Schröder Stands by Stance on Iraq
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET
BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
Schroeder's Social Democrats secured another four years for his
coalition with the small Greens party in Sunday's vote, but the
chancellor must confront a tougher opposition as he attempts to revive
Europe's largest economy and rebuild ties with the United States.
Schroeder's victory handed Europe's dwindling left another boost a
week after Social Democrats triumphed in Sweden.
Despite indications from Washington that the relationship with Berlin
had been poisoned by campaign rhetoric stemming from Schroeder's
anti-war stand, the chancellor insisted a friendship nurtured under
Cold War tensions remained strong. Allies, he said, can withstand
differences -- not only on Iraq but also on other areas, like
strategies to combat global warming.
``I think this difference of opinion will remain,'' Schroeder said
Monday. ``We will have it out in a fair and open way without in any
way endangering the basis of German-American relations. That is my
firm intention.''
Schroeder's outspoken opposition to a military conflict with Iraq was
credited with giving him a late push in a tight campaign. But it
provoked a rare open spat with the United States and accusations he
whipped up emotions against a vital ally for electoral gain.
``I always said that the meaning of friendship can only be that one
sometimes differs on specific issues,'' Schroeder said Monday. ``How
else could it be?''
He noted that the United States and Germany have differed in the past
on topics such as global warming, farm subsidies and U.S. steel
tariffs.
Schroeder's majority in parliament was shaved to only nine seats from
a 21 previously. His conservative rival, Edmund Stoiber, said that
slender majority would not hold long.
``I predict that this Schroeder government will rule for only a very
short time,'' Stoiber said. ``What I criticize above all is that
(Schroeder) opened the floodgates for anti-American tones,'' Stoiber
said on German television, calling the crisis with the United States
``the most devastating of the last 50 years.''
But European Commission President Romano Prodi played down the
German-American spat. ``If there is a 'poisoning' of relations then
there is a misunderstanding of democracy in Germany. We must be
prepared to work together to discuss issues publicly,'' he told
reporters.
Schroeder recalled that he staked his political future last year on a
parliamentary decision to send German troops to Afghanistan, a signal
of Schroeder's ``unlimited solidarity'' in the wake of the Sept. 11
attacks.
``I'm quite sure that, beyond the campaign noises, this has been
registered in America,'' he told reporters on Monday.
Analysts expect Schroeder to adopt a softer tone after the election,
but he showed no intention Monday of backing down. He has insisted he
would not commit troops to a war in Iraq even if the United Nations
backs military action.
``I have formulated a German position, and I have nothing to retract
on that count,'' Schroeder told German television Monday.
Yet the Bush administration remained cold.
``I have no comment on the German elections outcome, but I would have
to say that the way it was conducted was notably unhelpful. And as the
White House indicated, has had the effect of poisoning the
relationship,'' Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said while attending
a NATO meeting in Warsaw, Poland.
When asked Monday about a letter Schroeder sent to Bush last week,
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said: ``It really didn't
read like an apology. It read more like an attempt at an
explanation.''
Bush, at a rally in Trenton, N.J., did not speak about Schroeder, but
was addressing the war on terrorism when he pointedly told the crowd:
``I made it clear to the world, that either you're with us or you're
with the enemy and that doctrine still stands.''
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will remain Schroeder's most
important Cabinet member, entrusted with the role of repairing
U.S.-German relations and empowered by the Greens' strong showing that
ensured the chancellor's second four-year term.
Also expected to retain their posts were Interior Minister Otto
Schily, the official charged with domestic security, and Finance
Minister Hans Eichel, the architect of plans to balance the federal
budget by 2006.
A top Schroeder aide, Franz Muentefering, said Monday he would not
rule out giving the Greens an additional Cabinet post, for a total of
four.
In the most dramatic switch, the justice minister ensured her own doom
with reported remarks comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler. Schroeder said
the minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, had submitted a letter Monday
giving up the post in a new Cabinet, after receiving clear signals on
Sunday the government would not have her.
The chancellor may also be looking for a new labor minister, after the
government's failure to make a dent in unemployment.
Official election results released early Monday showed the Social
Democrats and Greens won a combined 47.1 percent of the vote for the
lower house, or Bundestag. Opposition parties led by the conservatives
totaled 45.9 percent.
That gave the Social Democrats and Greens 306 seats in the new
603-seat parliament, compared to 295 for conservatives and the
pro-business Free Democrats. Reformed communists won the other two
seats
But prospects for a conservative coalition were hurt by a scandal in
the Free Democratic Party over deputy leader Juergen Moellemann's
renewed attacks on a prominent German Jewish leader. The party's
leadership demanded his resignation and he gave it on Monday.
