Topic awaiting preservation: Dear Germany... (Page 1 of 1)

I recently came across this article: Dear Germany: Have you learned anything?

It's title is no doubt provacative, but I assure you the author is a highly respected person to anyone who knows him including those with whom he disagrees.

MW, are you reading this? I am particularly interested to see how you will percieve this article since I don't know that many Germans personally.

WS, this one may interest you since you are so close to it as well. I have been trying to understand Germany's position on Iraq and I have completely separated them from France because they are clearly not on the same page with their reasons. It would seem to me that Germany has almost swung entirely in the other direction from half a century ago.

Any help in understanding the German view of the world on this is appreciated. Disclaimer: I am hoping this article will stimulate some insight and it is by no means intended to insult or defame.

. . : slicePuzzle

Dont forget one thing though: before hitler came to power germany was in a deep economical depression, so at that stage any solution would work for the people, plus hitler was a great speaker and apparently was able to achieve his countrymen's loyalty. But nowadays germans are content - and they dont need to go to war or kill jews (or muslims) to make their lives better.

but politically wise - I guess they are doing better : ) at least better than U.S. and britain - if we forget the whole WMD thing - because if we dont, and assume that saddam is bad, and does pose threat to the integrity of the planet, then they're doing a lot worse, or just not trying to make another mistake with waging wars against a possibly capable party : )


::The Lair::

So you're syaing...ermmm......eh - what are you saying asptamer?

Im probably saying that Hussein did not wage war against the rest of the world. In fact, he did not wage war against anyone (since 1991). On the other hand, saying something like "we didnt find any WMD but we know he has them because we were the ones who gave it to him, so lets go and wreck havoc" is a bit more Hitler-ish. They bombed Baghdad for half a month before actually stepping foot on its streets. And this guy wants germans (who very well know now, what is good and what is bad) to say that saddam is like hitler? umm no... think again please. This guy is a jew. he hates arabe because arabs hate him. It has nothing to do with saddam hussein. it's personal.


::The Lair::

Sorry Bugimus I'm not German but I wanted to express my humble opinion on this...

When I read this article, it reminded me somehow the controversial articles about France... Firstly because this article contains a lot of assertions that are purely personal. For example, I don't think a statement like : "Not because you are evil, but because you cannot recognize evil." can really be erected as an universal value. The autor of the article is voluntarily making shortcurts and such assertions to give a dimension to his article. Please tell me, which right has the autor to say that the Germany is nation of people that shies away when they need to judge ?

Then, the autor is stating that "a nation that was liberated from Nazism solely by armies waging war should embrace pacifism". This is in my opinion the most easy and fool thought. I don't think that the people who experienced a war want to do it again. I don't think the people that experienced the horror of the WWII want to see it again. I know that a few persons here have already gone to war (but I don't remember who), so I ask them : after a war, do you want to do it again, or are you much more willing to stay in peace ?

In my opinion the autor, even is he is well-known, doesn't know what is really a war. Indeed a war in a sofa watching the TV is clean.

Then he says something about the French... That he expected something from us. But what ? That we justified this war ? For which reason please ? Then follows a list of bad things the France has done, proving to every reader that France is a nation of cowards... Well, first I'm glad he doesn't know our history history well. And then I am stupefacted by this. How can he judge us, without even looking at his own navel ? The guillotine ? Why not ? Just let me say that the guillotine became the fear of many kings and aristocrats that oppressed the people, and that the death penalty was removed long ago in France. Just let me say also that the death penalty is still practised in the USA, and we can regularly see on TV people that shout racist slogans and death penalty against the Blacks, or that build an electrical chair on their car... Vichy ? Yes Pétain was a collabo. How I maybe forgot something about resistance, that's not important... De Gaulle ? HAHA. Really, that makes me laugh. This poor autor has been hurt by De Gaulle's retrieval from the nuclear program of the NATO, not from the NATO. Man, his honor is really suffering. We are not courageous neither morale ? Oh I'm really getting sick of people that think they can judge a nation on a few historic events.. If such an analysis was made about the USA, I don't think it would be brighter, but anyway what do we care about the France history in this f*** war ?

