I'm ceasing to care that it's election time.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by First of Two

I brought up Iraq, to explain why your explanation of why the German gov't has the right to disagree with US foreign policy is internally inconsistent.

So under which circumstances would it be appropriate and internally consistent to disagree with US foreign policy?

Yes, they have the right to disagree (something you folks conveniently forget anytime the US disagrees with one of your pet policies, but we'll let that slide for now...) But as you so aptly put it, they have to deal with the consequences of their actions, whatever they are.

I see. Voicing dissenting opinion is apparently unethical, inappropriate amongst allies and not sensible.
But just shutting the hell up and doing as Big Brother says is... yeah, sure.

Joe, who stopped rolling his eyes, cause they started to hurt

[Liquidator Queeg]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
WTF are they selling you over there?

If this is how the news are filtered through the Atlantic, I'm no longer surprised at the eagerness to take down Hussein.

All Schröder said was that there will be no involvement of the german forces if a strike against Iraq should occur.

Just what in the name of Clapton was that translated into on FOX or CNN?!?

Joe

Don't even ask, Joe.

The jingoism and rhetoric flinging going on in North America right now is enough to make your mind numb. It's sad really.

But hey! Bush is the legally-elected date, they gotta go to the dance with him. Just like Daddy, he wants to strut like Gene Kelly in the desert to ensure there's enough oil to lub the Cadillacs and Hum-Vs in North America. Really sad thing is, he couldn't even run a baseball team.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. 'Nuff said by me, this political stuff gets too heated. I'm as guilty as anyone by making this post, but hey it's just opinion ... so ultimately, who gives a crap what anyone thinks.

Steve

[First of Two]

I just received this in an email from another, more pro-action German associate...

"Schroder 4 years ago promised certain economic improvements, none of which seem to have occured. So he now plays to German fears of a war that they will not be asked to participate in anyway. "

Of course, use of the airfields and/or airspace could, if stretched, be considered "participation."

Looks like the Americans aren't the only ones capable of "using" a war to stay in office.

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
WTF are they selling you over there?
If this is how the news are filtered through the Atlantic, I'm no longer surprised at the eagerness to take down Hussein.

This is what we've been seeing. This and thisare why we're fairly gung-ho about taking Saddam out of power.

All Schröder said was that there will be no involvement of the german forces if a strike against Iraq should occur.

As the bit above mentions, he said quite a bit more than just that they would sit out any attack on Iraq.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by First of Two

Looks like the Americans aren't the only ones capable of "using" a war to stay in office.

Sadly, this could be very true.

It remains to be seen how Schröder handles both internal and international affairs after making such bold statements as "not participating in an attack on Iraq".

Joe

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
This is what we've been seeing. As the bit above mentions, he said quite a bit more than just that they would sit out any attack on Iraq.

And as somebody who has heard Schröder's press-conference and televised debate in its native language, let me tell you.. what you're reading is truth-bending, demagogic and militaristic crap.

'nuff said.

Believe whatever you want Cyberludite, but the truth of the matter is that "no involvement" was all Schröder said.
No more and no less.

Joe

[First of Two]

In a poll by the Emnid organization for the n-tv television station, voters were asked what they thought about the following statement: "The government's declaration that Germany take part in an expansion of the U.S. war against terrorism is not credible because it was made during the election campaign."

Results: agreed, 58 percent; disagreed, 48 percent.

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
And as somebody who has heard Schröder's press-conference and televised debate in its native language, let me tell you.. what you're reading is truth-bending, demagogic and militaristic crap.
'nuff said.
Believe whatever you want Cyberludite, but the truth of the matter is that "no involvement" was all Schröder said.
No more and no less.

Can you provide a link to what he did say, then? I'm always will to admit when I've been proven wrong. (believe it or not )

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
Can you provide a link to what he did say, then? I'm always will to admit when I've been proven wrong. (believe it or not )

I could try, but I don't think I'd find an English translation of it.

During the televised debate he repeatedly said, that as long as he would be chancellor there would be no involvement of German military in an attack on Iraq. He did not elaborate what this non-involvement would mean exactly.

In press-meetings following the debate he gave following reasons for not supporting an attack against Iraq:

- the evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is not sufficient,
- it would seriously damage the International Coalition against Terrorism
- there are no plans for stabilizing the area politically, economically, etc. once Hussein had been removed

He compared this to action in Afghanistan where an effort is being made to stabilize the region.

Therefore an attack on Iraq would do more harm than good, in regards to the political climate/situation in the arab world.

This is what I could gather from the press releases on the official homepage of the German Chancellor.

If I should find a correctly translated version of those press releases (or the debate) I'll post the link here.

Joe

P.S. - I'm by no means a big fan of Schröder, but on occasion he does say the right things.. and hopefully this time he did so for the right reasons.

[First of Two]

Not to say that the gentleman is wrong, but...

- the evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is not sufficient,

Don't you folks over there know by now that Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization? Hussein funds suicide bombers in Israel, he has a terrorist training base (according to his own general). These are known, pretty much undebated facts which have been in everybody's news.

PS: Tell that to the Czechs. They're your neighbors, you don't believe them?

- it would seriously damage the International Coalition against Terrorism

Says who? I hear that the UK, Italy, Spain support us, and that France is coming around. Seems to be that it's Germany who's damaging the coalition. Plus, that "against Terrorism" part? That means you're supposed to do something ABOUT it.