Scott Erb
"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:jm8vouc0cu16puv6a...@4ax.com...
> Schröder Stands by Stance on Iraq
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET
>
> BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
> closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
> by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
> angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
anti-war.
The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
Bush is the worst President in modern history, especially if he doesn't
realize how important Germany and the EU is to America. Kennedy was
challenged much more fundamentally by De Gaulle, and he handled it much
better than Bush is handling this. A "Gaullist" Germany could really create
a rift between the US and EU that will ultimately hurt the US more than the
EU.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
Puts Blair in an even more untenable position, since he wants very
badly to have the Euro in England. Putsch may end up forcing him to
decide between Europe and the US.
>
Scott Erb
Blair has said very kind things about Schroeder lately, and praised his Iraq
stance in a bid to help Schroeder to victory. Chirac and Putin all are
stressing Schroeder's quality leadership, Putin sees Schroeder as perhaps
his best ally. Chirac sees the makings of a stronger Franco-German
partnership.
If Bush wants to sulk, he's only hurting himself...and the US.
Martin McPhillips
news:eFNj9.42680$1C2.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in
message
> news:jm8vouc0cu16puv6a...@4ax.com...
> > Schröder Stands by Stance on Iraq
> >
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> >
> > Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET
> >
> > BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
> > closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
> > by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
> > angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
>
> It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
> anti-war.
Right, Scott, where unilateralism is defined as anything that the
United States holds to be in its own interest without the approval
of German socialists -- such as refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty,
deploying a missile defense system, and taking out Saddam
Hussein's regime. Schroeder seems to forget that the U.S.
has the military capability to act in such situations, and
Germany doesn't, and that it is the U.S. that has to make
the decision whether to act or not, not Germany. And why
doesn't Germany have the military capability? Because it
had the worst record of military aggression in the 20th
Century.
> The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
> Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
> things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
Yeah, if you turn things on their head, it will always be Bush
who looks bad for you, Scott. It wasn't John Ashcroft who
made a sleazy comparison between Schroeder and Hitler,
and it wasn't Bush who offered Schroeder a left-handed
apology for it. Put things right side up just once in your
life, Scott. Try manhood.
The Big Weasel
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>news:jm8vouc0cu16puv6a...@4ax.com...
>> Schröder Stands by Stance on Iraq
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET
>>
>> BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
>> closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
>> by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
>> angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
>
>It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
>anti-war.
Well, you know, it's that darn liberal media. If it's American
corporation news, it's not going to be honest.
>
>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>
I remember reading once where Franklin Roosevelt confided to someone
-- Harry Stanton, maybe? -- that he had considered not calling Hitler
to offer his condolences and regrets over the immolation of the
Hindenberg. Even though Roosevelt knew it would do nothing to improve
things, he decided to do it out of common decency and because to not
do so would in fact make things even worse.
Putsch is petty and stupid and egotistical. That's a bad combination.
>Bush is the worst President in modern history, especially if he doesn't
>realize how important Germany and the EU is to America. Kennedy was
>challenged much more fundamentally by De Gaulle, and he handled it much
>better than Bush is handling this. A "Gaullist" Germany could really create
>a rift between the US and EU that will ultimately hurt the US more than the
>EU.
>
****************************
"My country right or wrong. When right, to keep right; when wrong, to put right."
Sen. Carl Schurz's
ot dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To subscribe to Zepp's News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For Essays delivered to your mailbox: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_essays/join
Or, if you don't want to dick with Yahoo, just email me.
To order a CD in PDF format of 125 of Zepp's essays, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/form_to_order_cd.htm
Scott Erb
"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:39gvou0pta7blo2gu...@4ax.com...\
> >> BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
> >> closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
> >> by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
> >> angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
> >
> >It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
> >anti-war.
>
> Well, you know, it's that darn liberal media. If it's American
> corporation news, it's not going to be honest.
German papers are a bit bemused by the weird way American papers and
commentators are analyzing the election.
> >The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
> >Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
> >things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
> I remember reading once where Franklin Roosevelt confided to someone
> -- Harry Stanton, maybe? -- that he had considered not calling Hitler
> to offer his condolences and regrets over the immolation of the
> Hindenberg. Even though Roosevelt knew it would do nothing to improve
> things, he decided to do it out of common decency and because to not
> do so would in fact make things even worse.
>
> Putsch is petty and stupid and egotistical. That's a bad combination.
And dangerous for the country.