Sorry I get a little too nervous. It's just I can hardly take people saying that France is amorale. I am sorry, but when I read "Nazism taught you nothing" I have the envy to kill. Really does someone here consider what is saying this person ? You are well aware when someone (or even I) make inacceptable statements that are unjustified, false or an enormous generalization that belittle a population. So, now, please apply this to this article. I don't think if someone posted it you would have agreed... Anyway, my feeling is that any German that will read it will make a jump towards the roof because it's purely degratadory false statements.

Ho and at last he thanks the German for Bach... "Yes really, we needed you, you didn't accepted, so I have to say you learned nothing, but nevertheless thanks for the things we provided us". Ok I am caricaturing way too much, but this how this article can be sumed up. This end note was definitely the little thing that got me upset. Why do the famous autors have to write such bullshit ? That's a good question... Well in fact it can be said like that : why the people whose mind is as open as the asshole of an earthworm have to speak for larger communities ?

Just wanted to say that :

"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity."

-- Harlan Ellison

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 04-09-2003).]

Unfortunately, I'm not really qualified to answer for the German people, and I would think it would be insulting to any German if I did (and yes, that article is extremely insulting, IMHO).

That said, you already know my stance on good and evil...that namely, they don't exist. So the words in that article stick in my gullet like a piece of lead...good and evil all over the place. Quite frankly, I am having trouble just trying to decide what the point of the article is. Is the person who wrote it entäuscht with Germanys non-compliance to go in with America? Why? Because of good and evil? Pfah! Good and Evil are always seen through a lense of culture...when one tries to define it. Please explain to me what good and evil are, and I'm sure Ican make a point that reverses them. Nietzsche did. For me, good and evil are subjectory values...depending on where one is standing. And the absolute, you already know I don't believe in.

Basically, the feeling I get here, in Germany, is that they are against invading another country. But I guess a German would have to confirm this...I cannot (and will not) speak for them.

In answer to MS question, about war - as a veteran, I have experienced war, and killing. I can't speak as a civilian that was in war...I think that is somewhat different, IMHO. Being in the war changed things in me, this is true. For one, I have a very high threshold when it comes to violence. What shocks most others, isn't at all shocking to me. That said, I view war differently, I guess. However, I have learned to prize peace. Strange, but true. Peace is a fragil, rare thing...and should not be casually treated, IMHO. In fact, I'm willing to make great sacrifice to both obtain, and keep it. Unfortunately, I've never succeeded in obtaining Peace using violence...laws prohibit this. In the War, we used violence to force Iraq out of Kuwait, yes. The actual peace there came later. I'm still not totally at peace with myself and what I did. I don't know if I ever will be. Violence begats violence. An eye for an eye. I think that most do not really know the true meaning of this - the violence that one does, damages the doer, as well...and mostly much, much more than the victim. Before the war, I pretty much abhored killing, as any normal person does. After the war, it is just another way of accomplishing something, nothing more, nothing less. I guess it had the effect of de-valuing human life on me. I have more emotion for an animal, than my fellow man. My intellect says that it is wrong, but emotionally...that is something different. I know that it is allowed, if only under certain circumstances. Though I may feel a certain amount of remorse, I can accept that. Because of this, I consider myself damaged.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-09-2003).]

quote:

---

Basically, the feeling I get here, in Germany, is that they are against invading another country. But I guess a German would have to confirm this...I cannot (and will not) speak for them.

---

Also, lets not forget that Germany's (its government's) decision about joining the war (or rather not joining it) does not really reflect the way Germans themselves think - just like Bush Administration's decisions cannot be compared to those of Americans (even if statistically, the majority is pro war. I dont want to sound insulting, but in my opinion 99% of that majority are sheep, and if Bush said war is bad, they would also adhere to that view. Most people do not think for themselves). So even if there was a german in this forum, he wouldnt be able to make it any clearer than it is.

