Comments: Who's more ungrateful that the French?

"1970's - Leftist German guerrillas burn, loot, and plunder much of West Germany."

eh, slight exageration there m8,

" 1989 - Gorbachev tears down Berlin Wall."

Now funnily enough on the news here it was tens of thousands of Germans who did that, you must have seen different pictures from us.

Posted by harmonia at March 14, 2003 04:29 AM

You pick one inaccuracy out of all that, is that the best you could do Harm? The authors accuracy is still far better than your's. The basic point still holds, don't you believe the Germans owe us anything? If we'd treated them as Stalin did, or not fed and clothed them what would they have to be happy about now?

Posted by puggs at March 14, 2003 04:42 AM

One inaccuracy? its a pretty big one.

If I wrote, "In 1944 Russian troops stormed Omaha beach and went on to liberate Paris" would that tend to discredit the rest of my post?

But lets look for more, Nato was formed in 1950, not 1955,

Germany joined the EU at its formation in 1950 not in 1993 (thats a doozy)

I could go on, but that post is about as accurate as a Fox News broadcast!

Posted by harmonia at March 14, 2003 09:12 AM

Hahahaha. Once again, Harm looks for meaningless inaccuracies to keep from dealing with the substance of the post. WHo gives a flip whether it was 1950 or 1955. Why don't you refute any if the issues relative to the Marshall plan, or the defense of West Germany, or any of the other points dealing with the issues that, over and over again, we have been there for Germany, and even helped maintain her as a nation when the Soviet Union wanted her to disappear altogether (right after WWII). And now, when we need Germany, we get nothing but anti-American sentiment and the discovery that, like France, she has been dealing with Iraq in defiance of UN authority.

Nice refutation on the actual Iraqi oil import numbers for France and the US by the way. I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I'm sure you must have refuted it just like you have every other time you have asked for evidence and had it supplied.

Posted by Neal at March 14, 2003 09:32 AM

you have Lost me there neil, you actually came up with some facts?

Well first time for everything I suppose!

let me give you a little clue, when ever germany doesnt want to fight, its time to rethink.

Posted by harmonia at March 14, 2003 09:58 AM

You still never addressed the original point Harm. When your mother scolded you for something did you complain about the way she did her hair? That is the level of arguement you are making. Changing the subject won't help you.

While Neal is fully capable of defending himself, and is kind enough to allow me to nest in his comments section, I will never fail to back up a friend. That's something about Americans that some of you could learn from. We remember our friends. Thats why in the war to come British lives lost will be fewer because of advanced equipment loaned to them. Maybe Britain can't afford to equip everyone with night vision, but we'll share. Something that France and Germany will never enjoy from us. Britain watchs our back, so we'll watch theirs.

Which I believe was the ultimate point of the original post. Loyality is a two way street.

Posted by puggs at March 14, 2003 10:56 AM

Yep, that's what I thought. Once again you ask for evidence, it hits you smack in the face, and you either ignore it, change the subject, or make some flippant comment while patting yourself on the back for your cleverness.

But please, do keep posting. I think you are doing an excellent job showing the casual lurkers here how vacuous and intellectually dishonest the current "anti-liberation" arguments are. Not as good as the moronic DC from Ipswich, perhaps. But a damn fine job none the less.

Posted by Neal at March 14, 2003 12:46 PM

You guys are so cruel in your honesty. I like that.

Posted by JC at March 14, 2003 07:44 PM

What's that a script for a Holliwood movie unsuited for the age of 10 or older? Is that what we are having next on the movie agenda - the war against the krauts/frogs (mis)alliance?
Keeping abreast of such patriotic spirits, what about removing from (American) English all words of French and German origin and replace them with 100% local brews? That would keep up the entertainment for us as well - far more than the Saddam sitcom.

Posted by en9 at March 16, 2003 03:51 AM

Ohhh, I think most of us think that renaming French fries is a pretty stupid gesture. But it's good that you are entertained, so make all of the snarky comments you want. At least I know my country has the cahones to try and root out and fight these terrorist types. So much more satisfying than cowering in a dark corner, handing overf your wallet, and hoping the bad men will just go away.

Posted by Neal at March 16, 2003 09:24 AM

Hey,everyone, please welcome en9 as our first official Italian troll. It's nice to see all the nations of the EU so well represented. Would you like to be seated in the "old Europe" or the "New Europe" section of the blog? Smoking crater where the piazza used to be, or non-smoking crater. You decide.

Posted by Neal at March 16, 2003 09:29 AM

Dear Neal, thanks for the welcome, I was afraid you'd rap my fingers for daring to crash in.
Being a crossbreed myself I feel at home pretty much everywhere in Europe. But as I have my problems with current EU politics in general, if you don't mind I'll keep to the sideline.
Also if you condone a little sentimentality on my side I�ll remember how during the night of August 26, 1896 a certain Khaled made himself sultan of Zanzibar. When the sun arose the British resident told him he had until 9am to depart or else. At 9.02am the guns of the British ships in the harbor started shelling Khaled�s palace. At 9.40am Khaled took his leave. Nobody ever made a fuss about it.
From my point of view the problem in your case is your scarce familiarity with the Arabs, so you are wont doing them wrong. Instead they are easily housebroken and afterwards normally they are quite well behaved. If they know you for the master you can kick their ass the whole daylong and in the evening they�ll kiss your hand for your kind consideration. But don�t give them the impression you aren�t being fair to them. They�ll never forget and can get pretty nasty.