SemiScholar
Fuggit - let England switch to the dollar. They could become a
state. Or a colony. They've never considered themselves part of
Europe anyway.
SemiScholar
<ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:42:02 GMT, "Scott Erb"
><scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>>news:jm8vouc0cu16puv6a...@4ax.com...
>>> Schröder Stands by Stance on Iraq
>>>
>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>>
>>> Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET
>>>
>>> BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
>>> closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
>>> by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
>>> angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
>>
>>It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
>>anti-war.
>
>Well, you know, it's that darn liberal media. If it's American
>corporation news, it's not going to be honest.
>>
>>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>>
>I remember reading once where Franklin Roosevelt confided to someone
>-- Harry Stanton, maybe? -- that he had considered not calling Hitler
>to offer his condolences and regrets over the immolation of the
>Hindenberg.
Watch out - Schroeder got into trouble because one of his ministers
compared Bush to Hitler. Now here you are comparing Bush to that
commie Roosevelt...
Foxtrot
>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
Maybe Bush wasn't satisfied with the apology for the Hitler
remark. Can't blame him, I'd be furious too.
>Bush is the worst President in modern history
LBJ gets that dubious title for sending tens of thousands of
Americans into an unwinnable war, then abandoned them.
SemiScholar
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I used to think Bush was just a laughable cowboy buffoon who would be
a joke for 4 years and then go away. But lately I'm beginning to
worry that he is indeed dangerous for our country.
The Big Weasel
>"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>
>Maybe Bush wasn't satisfied with the apology for the Hitler
>remark. Can't blame him, I'd be furious too.
Who gives a fuck what that piece of shit thinks?
>
>>Bush is the worst President in modern history
>
>LBJ gets that dubious title for sending tens of thousands of
>Americans into an unwinnable war, then abandoned them.
Wait. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
The Big Weasel
Trust me, they don't consider themselves a part of America.
If we survive this administration, we're going to be paying for its
mistakes for decades.
Scott Erb
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:ptjvouki50uj969mj...@4ax.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Bush is the worst President in modern history
>
> LBJ gets that dubious title for sending tens of thousands of
> Americans into an unwinnable war, then abandoned them.
You have a point there....
The Big Weasel
Ooh. Good point. Comparing him to Hitler I can get away with,
because half these Usenet right wingers admire Hitler, overtly or
secretly, and wish for a leader as firm and assertive.
But FDR. He was a liberal! Couldn't even walk more than ten yards
without help!
(FDR once characterized conservatives as men with perfectly good legs
who were unwilling to walk forward).
The Big Weasel
At this point, very. Remember that Caligua was originally seen as a
joke, too.
The Big Weasel
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>news:39gvou0pta7blo2gu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:42:02 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>\
>> >> BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
>> >> closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday stuck
>> >> by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
>> >> angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
>> >
>> >It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
>> >anti-war.
>>
>> Well, you know, it's that darn liberal media. If it's American
>> corporation news, it's not going to be honest.
>
>German papers are a bit bemused by the weird way American papers and
>commentators are analyzing the election.
It's probably a lot like our reactions to the "analyses" of American
elections that Izvestia and Pravda used to have, back in the days of
the USSR.
>
>> >The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>> >Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>> >things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>
>> I remember reading once where Franklin Roosevelt confided to someone
>> -- Harry Stanton, maybe? -- that he had considered not calling Hitler
>> to offer his condolences and regrets over the immolation of the
>> Hindenberg. Even though Roosevelt knew it would do nothing to improve
>> things, he decided to do it out of common decency and because to not
>> do so would in fact make things even worse.
>>
>> Putsch is petty and stupid and egotistical. That's a bad combination.
>
>And dangerous for the country.
And dangerous for the country.
>
****************************
Victor Pavski
> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>> Puts Blair in an even more untenable position, since he wants very
>> badly to have the Euro in England. Putsch may end up forcing him to
>> decide between Europe and the US.
> Blair has said very kind things about Schroeder lately, and praised his
> Iraq stance in a bid to help Schroeder to victory. Chirac and Putin all
> are stressing Schroeder's quality leadership, Putin sees Schroeder as
> perhaps his best ally. Chirac sees the makings of a stronger
> Franco-German partnership.
There were reports in The Economist that Conservative Leader Ian Duncan
Smith had tea with Blair and suggested that Blair seek the support of the
Tories for an attack on Iraq, if he can't keep all of the Labour MPs in
line. Blair shrugged that off, but if the US pushes for an Iraq war by
bypassing the UN Security Council (and I suspect it will), he could be in
trouble domestically.