And I completely agree with Moon Shadow and WebShaman in recognizing the bias of the article.

Thanks very much for the replies. Like I said, I posted the article to stimulate discussion. I don't feel any need to defend Dennis because he's quite capable of defending himself. You can always learn more about him and his views here http://www.dennisprager.com/

What I love about him is not that I always agree with him but rather his incredibly keen mind and willingness to discuss very difficult issues with respect and under the clear light of reason and logic. It's a particular pleasure to hear him discuss topics with people that disagree with him. He has a national talk show that I listen to part of in the mornings.

What I find very interesting is that he is developing a working theory on the macro level about the major differences in culture between Europe and the US. I'm not sure I totally agree with it in its current form but the basics is that Europe tends to see everything as legal vs. illegal while the US tends to see things in terms of right vs. wrong.

WS, it would seem to me that your view on right and wrong being non-existent actually matches what he said in the article. Doesn't it? He's pointing out precisely that point of view being prevalent in Germany.

But I think what interests me the most is this idea that Germany has actually moved very close to pacifism. Do you think that is true? I totally understand that they are not totally pacifists because they supported the war in Afghanistan... at least I think they did.

MS, along those lines, I found something you said very telling. You said:

quote:

---

I don't think that the people who experienced a war want to do it again. I don't think the people that experienced the horror of the WWII want to see it again.

---

Of course, war is terrible. I don't think people do want to go to war. I've already pointed out in other threads that we did not want to fight this war either. But the war that was fought against Germany 50 years ago was fought to restore freedom to your country and others. So I have to wonder what is the point of going through all of that only to come out unwilling to free others who find themselves under similar circumstances.

asptamer, I know that one or two opinions from our German members won't totally clear up the issue but since the article is addressed directly to them, I want to hear their opinions and reactions. As WS points out, we cannot speak for them and I totally agree. In fact, Dennis has been trying very hard to get one of Germany's most famous authors on his show so they can discuss this issue together.

quote:

---

why the people whose mind is as open as the asshole of an earthworm have to speak for larger communities ?

---

true, true.....

quote:

---

"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity."

---

*nods*

uhu...thats is....

the country is being judge by fat, bald, greedy, politic bastards and presidents...not by actual people/citizens........

now isnt that amusing?



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 04-10-2003).]

No Bugs...that is not correct at all. That is my personal view, and I don't see a lot of that here in Germany, actually. And the person that wrote that article comes accross as putting words in the mouths of Germans...something that I would be very hesitant to do (as I have said). I have also refrained from generalizing...and other mistakes, when it comes to the Germans. Believe me, they are not alike...Germany is really many cultures in one Bayern, Friesen, Hessen, on and on...Hanseatic (Bremen)...and they are actually quite different from one another. Some even dress differently, speak their own language, and are very hostile to other parts of Germany (Friesen do not like Bayern, and there are other rivalries, as well). Combined with the 'wiedervereinigung' of West and East, this land is seething with undertones...especially when you throw the Deutch-Russisch into the equation (re-patriated Germans from Russia). On top of all this, is a recession that is sweeping the land...and economically speaking, every German is feeling the pinch.

So saying 'The reason Germany didn't help America is because they cannot define Evil' is just plain ludicrous...it is way more complicated than such a superficial generalization like that. A lot of this is political. You must (and every American should) consider that France and Germany are leading the EU forwards...it was their plan, after all. To make it work, Germany needs the co-operation of France, and vice versa...and the EU is tying them both closer together. This is a very good thing, in the eyes of Europeans, because they have traditionally been enemies. Many wars have come about in Europe because of these two lands...and by putting them together in a co-operation of economic ties is a huge step forward in European history. Of course, there are the opponents of such...nationalists, and others, but I see it as a good thing, as well. If it works, that is. There is, however, the question of can it work, and retain NATO? And does a unified Europe even need NATO? Shouldn't the EU have it's own military? Many questions...

