that is still GOING ON long after the war ended. It's hardly "penalizing" them for past crimes. We've freed their economies from their own defense, for good or for ill. This is FOREIGN AID.
And how dare you turn this into something racist! We bombed the crap out of WHITE Germans because they threatened the stability of the world. We stopped the slaughter of Jews, the most blatantly racist policy of the 20th century. We aren't going after Iraq because they're brown, we're going after them because they are now threatening world stability.
And you are the biggest hypocrite on these boards.
there is a difference between generations. I think 45 and below have comparably little concern over such a move(not all in this group though).
25 and younger...Id guess they all feel so safe, most of them dont think a strong defense force etc would actually be necessary.
Central Europe is seen as peaceful and stable. that it doesnt have to be is not on peoples minds. they feel safe in a way, also there is the feeling of "what happens, happens anyways". which is sort of what I remember of the Cold War time:-). being in the middle of a zone where there could be a big bang at any time, probably makes people develop certain attitudes. not necessarily, but possible.
Germany has been a powerless state(militarily)for some decades now
bull excrement. We were in Europe fearful the Soviets would get the better of us. The Europeans are certainly capable of defending themselves. They have their own flourishing arms industry - the French Mirages, the UK Jaguars and the associated infrastructure of war machinary in Europe has always thrived. In fact, they are so sophisticated that Airbus kicks Boeings arse today. The clever Europeans used the US very skillfully in keeping a presence and making us involved and stakes there. The unilateral expansion of US military might began after the demise of the Soviet Union.
And funny - we nuked the yellow Japs but spared the blond, blue-eyed German Caucasians.
I know Japan was restricted militarily after WWII, and while I don't know the details I would guess Germany was as well. But I think those policies should end, if they haven't already. America may be the sole superpower right now, but I don't think many people here really want us to be the world's policeman.
I'd like to see Europe remain peaceful and stable. It's in everyone's interests. The best way to do that, in my view, is with a strong defense.
you do know that the firestorm caused lots of deaths and suffering? wouldnt call that sparing the germans(and why would anyone have done that anyways...)
yes, "western security" for western germany was a side effect of the Cold War, and it should not be forgotten either that a part of Germany was not in the western sphere. question is what would have happened without it. we cant know what it would have been like:-)
Propaganda during WWII made stark differences between the Japanese and Germans. I wish I had some examples readily at hand. But I've seen many accounts of the differences.
Germans were formidable and intimidating. Japanese were portrayed as subhuman.
The United States couldn't drop a nuclear weapon in European soil.
german military was abolished after the war. a few years later, when the Cold War really "started", it was allowed to build up a moderate defense force(thought appropriate for the circumstances though). that defence force, the Bundeswehr, was under NATO command. Germanys defence force was NATO troops, more or less, except forin emergencies(floods etc).
Germany however saw that its future could only be in a friendly neighbourhood and started to pursue a policy of multilateral agreement/negotiation and also voluntarily didnt try to start a strong defense force.
germany also pronised(per treaty, multilateral setting) that it would not expand its armed forces beyond something around 300,000 or 350,000 people. (would have to look it up) and Germany tries to always stay considerably below these numbers. makes Poland et al feel better, sort of:-)
hmm..:-) Im not sure I understand this the right way:-) (english challenged, here:-))
I think you are speaking of Unions (as in german government;-)) and well, I dont know too much about Bundeswehr, but there is this http://www.vab-gewerkschaft.de/union for the interests of everyone employed by Bundeswehr(german defense force).sorry that the site is only german though:(
in the current framework, it would be unlikely that Germany would engage in a strong armament. especially with the EU borders shifting soon, making Germany a state in the middle, and not a border country any longer.
well, Im not sure what the military strength of all EU states together would be at this point already.
the climate in Germany might change over time, but I dont think the population would support a strong military there. its an anti- militaristic society these days. it was more extremely so a few years/decades ago.
about spending for Bundeswehr, all you hear in germany is that planes are being sold without replacement, that there is modernization but not enlargement, rather reduction of forces....
Jethro...never saw a response to the question about the law-suit currently before the court on whether the President can "Declare War", without a formal declaration from Congress...???
It is something the courts should stay out of. Congress has the ability to tell the president no if it so choses.
With or without weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is a “grave danger,” particularly to his own people, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist said Tuesday.
“Saddam has mastered his concealment tactics,” Al-Shahristani said in a TV interview in the Philippines. “He has appointed thousands of security officers and trained them well in hiding these weapons."