The good news is that the media can no longer spin the "Europe is going
more conservative" pap any more. The French election was really a fluke
with the Left parties vote-splitting badly and allowing nativist
sentiments to push Le Pen by default. To the extent that right-wing
parties have had success in Europe, it has largely been on
nativist/immigrant-bashing sentiments a la Pym Fourtyn and Jorg Haider. I
suspect 9/11 had a role in that. For the right-wing to openly court
nativism to succed is not a pretty tactic, given the history of nativism
in Europe. I suspect that will recede if economic growth can get going, as
9/11 fades into history.
Vic
The Big Weasel
wrote:
>In talk.politics.misc Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Puts Blair in an even more untenable position, since he wants very
>>> badly to have the Euro in England. Putsch may end up forcing him to
>>> decide between Europe and the US.
>
>> Blair has said very kind things about Schroeder lately, and praised his
>> Iraq stance in a bid to help Schroeder to victory. Chirac and Putin all
>> are stressing Schroeder's quality leadership, Putin sees Schroeder as
>> perhaps his best ally. Chirac sees the makings of a stronger
>> Franco-German partnership.
>
>There were reports in The Economist that Conservative Leader Ian Duncan
>Smith had tea with Blair and suggested that Blair seek the support of the
>Tories for an attack on Iraq, if he can't keep all of the Labour MPs in
>line. Blair shrugged that off, but if the US pushes for an Iraq war by
>bypassing the UN Security Council (and I suspect it will), he could be in
>trouble domestically.
The Guardian, which keeps track of such things, says there are
presently some 90 members of Labour prepared to vote against Blair on
the question of Iraq. In a parliamentary system, as you well know, a
party revolt on that scale is unheard of.
If such a meeting between Blair and Smith did take place, then that
will deepen the rift between himself and his own party.
Schroeder clearly sees the sudden come-from-behind win as affirmation
that he is right to oppose Putsch.
And, as noted above. Blair wants to strengthen British involvement in
the EU. He knows that such a stance, combined with a rift in his own
party, will cost him dearly.
And if Putsch can't legitimize the attack enough to figleaf Blair,
then he will have to knuckle under, or face the ignomy of being the
first PM with a 350 seat majority to lose a vote of no-confidence.
>
>The good news is that the media can no longer spin the "Europe is going
>more conservative" pap any more. The French election was really a fluke
>with the Left parties vote-splitting badly and allowing nativist
>sentiments to push Le Pen by default. To the extent that right-wing
>parties have had success in Europe, it has largely been on
>nativist/immigrant-bashing sentiments a la Pym Fourtyn and Jorg Haider. I
>suspect 9/11 had a role in that. For the right-wing to openly court
>nativism to succed is not a pretty tactic, given the history of nativism
>in Europe. I suspect that will recede if economic growth can get going, as
>9/11 fades into history.
>
>
> Vic
****************************
SemiScholar
I was very young at the time. I don't remember much about Caligula.
SemiScholar
Bush ain't finished yet. Stay tuned...
Xanex
The same could be said about YOU....but then you're too
egotistical,petty and stupid to realize it.
Brain Death
Standing on my chair clapping! Brilliant!
>> The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>> Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>> things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>
>Yeah, if you turn things on their head, it will always be Bush
>who looks bad for you, Scott. It wasn't John Ashcroft who
>made a sleazy comparison between Schroeder and Hitler,
>and it wasn't Bush who offered Schroeder a left-handed
>apology for it. Put things right side up just once in your
>life, Scott. Try manhood.
LOL!
BD
Brain Death
<ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
But of course this comparison is completely idiotic. The Hindenburg
was a tragedy. Did Roosevelt call Hitler to congratulate him on his
ascension to the Chancellorship in 1933?
BD
The Big Weasel
wrote:
>
>LOL!
>
Oh, look. Marty got himself a flunky!
So Marty is reduced, once again, to the base libertarian nonsense that
the guy with the guns makes the rules. And you cheer that moron...
>BD
The Big Weasel
wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes. Hitler, on the other hand, became quickly
notorious for his contempt for such diplomatic niceties.
>
>BD
Brain Death
See, the problem is that you start from the assumption that Germany is
right and the United States is wrong. Marty points out quite rightly
that Germany has forfeited the trust of the world by its past actions,
while the United States has earned the trust of the world by its past
actions (most recently in Afghanistan, where we have made it possible
for little girls to go to school again).
The Germans have a lot of balls talking about us acting unilaterally,
given their past.
BD
SemiScholar
Perhaps. But Zepp doesn't have nukes..
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
Well, maybe I do, and maybe I don't.