But such a generalization...tsk, tsk. Sounds like someone trying to explain something that they don't really understand, nor really want to. It sounds like an accusation, and a judgement. It comes accross as 'America is better than you are, because we are moral, and you are not'. That is not only wrong, it's arrogant! It is also an attempt to justify Americas decision to invade Iraq. 'We know what evil is, Iraq is evil, and you do not see this'...okay...funny, but along those lines, there have been plenty of 'evil' dictators before (and now), but the US helped them anyway (and still is). Germans see this, and point to the hypocrisy. I don't know if all Germans do, but I get it a lot...remarkably, on these things, they seem to be well informed. I have come to prize the German way of looking at things - with logic. At first, it was infuriating for me to adjust to this...I kept wanting to jump up and down, to do something...but after awhile, I came to see that this way does have it's good points. Of trying to make decisions based rather on logic, than on emotion...it's kind of nice, actually. Not saying that the Germans are emotionless, far from it. But thinking in German is a lot less emotional than thinking in English (or French, I must say). For one thing, it is precise. The correct word, for the correct idea. Thus, the listener knows exactly what I mean.

I don't have any comments about the article that haven't already been addressed, but I do find it interesting that most people still think that Hilter was German.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

LOL!

.....austrian

Östereicher.

Even funnier is that he was the antithesis of what he promoted - short, brown hair, brown eyes, non-german, etc... (though regardless of his ethnicity, he became the leader of germany, and so in that context is obviously referrable as german)

But anyway....

I am not qulaified to speak as to how much of the article is correct/incorrect, but it certainly seems to me that he speaking very broadly and with much prejudice based more on personal opinion/agenda than on concrete analysis.

There is no doubt he is painting with a very large brush. Like I said, he seems to be working out a very macro oriented theory for the two continents. As you look below the broad brush strokes all of the details muck up the larger theory.

That is why I'm not agreeing with his theory so far. But he definitely is keying in on some core differences that I find very interesting in a societal evolution sense. For instance, consider the fact that we are about to witness an entirely new experiment. Europe is embarking on a new union based on secularism. This is a first in history and it will be fascinating to see how it goes.

Another thing to consider along those lines is that Africa and South America are poised to become much more prominent in this century. In fact, those two continents are becoming hugely "christianized" and are starting to evangelize the very nations that gave them that religion orginally. No one really knows how this is going to work out but there are a few books on the subject that really get one to thinking. Here's one that is on my list: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity
by Philip Jenkins

Yes, it's applicable that he was a German leader, I was simply making a tangential observation.

Looking at the article it appears to me that the author expresses many facist sentiments. He's certainly prejudiced.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Fascist sentiments ?!? Which ones? I didn't exactly see any of those.

sorry, nvm... .my point was lost through further research.

[This message has been edited by Sanzen (edited 04-12-2003).]

quote:

---

Fascist sentiments ?!? Which ones? I didn't exactly see any of those.

---

Fascist sentiments is probably (since I didnt exactly see any of those either) something like realizing that that girl you slept with the night before is only 16 years old (perhaps out of purely legal reasons) and making a sad face saying that u did not know what you were doing, and maybe buying her a candy or a new red dress which makes her look even prettier and sexier than yesterday.


P.S. dont take this seriously. I'm just in that kinda mood.

Sorry, was away from my computer for a week.

Well, Mr Prager has some strong convictions. I especially like this, from his newest column "America the good":

quote:

---

A strong case can be made that the very fact that an American president refers to America as a good country and speaks about a standard of good and evil is itself a compelling argument on behalf of America's essential goodness.

---

Needless to say, if Germany has learnt anything from history, it´s that political rhethoric and the truth are two completely seperate things. By Mr Prager´s Logic, the fact that Hitler talked about the "arians" as a superior race again and again would have been a compelling argument on behalf of arian superiority. I don´t think so.

More on the good/evil issue later, I gotta go now.

It's bothered me a great deal when people have made these terrible connections to justify war.

Iraq wasn't responsible for 9-11. Saddam Hussein is nothing like Adolf Hitler. What happened to the Kurds bears no resemblance of the Holocaust.