Remember the smoking gun tape? The tape was spun as “proof” that Bin Laden perpetrated the attacks on 911. It was quickly discredited based on the physical appearance of the individual who posed as Bin Laden on the tape that was conveniently found in a house in Afghanistan. The voice on the tape is almost identical to Bin Laden’s although the person on the video tape is clearly not.
The majority of thinking people know that the “empire” (ie America and Britain) desperately needs to make its case for the invasion of Iraq and ultimately other countries in the region. Their best chances of doing so are through linking this invasion with the events of 911 so that it is seen as a defensive rather than offensive operation and who better to use in this endeavor than Bin Laden himself?
Considering Powell had the first tape before al-Jazeera did and Blair’s efforts are in dyer need of a smoking gun, logic tells us that this is all a little too conveniently timed. One tape could be coincidence – but two?
The Bush Regime needs Bin Laden at this moment and Osama has always chosen his own timing. I suspect sooner or later the real Bin Laden will stand up – on video tape, delivering his own message, in his own flesh, as he has in the past.
Whether you do or do not support Bush and the decisions he's now faced with, this article sends a powerful message. For those of you who aren't familiar with the LONDON DAILY MIRROR, it is a notoriously left-wing, anti-American daily publication writing in the United Kingdom. Tony Parsons, the author of the following article written one year after 9/11, has been a steady critic of US policy on many political and economic issues over the years. The following is a sharp departure from his normal writings...
"Shame On You American Hating Liberals"
One year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the mass murder of thousands- live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.
But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon?
And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries, were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray our allies?
What touched the heart about those who died in the Twin Towers and on the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission. The truth is that America has behaved with ENORMOUS restraint since September 11th.
Remember, remember, remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive. Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers and those who knew the plane they were on was going to crash. Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum. Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Oh, please pass the Kleenex. So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.
AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? More so, how many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination? We have never heard a statement from them. When will we ever hear their outrage? When will we hear their stance?
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about opening the gates of Hell if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of Hell like >you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth.
The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting offense.
I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend the UK has ever had and we should start remembering that.
Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein.
Remember, remember, remember 9/11. One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America. No, do more than remember. Never forget.
i read it yesterday, jethro. i think on cnn.com.
Naradar 2/14/03 9:35am
Yea, Naradar, it's no better than Iraq. Took Drama in school I'm guessing.
Here's how it works Naradar. The admin in office is going to pick people that reflect their values. If it's a Dem in office they sure the hell aren't going to appoint conservatives and vica versa. Get it ?
Here you go jethro.
Anti-war lawsuit challenges Bush's authority
Now that the Week of Duct Tape is nearing the end and Home Depot has a bump in reciepts, I think it's a good idea to end this silliness and drop down from Code Orange.
Al Qaeda has ripped the NATO alliance into separate factions and had half the country running the hardware store. It was great comic relief, but if they whacked us now, everything they gained by instilling fear would be lost. The alliance would come together and the country wouldn't face its challenges like weasels.
To the single guys on the board:
Great place to meet girls
But you don't have much time,
Al Qaeda has ripped the NATO alliance into separate factions
Wrong! It was France and Germany that did that.
U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials.
Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan.
Officials said it is not clear what relationship Sad has with the Tehran government, which on Thursday denied congressional testimony by CIA Director George J. Tenet that al Qaeda terrorists are in Iran.
The new reports are the first time senior al Qaeda terrorists have been identified in Iran. Earlier reports have indicated other al Qaeda fighters have been granted refuge in Iran from neighboring Afghanistan.
Bin Laden son, al Qaeda terrorists spotted in Iran
An Iran/al Qaeda tie? Would Iran be next?
Whatever faction is to blame, it doesn''t change the fact that the alliance is divided.
Al Qaeda gains nothing at this point from an attack. It's got half the country acting loony.
Ollie North wants us to stop drinking Evian.
Whatever faction is to blame, it doesn''t change the fact that the alliance is divided.
You make it sound like half of NATO is divided. 16 of 19 countries from NATO back the U.S.A. on Iraq and for providing a defense of Turkey. Which is called for in the treaty BTW. To me it does not sound like NATO is that divided. And for the record, thanks to France, Germany and Russia, the U.N. is going to go the way of the league of nations. Nato will also suffer because of France and Germany but I think NATO might be saveable.
And, for the record, this isn't a new war, this is a continuation of the Gulf War -- we've been there ever since, policing the no-fly zones, and this is a direct result of Iraq throwing out the inspectors.
Personally, I think we should downgrade NATO and invite the UK and Turkey to join NAFTA :^P
Is Tony Blair the leader of the free world?