Posted by en9 at March 17, 2003 09:12 AM

En9,

I have no problems with opposing points of view - I just expect a little intellectual honesty be brought to the debate.

You comment above interests me a great deal. If I would have said it, I'm sure some of the RNS bashers out there would have taken me to task for it. In fact, I believe the greatest error we have made in dealing with the Muslim fundamentalists is letting them believe we were weak and ineffectual. I think they need to be slapped down hard, and then built up under the same kind of fairness and self-determination that were the hallmark of the original Marshall plan.

Posted by Neal at March 17, 2003 10:04 AM

Neal,
in my opinion without honesty you just have a hassle and without contrast a choir.
OK, I�ll try and be more serious. As far as the fundamentalists are concerned, they should simply be wiped out. But that won't help much if the rest of the Muslims are not brought to forget their age-old customs and educated up to our standards.
In plain words that means substantially eradicating religion from their civil conscience and placing it in its proper private sphere, so that they can measure up to the requirements of a civilization based on science and technology.
Considering how all this mess came about, I guess the US alone are well equipped to deal with terrorists but that�s about all. For the full job the US are in need of equal partners � not clients - and the great Europeans nations alone are simply up to neither. For instance what could you expect from the British when after so many centuries they haven't yet managed to put full order in their Irish backyard? It�s a tough business that requires far more farsightedness than it�s available in this corner of the world.

Posted by en9 at March 17, 2003 12:23 PM

En9,

Here I was, all ready to place you into the "antagonist" camp. I find myself agreeing with just about everything you have said in you last 2 comments.

Posted by Neal at March 17, 2003 12:46 PM

Perhaps you're interested in a German view of this timetable. You admitted already that it was a 'bit biased', but I'd like to make a few further comments:

-1914-1948 Germany starts World War I
you'll hardly find any serious historian who will fully agree to this. Germany was an imperialist nation like all larger European countries were at that time. Germans welcomed war at first, like the French and to a lesser extent the English did, but Germany did not incite it.

-1914-1918 Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
this can be said for all participating nations. Actually there was a Austro-German armistice offer in 1916 (long before it was obvious that Germany would lose) which was rejected.

-1917 Germany forces peace-loving Americans to enter war
if a nation enters a war, it must have been neutral before. nations that provide one side (and only one) with weapons and food supplies are not neutral in my opinion. Germany advised American citizens not to travel to England in American newspapers before its submarines attacked American ships. By shipping ammonition and weapons to the Entente countries America in fact entered war on their side, unforced by the Germans. Of course as for World War II there is little to doubt about German guilt and cruelties (although I thought it was Japan that made the U.S. enter the war) so let's accept that passage as it is.

-1948-1949 - America puts ass on line and risk WW3 to save a few Berliners from Soviet hordes.
How wonderfully sarcastic.

-1960's German students protest war in Vietnam
as American, English, French, ... students. And they proved right, didn't they?

-till 1989: America spends billions...
So did Germany. If there had been a war, it would have been fought on German soil, Germans would have been in the first line, not Americans.

-1989 Gorbachev tears down Berlin wall
Gorbachev did. President Bush gave his consent. Germans ARE grateful for this. America deserves our respect, as it didn't use its power to suppress West Germany, as the Soviets did in the East. But isn't that something you can expect from God's own country :-)?

-1990's Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans
this neglects how difficult it actually is for Germany to engage in any
military conflict (especially in Europe)
1. After WWII Germans were taught, that there should NEVER again be an aggressive
war led by Germans. Breaking this rule is a matter of overwhelming importance in Germany and very controversial indeed.
2. Perhaps not so easy to understand for Americans, as they don't have the view from inside Europe: There is almost no country in Europe that feels comfortable with Germany sending troops around more or less on own account. Especially early after reunification.

-2003 Germany sees rise in anti-americanism after several decades of poor treatment from America
Almost everybody in Germany assures that he is not against the American people
in the same phrase, when he critizises American policy. But many Germans (including me) really don't see Saddam Hussein as such as imminent threat, as apparently many Americans do.

Thanks for reading it :-), time to get stuffed

Posted by Robert at March 18, 2003 06:19 PM

No stuffing to occur, at least from me. Everyone gets to have a perspective, and I don't doubt that there is a German one that sees the US as an enemy - otherwise Schroeder would not have been successful. But the American street gets to have just as much of an opinion as the German (or Arab) one.