Why can't we just be honest with our actions? Iraq doesn't possess WMD. They aren't a threat to world peace. While they won't win any humanatarian awards any time soon, they certainly aren't the worst around. Can't we just sum everything up with one word, oil?

Jestah

MW, I'm glad you saw this thread. I was hoping to hear from you on this topic.

Bugs: I find your reasons for qualifying peoples actions and words rather bizarre, 'a highly respected person', 'a religious man'. Like you are trying to reassure us before we attempt to swallow the unpalatable. Do you believe the individuals message becomes more significant when so-called weight is attached to their name. Are you impressed by title Bugs?

I personally believe good and evil do exist but no as your beloved administration wishes to define it. They are simply playing on peoples deepest beliefs and feelings as another campaign strategy and for emotionally based coercion techniques. In fact I find it hard to accept any concept of American goodness as they are accepted as the most materialistic, ambitious and selfish culture on earth They invented and have taken the concept of me-ism to unheard of levels, and the history of America is as shameful as they come. THis is not the first time they have invaded illegally. Unless of course you want to forget and erase whole tomes of dark and wicked acts your various governments and organisations have committed in the name of US interests as you seem to be able to do so effortlessly. Then there are the present day evils that proliferate your society that are just swept under the carpet and hiden from view. I guess that's just another example you gulping down a fat piece your governments rhetoric. Where is this goodness you speak of when it comes to all the other situations in this world that they just turned a blind eye to? Many people present you with examples and situations but like a true polititian you skilfuly evade answering any of them.

I am still a little confused, are you a truely religeous man with a political bent or a political man that happens to be familiar with the bible ? Actually I think I may already have my answer...


My mother is German so I shall try to get her to read your article... I say 'try' as I found it er rather uninspiring...


...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-19-2003).]

X, I don't recall saying he was "a religious man" but he is, in fact a religious Jew. But to answer your question about titles, no, titles mean very little to me personally. I didn't qualify his words with his being highly respected because of any worthless title he may hold but because I happen to know it is a fact that he is highly respected. The point is that it says something about an individual who can write on such sensitive topics such as these and still be respected by his opponents. I have also listened to this man's shows for many years and am in a good position to know where he stands on a great many issues.

But keep in mind I am not totally on board with this latest theory he's working out. I wanted more than anything to bounce it off of some people who live there to see how it is perceived. In short, I am trying to learn from this and grow.

Again, I have addressed the issue of America's transgressions in other threads gone by. I understand you are new here and have not read them. I have often acknowledged that we have done some terrible things in our history. Slavery, the treatment of the native populations, abortion on demand, child labor, and the list goes on. But unlike you, it would seem to me, that our record needs to be compared to everyone else's. While we have had our problems, the charge of "the history of America is as shameful as they come" is quite frankly absurd. Because while we have done terrible things, we have also done very good things. So I have to ask myself why you are so down on America and are you just holding back on being down on nations that are far worse or are you the one who is turning a blind eye to worse evils in this world?

You think I answer like a politician? Well, maybe I do. There is certainly a lot of debating techniques that most of us engage in here. But isn't that ok? Aren't we, in fact, debating the issues? I see it as a tool for healthy communication. But please know that if you pin me down and ask me a very direct question, I will definitely do my best to answer it. I am up for the challenge. If I learn something from this process and come out of it knowing more than going in... I consider it an honor to have been corrected by my friends here. But don't expect me to back down easily, especially on topics on which I have deeply held conviction.

quote:

---

I am still a little confused, are you a truely religeous man with a political bent or a political man that happens to be familiar with the bible ? Actually I think I may already have my answer...

---

Now you know there is no way I'm answering this until you tell me what you think the answer is! Pretty please?

Not to interject too much, as I said, I didn't have much to say about the article. (sorry for the late reply, I didn't see the thread was still so active).