Sometimes I think so. Talk about a guy with an iron will....
And, for the record, this isn't a new war, this is a continuation of the Gulf War -
Well said! Saddam has been in breach of the treaties he signed at the halt of the Gulf War. Now it is time to resume hostilities. Seems most people tend to forget that.
Rick,
I agree. Blair does have big.... The people in his country are against the war. Sometimes, to be a true leader, you have to buck public opinion and do what is right. History will tell if he and Bush are making the right call.
Tom Daschle as Senate Majority Leader in October of 2002:
Tom Daschle as the Senate Minority Leader in January of 2003:
Hey .. the man’s a Democrat and a liberal. The media will let him get away with this stuff.
This just in:
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html
Can anyone confirm this from a more reliable source?
I haven't been able to verify it.
Interesting to say the least.
Hi Muskwa,
Remember the source first of all. I doubt Rumsfeld or anyone in the admin would come right out say it that bluntly even if true.
I have seen stories as recently as last week that well before any of the current rift over Iraq, that we are looking at reducing our troop presence in different countries. This debate has been going on for a while now and well before this took place. It's being spotlighted more because of the current situation.
To me it makes great sense to do so, Whether it be Germany, Italy, Japan or S.Korea. THe cold war is over and different threats are faced today (obviously) It's also one of the reasons many of these nations have weak militaries. Why would they ? When we were protecting them and footing the bill. They seem to have overlooked that whole silly little WW2 and Cold war thingy that we spent billions on and lost lives to win. If the people of these nations don't want us there, so be it. I prefer not to be there. It takes another argument away from the fringe types who see it as an example of imperialism. It appeases those who want us out, saves us money, but the biggest advantage of all. It would make these countries realize the true cost of defending themselves. It might also make them realize that they had it pretty good.
Well if we do pull out, it will still be our falut anyway. The cry then is that we "abandoned" them. Just remember whom is abandoning whom right now today.
Rob -- "Remember the source first of all" -- which is why I asked if anyone could find it anywhere else. I don't trust the UK press.
I agree that we are overdue for a pullout from a lot of places. It should have been done long ago, as quietly as possible, perhaps over a period of time, while encouraging the host countries to replace us with their own defenses. Now, if we pull out of anywhere, we'll look like the kid who took his baseball and went home. It may also look to the fanatics as if we're chickening out. I don't give a rip about world opinion, but the terrorists hit the WTC because they thought we were too fat and weak to respond. What they think of us DOES affect how they act.
Europe needs to remember who saved their bacon. They also need to remember that it was the U.S. who was attacked by terrorists, and our response to it should at least be considered respectfully, whether they agree with it or not.
You make some excellent points as ususal Muskwa :)
Luv2Fly 2/17/03 10:42am
will be interesting to watch though because I dont think there would be an increase in german military.
a) as far as I know Germany isnt even allowed to increase the numbers very much and
b)would be extremely hard to sell to the public:-) and not because of social spending, but because of the dislike for a german military(even though thats getting better, since floods etc)
musk says - Muskwa 2/17/03 11:40am
Europe needs to remember who saved their bacon.
no one disputes that. And a whole generation or more has descended on the globe since that. For how long do the Europeans have to pay penance?
In this country there is an ongoing debate on reparations to black people for slavery and denial of civil rights and Jim Crowe impositions and such barabarities. An argument used forcefully is that these events are sins of the past, crimes of fathers should not penalize sons etc. In my opinion a similar approach to American largesse and magnanimity in rescuing Europe is applicable.
And there is of course the argument that the brown Iraqis can be bombarded into submission, while the Caucasian Europeans had to be 'saved'.
They also need to remember that it was the U.S. who was attacked by terrorists, and our response to it should at least be considered respectfully, whether they agree with it or not.
The Iraqi ties to the terrorists are tenuous at best. We should be smashing to smithereens the origins - the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Pukistanis. The response to terrorism should be centered in NWFP of Afghan/Pukistan border, Kashmir and Asia.
And by the way, do study and research the terrorist evisceration the nation of India has had to bear from the same AQ and Islamic extremists who mauled us. We perennially ask India to exercise restraint and show patience when it desires to nuke the source of the terrorism - Pukistan, the American ally.
The world is asking the same of the US wrt Iraq.
Naradar,
WW2, yes was a while ago. What about the cold war ?
Hi Kath :)
How would you feel if the U.S pulled troops out of there ? Do you think the general public wants that ?
What about the cold war ?