- there are no plans for stabilizing the area politically, economically, etc. once Hussein had been removed.

Who says? (Actually, IIRC, that's what people said about Afghanistan). There are certainly groups who want the job - remember those folks in your Iraqi embassy? What logical reason is there to doubt adherence to the same postwar doctrine in Iraq as there is in Afghanistan?

[dimeboy99]

No offense guys, but without knowing exactly what was said, I've spent the past 5 minutes trying to figure out what pages 2 and 3 have to do with the original topic.

All I've seen is left-wingers and right-wingers trying to change each others minds. Probably won't happen.

In the end, considering how little German politicians factor into the political landscape of the US, this argument is rather silly. I say this as a man who hasn't made up his mind on the whole Iraq deal. It is better to watch the home-based debate on the subject, even though it is an election topic here as well.

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
Can you provide a link to what he did say, then? I'm always will to admit when I've been proven wrong. (believe it or not )

Well, my usually reliable source has proven to be human. To quote Mr. DenBeste's latest post...

What I remember reading (or am hallucinating that I remember) was that initially the idea of forbidding American use of assets in Germany began as something that was being talked about among German antiwar leftists. Schroeder was then asked about it, and said words to the effect that it was something that the German government would have to seriously consider when the time came. He didn't say "yes", but he also didn't say "no".
And then, later, Stoiber was asked about it and made his gaffe. That's what I remember.

Mmmmmmmmnnn crow tastes good. Humble pie for dessert.

[Lancer]

Just as an aside to this topic let me point out that whatever Schröder said (Joe's summary is right on the mark, see above) it may not have been - as CNN tells the tale - "to appeal to the extreme left-wing voters". From the start of the debate on Iraq here in Germany all polls have come up with a majority of Germans being against an attack on Iraq.
While you are free to disagree with the wisdom of this position let me emphasize that this is not an opinion of the extreme left or a small minority of Germans. Schröder may have said what he did to gain some votes from the left, but I for one am glad he gave voice to an opinion that is shared by the majority of Germans - it happens rarely enough.

[Capt.Hunter]

Besides, there are other ways to support the War on Terrorism than throwing your troops into battle against Saddam. it was suggested on the news last night that Schroeder might not commit troops or resources to an Iraq offensive, but instead might send German forces to shore up Afghanistan, freeing US troops for the new target. Of course, the sensible option would be to forget this crap about "regime change" and focus on giving the weapons inspectors real teeth so the Iraqis can't jerk 'em around. I still think a "comply fully, or we will attack" doctrine is going to yield better results than a "sod it, we'll attack no matter what you do" attitude, which is the face the US is currently presenting. They are leaving Saddam no way out except to step down, and do they seriously expect that to happen? So of course he won't comply with inspections - he's damned either way.

[Dan Stack]

From today's Boston Globe (Sept 24, 2002)

• Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin's comparing Bush to Hitler (or, depending on whose version, "Adolf Nazi")
• One of Schroeder's party leaders comparing Bush to Caesar - compared the American ambassador to Stalin-era Soviet ambassadors who gave East Germany its marching orders

From FoxNews last week:

• Schroeder refused to accept a call from Bush prior to the election and leaked that to the press

From UK News (Daily Telegraph or the Times, I forget which)

• Concern among European powers that Germany will not abide by its commitments to NATO and the EU with regard to military policy and concern about Germany following UN resolutions that are unpopular.

What follows is my personal opinion now. I actually am fine with Germany taking whatever stance it takes - it is a sovereign power and a grown-up, and able to deal with the consequences (not a threat - I'm not a state official - just noting there are always consequences to any action, or lack of action). For Germany, the two most realistic consequences are the US no longer going to bat for it getting a permanent seat on the UN security council and the possible closure of US military bases (which really don't serve much of a purpose anyways with the Soviet threat gone).

My main belief is that perception is important. Diplomacy is sometimes a game of chess, sometimes poker. On the American front it is obvious Bush could present things better at times. I don't think there's much he could have done to present his view on the ICC better but on the Iraqi front I don't see the harm in having the UN deliver an ultimatum to Iraq, backed with teeth. His regime change rhetoric, in my opinion, harms this. The regime change would obviously happen if a war breaks out a second time, instead he should have spent his time focusing on the threat instead of the objective of regime change. (I think Blair, for example, is far more persuasive than Bush on the threat of Iraq)

In the German front, it is obvious that Schroeder, while certainly entitled to disagree with Bush, chose to do so in a way to stoke anti-American attitudes. Which is his right, as head of state of a sovereign power (or even candidate for such), but it should come as no surprise when there is an unpleasant reaction. (As a side note, it is true that high ranking officials said much of the anti-American rhetoric - but if Cheney or Rice compared Schroeder to "Adolf Nazi" I cannot imagine Germany reaction would be all that different to America's.)

In closing, some will unfortunately translate this as me being anti-German or anti-European, which is not the case. My mother-in-law is from Germany (Prussia actually) and spent her childhood outrunning the reach of the Soviet Union until finally settling in West Germany. My wife still has family in Germany, so our family does have ties to Germany. I've always been impressed by the will and resolve of the German people, overcoming some tremendous adversity in the 20th century, picking themselves up after WWII when no one would blame them for just "giving up". The pacifist attitude is certainly understandable there - two wars brought untold horrors to the German people. (btw, if the Stack family is ever in the area and you want an American at your gaming table, give a holler... )