My statement about "fascist sentiments" may have had too much connotation for the palate. The sentiment that I see in the article is basically the "America is good, therefore what we say is always right". The sociological term would more aptly be "egocentrism", but when you talk about it in political context it amount to the same thing. Fascism by definition is rule of a people by a singular authority. In the traditional sense this means that there is a dictator that rules everything in his domain. The connotation that there is some force or opression involved. I see a lot of corolaries between this microcosmic political schema and the more global politics of the modern day. America would very much like to be in charge of the world. Americans act as if this is the case. Rather than take into account that there are other ways of doing things (and have been for thousands of years) they simply assume that their morals and objectives are the correct ones and that anyone not going along with them is wrong or to a more extreme "evil". Mr. Prager reinforces these views in his writing. Some of what he says, I feel, is valid. For the most part though, his writing is too prejudiced for my tastes.

So if "fascist" doesn't float your boat... you can substitute "egocentric" or "myopic".

I'm not saying that America is always wrong either. I'm saying that any time something is presented unilaterally, it's probably flawed. It's like they taught you in grade school. "There are always two sides to every story".

$0.02


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

MindBender put it very eloquently. There is always another side to the medal.
I´m starting to suspect that the unability/unwillingness to accept this may be related to strong religious beliefs (of any kind) because "believing" usually means believing there is exactly one right way and everyone else is wrong.
This kind of thinking then seems to be carried over to worldly matters.

Bugs, you have already said that you support the neo-conservative point of view. AFAIK in terms of foreign policy this means "let´s kick ass until the world looks like we want it" (See 'new american century' etc). Needless to say this cannot be acceptable for anyone outside of the US, so the administration needs to find "reasons" for things like the attack on Iraq.
But you don´t need to. You could just state clearly what role the USA should play in the world, according to your neoconservative convictions. But instead you find (or rather copy from Bush) moral reasons for these actions.
Why? Don´t want to be seen like this? Don´t want to see yourself like this? Do you think the US should abandon the neocon agenda if it happened to require a war you could not find a justification for?
How many innocents can you kill and still be "the good guys"? Ten thousands? Hundred thousands? Millions? Tell me at which point good becomes evil...

You see, we germans do think in terms of good and evil - but we think about good and evil, too. If there is no limit on the number of people you can kill and still be good, how do you define evil? Killing for reasons you don´t agree with?

Bugs: The 'religeous man' phrase came from your other posting in 'President Blair' where when saying something regarding his support of the US war stance you tried to qualifiy and add credit to him by describing him as 'a religeous man'. Do you remember now?


...xpi...

"nuff said"

X, I do remember saying that Blair is a religious man because he, in fact, is. I just wasn't expecting you to assume that I said it about someone I never said it about. You really were putting words in my mouth which can get very confusing sometimes. I'm not trying to trick anyone with my words so just ask and I'll tell it to you straight.

MW, those are very good points. I am, of course, speaking generally when I say I support the administration's views. No one agrees 100% on anything and there are certainly things in this administration I would not support. I have tried, however, to offer *my* reasons for supporting what I do in these affairs. I've written quite extensively here, as have several others, on what should and should not be done.

I believe the US should be very involved in world affairs. I think we should stick our noses where they belong in many places in order to foster the creation and/or development of liberal democracies everywhere we have a chance. I would expect Germany to agree with that approach as I think it does in many cases, just not this one.

Well, I don't believe in that approach, and never have. I believe we should instead inspire through example. Walk it, like you talk it. And be a peaceful and just country and respect our neighbors.

We have no right to force our ideas and beliefs on others...and the Constitution goes along these lines...I don't think the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you, Bugs...

So you would have us become an isolationist nation? Do you think our enemies would leave us alone if we did that? We have been far more isolationist in the past and everytime we were caught with our military forces woefully inadequate and dragged into conflict having to play catch up.

With the types of weapons that are around today, we simply cannot ignore the world situation without risking attack on our own soil. You have said as much about the DPRK. But you know that China can hit us anytime as well as Russia should that country become hostile towards us once again.