It was a power struggle not a war and if any credit is due, it goes to the current Pope.
You Ray Gun afficianados can keep to your fantasies. And by the way, this power struggle is responsible for some of the most heinous excesses in Africa, Asia and South America. Makes the Jewish holocaust look trivial.
Reparations to blacks vs defense of Europe
Interesting juxtaposition, but OK:
For over thirty years this country has been trying to overcome the effects of slavery and Jim Crow (welfare, affirmative action, etc.), which incidentally are in the PAST. We continue to do things -- some which work, some which don't -- to try to create a level playing field. Furthermore, this is an INTERNAL problem, which the country should rightly address.
Defense of Europe -- OK, what is Europe "paying penance" for? We've been defending them for over fifty years. That is something that is still GOING ON long after the war ended. It's hardly "penalizing" them for past crimes. We've freed their economies from their own defense, for good or for ill. This is FOREIGN AID.
And how dare you turn this into something racist! We bombed the crap out of WHITE Germans because they threatened the stability of the world. We stopped the slaughter of Jews, the most blatantly racist policy of the 20th century. We aren't going after Iraq because they're brown, we're going after them because they are now threatening world stability.
And you are the biggest hypocrite on these boards.
there is a difference between generations. I think 45 and below have comparably little concern over such a move(not all in this group though).
25 and younger...Id guess they all feel so safe, most of them dont think a strong defense force etc would actually be necessary.
Central Europe is seen as peaceful and stable. that it doesnt have to be is not on peoples minds. they feel safe in a way, also there is the feeling of "what happens, happens anyways". which is sort of what I remember of the Cold War time:-). being in the middle of a zone where there could be a big bang at any time, probably makes people develop certain attitudes. not necessarily, but possible.
Germany has been a powerless state(militarily)for some decades now
We've been defending them for over fifty years.
bull excrement. We were in Europe fearful the Soviets would get the better of us. The Europeans are certainly capable of defending themselves. They have their own flourishing arms industry - the French Mirages, the UK Jaguars and the associated infrastructure of war machinary in Europe has always thrived. In fact, they are so sophisticated that Airbus kicks Boeings arse today. The clever Europeans used the US very skillfully in keeping a presence and making us involved and stakes there. The unilateral expansion of US military might began after the demise of the Soviet Union.
And funny - we nuked the yellow Japs but spared the blond, blue-eyed German Caucasians.
Hi kath --
I know Japan was restricted militarily after WWII, and while I don't know the details I would guess Germany was as well. But I think those policies should end, if they haven't already. America may be the sole superpower right now, but I don't think many people here really want us to be the world's policeman.
I'd like to see Europe remain peaceful and stable. It's in everyone's interests. The best way to do that, in my view, is with a strong defense.
Europe has their own flourishing arms industry but not flourishing militaries.
We nuked the Japs because we could. We didn't have the bomb in time to hit Germany.
Naradar 2/17/03 1:20pm
you do know that the firestorm caused lots of deaths and suffering? wouldnt call that sparing the germans(and why would anyone have done that anyways...)
yes, "western security" for western germany was a side effect of the Cold War, and it should not be forgotten either that a part of Germany was not in the western sphere. question is what would have happened without it. we cant know what it would have been like:-)
Propaganda during WWII made stark differences between the Japanese and Germans. I wish I had some examples readily at hand. But I've seen many accounts of the differences.
Germans were formidable and intimidating. Japanese were portrayed as subhuman.
The United States couldn't drop a nuclear weapon in European soil.
Muskwa 2/17/03 1:23pm
german military was abolished after the war. a few years later, when the Cold War really "started", it was allowed to build up a moderate defense force(thought appropriate for the circumstances though). that defence force, the Bundeswehr, was under NATO command. Germanys defence force was NATO troops, more or less, except forin emergencies(floods etc).
Germany however saw that its future could only be in a friendly neighbourhood and started to pursue a policy of multilateral agreement/negotiation and also voluntarily didnt try to start a strong defense force.
germany also pronised(per treaty, multilateral setting) that it would not expand its armed forces beyond something around 300,000 or 350,000 people. (would have to look it up) and Germany tries to always stay considerably below these numbers. makes Poland et al feel better, sort of:-)
Muskwa 2/17/03 1:25pm
firebombing worked too.
It was only a little more than 10 years ago that Lufthansa was allowed to operate out of Berlin.
Just a side point.
Thanks for clearing all that up Naradar. I hadn't realized you had written your own history book, but thanks.
Thanks, kath.
Question, just out of curiosity. A few years ago I read a news article that said that the German army was unionized. Is that still true?