Posted by Neal at March 23, 2003 12:30 PM

As far as I perceive it, there is a considerable opposition against war in your country. It has become less after the war actually began, which I quite understand. It has been similar in Germany. The German election was almost as narrow as the election of president Bush, and there were many Germans (including me) that were upset by Schroeder using the Iraq question (which wasn't even really present until then in German politics) for winning his campaign. But as it became obvious (U.S. troops deployment continously preparing war, U.S. government statements) that this war had been decided already, many people here (again including me) got the feeling that Schroeder had taken the right position, although accidentally.
The anti-war opinion percentage in Britain roughly equals that in Germany. If you don't believe that the British consider you as enemies, do not believe the Germans do.
As for the American street opinion: You don't hide it too much, considering the listing above.

Posted by Robert at March 23, 2003 03:27 PM

Robert,

I don't see the German people as enemies. But I do believe your government makes decisions that they perceive to be in the best interests of its people. And my government does the same. But when your government takes a position that is opposite to ours, we are under no obligation to support it. Our perspective is that we have spent billions to keep your eastern front safe for many, many years. And you repay us with anti-American rhetoric, and a lack of support when we need you. That is certainly your right. However, it is our right to say "fine, perhaps our billions are better spent elsewhere".

Posted by Neal at March 23, 2003 03:40 PM

Is there a way of critizising the war against Iraq without being anti-American in your opinion?
What should it be like?

Posted by Robert at March 24, 2003 07:19 AM

Robert,

Sure, there are lots of way of protesting the war without being anti-American. First and foremost - you just need to either decide that Saddam is not a threat or not one that you feel like dealing with. But then you need to accept that means Saddam and his regime stays in power.

You need to admit that France, Germany, and Russia PROBABLY did not act out of any altruistic desire to avert war, but to protect their own interests and covert acts with Iraq in defiance of multiple UN resolutions.

But most importantly, you need to provide realistic alternatives to resolve the problems that allow the US to pursue her national interests, just as France, Germany, and Russia have done.

Burning American flags, screaming stupid slogans, and ignoring the issues while hating the US is NOT an anti-war protest, it is an anti-American protest. Your IP traces to an AOL account in the US, so I suppose you are a German national living here? Have you seen a single coherent argument that offered a realistic alternative to our current course? And please don't tell me that we should have allowed more time for inspections to work - I think the scuds landing in Kuwait have underscored how effective that strategy really is.

And as I said - France, Germany, and Russia have been allowed to make unilateral decisions about what they think is best for their countries - this is their right, as sovereign nations. But it is also our right.

Posted by Neal at March 24, 2003 10:11 AM

Neal,

Do you really think one can compare French,German and Russian unilateralism in the Iraq question with that of the U.S.? You say that the U.S. have the right to pursue their interests. This is what international law is about - imposing some restrictions on the means of countries to achieve their aims.
The United States and Great Britain are currently leading an aggressive war against a country that NEVER attacked them. I think, that you don't doubt that, do you?
This war is led because of Iraq defying U.N. resolutions. Therefore the countries "punishing" (or liberating, whatever you want) Iraq should fight with the consent of the U.N. This is not a moral question but one of reason. If the U.S. are interested in keeping the U.N. as international institution of importance they should not state things like "either you're with us, or you're not relevant". If they are not, this is a good reason for other countries to critizise them indeed.
Of course it is difficult to present alternatives, if all of them have to end in war (as at least in the recent time regime change was aim number one, not taking away WMD). But there were a few things, the U.S. government could have handled better by:
- achieving an U.N. resolution actually threatening with war in case of defiance (this would not have been easy perhaps, but after all who can say no to it? They all agreed on "serious consequences")
- NOT deploying U.S. troops around Iraq while inspectors are still there showing to everyone, that you don't spend these billions for nothing
- not asking to destroy Al-Samud missiles as prove of compliance and then not caring about it at all.

You may be right and France, Germany and Russia have their own, secret interests, but this conjectures don't make a difference in the matter. People (again: even many people in your country) couldn't protest credibly if America gave them no reason.

Did you really see Germans burning American flags?
I can't believe that this is true. I admit that it would be a shame (although burning a flag is only a silly symbol).
Believe me, most people in Germany mention their American friends (if they have some) or their good opinion of the American PEOPLE when talking about Iraq, because its cool to make this difference.
People who are shouting anti-American slogans here would be the ones calling the French surrender monkeys in the U.S.

No, I live in Germany, I just have an AOL account

Posted by Robert at March 24, 2003 06:02 PM

Sorry not to respond to your latest comment, Robert, things have been rather busy.

I think this is a situation where we will just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the tone and timbre of your comments - it is nice to hear dissenting voices that actually debate rather than scream hate and invective.

I guess all I can offer at this point is that, to most Americans, it is insane to let our future and security be decided by countries that have aligned themselves to do nothing but oppose our best interests. This is perhaps debateable on the German front, but not so much on France, I believe. Plus, it is extremely difficult for us to accept the moral authority of countries that insist that we must abide by the will of the UN, when there is very credible evidence that those same countries have willfully and knowingly defied the UN.

Again, Robert, thank you for the comments. Perhaps you think we have treated Germany unfairly, but we feel that way about your countries treatment of the US.

Posted by Neal at March 28, 2003 08:14 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?