No, the only way to proceed has to be one of preventative conflict. We have to difuse hot spots before they are allowed to blow up in our face. I don't want us to have to learn this lesson the hard way again and again and again refusing to learn anything from history.

Bugs, that approach just doesn't work...history shows us this.
So, either we take over the whole world, and hold it in an iron fist (like all empires before us...and they eventually fall, anyway)

or

We concentrate on the problems at home. In the case of NK, one must remember, that war hasn't ended. The North has violated the UN resolutions so many times, it makes Iraq look like a Saint.

Let's look at this, shall we? China doesn't like us...I don't think that comes as a surprise...but we defeated Russia not on the battlefield, but through containment. It worked. Yes, there were a lot of little 'dirty' wars, but a nuclear holocaust never occured...I call that a plus. We also won a lot of allies through how we conducted ourselves...and Russia a lot of enemies...it could have gone differently.

So, what we are now doing, is similar to what the Russians (and Chinese, to an extent) tried, with communism. But our system won out...it proved to be more stable, more realistic. However, by trying to force it on others will not accomplish what we wish...democracy must be freely chosen. If we would stop supporting despot regimes, and let true democracies take their natural course, I believe we would come out a lot better, in the long run.

And contrary to what you mean, I don't hold isolation for an option...I hold the UN for the only option. Help (and let) the UN evolve into a real forum of international affairs.

As for our enemies, I never said to just leave them alone...nor did I suggest it. But there are much easier ways of dealing with them, and much more effective ones - through isolation and containment. Using the tools that we have, and those that the UN gives us. I don't particularly think that starting a war for peace, or freedom, is going to work - because we initiated it. If a people want a revolution, then maybe we could consider helping...but in the end, they need to do it. As I remember, last time the Iraqi people tried this, we withdrew our support. Then, years later, we turn around, and invade their country...it is just crazy...

Why don't we finish the things that are still open, before starting other things? War on Terror? Has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq (no WMD found, as of yet...and no links to Al Qaida, as of yet). Where is Bin Laden? Let's find and neutralize him, before going on to other things. NK...really needs to be put to an end - one way or another. Isn't almost 40 years enough? I think that had we done NK first, Iraq would have been a much different story...and much easier to pressure through the UN...and it looks like the pressure against Iraq worked, anyway (WMD-wise). Maybe we should take that into consideration...and put more trust in the UN. In fact, it really looks like the resistance to the conflict in Iraq, that France, Germany and Russia brought forth and supported, is turning out to be justified...that Iraq no longer has WMD...

And the UN isn't finished, either, for that matter...remember, we started it, along with others...what, are we then just going to let it fall, unfinished, as well? So it needs work...then work on it. Personally, I think it's coming along fine...it just needs some edges polished.

But we will see.

I also see a real nasty battle going on, between the State Department (Mr. Powell) and the Defense Department (Mr. Rumsfeld). I'm curious to see how this will end. I guess Mr. Bush wasn't as smart as his dad was...Mr. Bush's underlings are having it out...in plain sight of the American People. I hold that for bad politics, personally...and evidence of lack of control.

Another thing to consider...both wars (conflicts) after 9/11 have been failures, at this point. Why? Well, Afghanistan was about Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Well, we still don't have Bin Laden. In fact, the situation in Afghanistan is not much better than when the Taliban ruled there. And American soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan.

Iraq was about WMD. We still haven't found them. And later, it was about 'regime' change, and Saddam Hussein. We still don't have him, either. Anyone remember those 'moblie' labs, for WMD? Well, turns out that they were just for agricultural purposes...*shrugs* So much for 'intelligence' sources...

Fazit : Mr. Bush and his administration has gotten the US involved in two conflicts, and lost both. The 'third' conflict, the War on Terror, is still going on...no end in sight, there. And the political and domestic 'fallout' from these policies, will have unknown consequences...and I doubt that most of them will be of a positive nature.