Muskwa 2/17/03 2:17pm
hmm..:-) Im not sure I understand this the right way:-) (english challenged, here:-))
I think you are speaking of Unions (as in german government;-)) and well, I dont know too much about Bundeswehr, but there is this http://www.vab-gewerkschaft.de/union for the interests of everyone employed by Bundeswehr(german defense force).sorry that the site is only german though:(
Im not sure what role this union plays though.
'Bill - Fold' 2/18/03 4:42am
in the current framework, it would be unlikely that Germany would engage in a strong armament. especially with the EU borders shifting soon, making Germany a state in the middle, and not a border country any longer.
'Bill - Fold' 2/18/03 5:05am
well, Im not sure what the military strength of all EU states together would be at this point already.
the climate in Germany might change over time, but I dont think the population would support a strong military there. its an anti- militaristic society these days. it was more extremely so a few years/decades ago.
about spending for Bundeswehr, all you hear in germany is that planes are being sold without replacement, that there is modernization but not enlargement, rather reduction of forces....
QUESTION: Which European Nation made The Difference in the U.S. gaining it's independance, from King George?
What does this have to do with today?
Jethro...never saw a response to the question about the law-suit currently before the court on whether the President can "Declare War", without a formal declaration from Congress...???
It is something the courts should stay out of. Congress has the ability to tell the president no if it so choses.
Q: How many French men does it take to defend Paris?
A: Unknown, its never been done.
(Heard this on the radio this morning)
LOL!
With or without weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is a “grave danger,” particularly to his own people, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist said Tuesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78875,00.html
“Saddam has mastered his concealment tactics,” Al-Shahristani said in a TV interview in the Philippines. “He has appointed thousands of security officers and trained them well in hiding these weapons."
from a left wing wacko:
Hey check this out:
Â
Yeah, I know.
We're evil.
:-)
I don't even bother with the "Blood for oil" gibberish, it isn't worth my time.
I got this from Rich on another thread. I thought I'd post it over here. It's a good read.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12188969&method=full&siteid=50143
Whether you do or do not support Bush and the decisions he's now faced with,
this article sends a powerful message. For those of you who aren't familiar
with the LONDON DAILY MIRROR, it is a notoriously left-wing, anti-American
daily publication writing in the United Kingdom.
Tony Parsons, the author of the following article written one year
after 9/11, has been a steady critic of US policy on many political and
economic issues over the years. The following is a sharp departure from his
normal writings...
"Shame On You American Hating Liberals"
One year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -
the mass murder of thousands- live on television. As a lesson in the
pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol
Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like
garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so
calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one
thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus the
victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.
But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as
America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the
last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this
country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier
than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to
me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally.
We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a
century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well
as their own. Have we forgotten so soon?
And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and
children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries, were butchered
by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray our
allies?
What touched the heart about those who died in the Twin Towers and
on the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers,
somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children,
some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is
to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul
or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The
anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the
Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from
power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes
without having to ask permission. The truth is that America has behaved with
ENORMOUS restraint since September 11th.
Remember, remember, remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men
phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.
Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning
skyscrapers and those who knew the plane they were on was going to crash.
Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of
that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.
Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11
in anything like the way it could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Oh,
please pass the Kleenex. So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up
after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American
planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.
AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking
lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being
raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in
the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents
of 9/11? More so, how many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that
the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination? We have never heard a statement
from them. When will we ever hear their outrage? When will we hear their
stance?
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving
Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and
didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most
powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not
provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about opening the gates of Hell
if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of Hell
like >you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation
that ever strode the face of the earth.
The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the
planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not
bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies
are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on
the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor
shoplifting offense.
I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's
poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in
Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants
to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past,
or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend the UK has
ever had and we should start remembering that.
Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to
the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the
burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of
the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And
tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New
York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than
Saddam Hussein.
Remember, remember, remember 9/11. One of the greatest atrocities in
human history was committed against America. No, do more than remember.
Never forget.
Tony Parsons
DAILY MIRROR
September 11, 2002
Thanks, Rob. Excellent article. Such sentiments are far too rarely spoken or written.
I thank you also. It is good to see that some people do not forget.
Luv2Fly 2/18/03 3:53pm
there are articles like that here as well. not as emotional hough, usually, but more a mix of history/Opinion pieces.
all in german though...read several over the last weeks, in different newssources.
kath f. 2/19/03 2:21am
That's good to hear Kath. I still haven't gotten around to taking up German classes yet, one of these days. :)