Irregardless of the reasons one supports what, a balance of just what Mr. Bush and his administration has really acheived must be made. Considering that his first term is slowly coming to an end, just what has Mr. Bush accomplished in the last three years? Is the world safer? Are we, as Americans, safer? Is the Economy better? Is the image of America as seen in the world better? Are our ties with our allies, and the UN better, and more secure? How about the domestic front? Do more Americans have jobs? What about job security? Are our schools safer? What about education? What about taxes? What about health care? What about the race issue, in America? What about the deficit, between the rich, and the poor? What about crime?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-24-2003).]

Forgive me, WS, for not responding directly to all that. I plan to do so tomorrow when I have a bit more time... but I just found the article I was looking for to sort of juxtapose with the Prager one.

The U.S. Betrays Its Core Values by Gunter Grass

It's very interesting to see a very similar type of volley coming from the German side of the issue.

It seems to me that Germany was actually against this war for idealistic reasons. I could be missing something there but I didn't see any overwhelming financial drivers involved. But it must be very hard for them to have been aligned with France and Russia on this when it was obvious their concern was far more financial than humanitarian. I suppose I have to respect Germany more because of this even though I disagreed with their reluctance to free the Iraqi people with this war. I just don't see how they thought sticking with the UN could ever have achieved the same goal when the French pledged to exercise their veto power.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-25-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-25-2003).]

Can't call up the link, Bugs...it seems to be broken...

Sorry 'bout that, try it now

Yeah...Guenter Grass has a nobel prize, for his writings...

In part, I agree with him...I used to wonder at the confusion that Germans have, in being proud of their country...I now understand it...sadly. As I said before, I was never against the removal (or fall) of Saddam...but against the way that Mr. Bush and his administration has done it. I have never been so infuriated with the ineptitude of an American President or his administration, as I am with this one...how could one lose with a hand of 4 aces? Instead of giving our allies, and friends every reason, to help us, we shamed and belittled them...and talk is still going on about punishing France...as if they are to blame for the ineptitude of the diplomatic measures Mr. Bush and his administration demonstrated...instead of trying to mend fences...the animosity continues...

I mean, sending Mr. Powel before the UN, with nothing in his (our) defense...a shame, to be sure...if anything, that convinced the UN and our friends and allies of their position on the matter...and now...with the lack of WMD being found in Iraq...and the frantic back-peddaling of Mr. Bush and his administration on this (and other) issues...it's called 'falling back'...well, yes, Saddam is gone, right? Or is he? We still do not know...where is he? Is he dead, or alive? What if he 'sneaks' back into power? Such things are not unheard of...

And the recent...discussions, or thoughts, on the WMD in Iraq, even from the hard-line pro hawks...it doesn't seem that they are all that worried about the WMD...if they exist, shouldn't we find them, before they 'fall' into the hands of someone dangerous? Wasn't that the very reason for the conflict in Iraq? The longer it takes...the greater the danger...we know this, from the example in Russia...when it 'fell apart'...WMD are worth a lot of money, on the black market...and there are lots of buyers...I was really shocked to hear some of the 'thoughts' of the pro faction on this issue 'We think that the WMD were dis-assembled, and couldn't be put back together in time to be used'...ok, but they could be readily sold in such forms...much 'safer' to sell them like that...or transport, for that matter. That means the situation is much worse than it was...don't they realize that, when they make such comments? Apparently not...

Thanks for fixing the link...and posting that. What do you think of it? Doesn't the thought of WMD under a 'lawless', uncontrolled environment send chills down your spine? There is no-one at all to account for where they are...we saw this in Russia...and many countries had to work very hard, to 'contain' them...do you really think that Syria and Iran are going to do the same? Do you know how much uranium and plutonium was stopped at the German border (from the old USSR)? And did they catch all of it? We just don't know...and what about the other borders?

If there were WMD in Iraq...they probably aren't there anymore...sold, to the highest bidder. And Saddam probably gave some away...to Al Qaida, as a measure of revenge...wouldn't you? I sure as hell would...if I'm going to fall, at least take a parting shot at my adversary...and laugh myself to my grave.

hmm, You lost me Bugs, 'putting words into your mouth?'

"nuff said"