I ain't sayin'.
>
>
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
We made it possible for little boys to be sold as sex slaves, too.
And do you really think America has a gleaming white past? No
atrocities? No genocides? No unjust wars in which we were the
aggressor?
Did you ever take history after elementary school?
>
>The Germans have a lot of balls talking about us acting unilaterally,
>given their past.
We're not in the past, Brain Dead. We're here and now.
>
>BD
Phil MacRackin
we need to invade Zepps house NOW!
> >
> >
SemiScholar
WE NEED INSPECTORS!! NOW!!
Scott Ritter is available, right?
You haven't been testing chemical weapons on those sammies, have you?
Scott D. Erb
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <>
> <>It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
> <>anti-war.
> <>
> <>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
> <>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
> <>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>
> It was flat out anti-americanism. The idea that on Friday you can Compare Bush
> to Hitler and on the following Tuesday everything is hunky dorey is nonsense.
Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
with America.
For Bush to get in a huff and not even call, for
Rumsfeld to refuse to talk to the German defense
minister...that's all stupidity.
> Schroeder squeaked out a narrow elections by attacking the US. He has to live
> with the consequences of that election strategy.
I'm sure he's very happy with the consequences, and I
suspect that you're seeing a nascent EU-US split on
many issues, one which the US will likely regret. One
reason there wasn't a split in the sixties is because
Germany chose the US over France and Europe as a main
partner. That angered Charles De Gaulle, who pulled
his forces out of NATO, kicked the Americans out of
France, and undertook a much more vigorously anti-US
campaign than anything one can accuse Schroeder of.
Now, the Gaullist Jacques Chirac is wasting no time in
suggesting much closer German-French security
partnership, and cooperation on diplomacy in the
mideast.
The job for President Bush will be tougher if he
continues to act like a spoiled brat and not even talk
to another leader because he thought the campaign was
too nasty. Hell, given what conservatives say about
Europe -- White House officials have called the
Europeans things like wimps and pansies, and said
publically a lot of nasty things, it seems that the US
has an arrogant double standard -- we can call names
and criticize, but if anyone else does something
critical, they'll pout and go home.
You reap what you sow, and I think Bush is going to
find he'll end up wanting to get back on Schroeder's
good side. (Of course the left of the SPD and Greens
love this -- they think Schroeder has been America's
patsy too long, and they are hoping that a real
counterweight to the US approach -- in the form of the
largest EU member and 3rd largest economy in the world
-- is emerging.).
-scott
Martin McPhillips
news:3D90A3D6...@maine.edu...
>
>
> Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > <>
> > <>It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism,
and
> > <>anti-war.
> > <>
> > <>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder,
makes
> > <>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
> > <>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
> >
> > It was flat out anti-americanism. The idea that on Friday you can
Compare Bush
> > to Hitler and on the following Tuesday everything is hunky dorey is
nonsense.
>
> Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> with America.
Well that's a start, but he'll have to grovel a little more
and a little longer before he gets a provisional pat
on the head.
> For Bush to get in a huff and not even call, for
> Rumsfeld to refuse to talk to the German defense
> minister...that's all stupidity.
Doesn't sound as though Bush or Rumsfeld is
in a quarter the huff you are, Scott. You're so
very sensitive when it comes to the fatherland, no?
Martin McPhillips
>
> "The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
> news:39gvou0pta7blo2gu...@4ax.com...> \
> > >> BERLIN (AP) -- Emboldened by his razor-thin victory in Germany's
> > >> closest postwar election, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday
stuck
> > >> by his emphatic opposition to a war on Iraq after a campaign that
> > >> angered Washington for unleashing anti-American tones.
> > >
> > >anti-war.
> >
> > corporation news, it's not going to be honest.
>
> commentators are analyzing the election.
Yes, the collective lederhosen are all in a twist.
Imagine Germans being bemused by American weirdness.
Pretty damn funny.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>
>Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <>
>> <>It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
>> <>anti-war.
>> <>
>> <>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
>> <>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
>> <>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
>>
>> It was flat out anti-americanism. The idea that on Friday you can Compare Bush
>> to Hitler and on the following Tuesday everything is hunky dorey is nonsense.
>
>Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
>Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
>in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
>the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
>with America.
I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
cabinet.
JSL
chris.holt
...
> See, the problem is that you start from the assumption that Germany is
> right and the United States is wrong. Marty points out quite rightly
> that Germany has forfeited the trust of the world by its past actions,
> while the United States has earned the trust of the world by its past
> actions (most recently in Afghanistan, where we have made it possible
> for little girls to go to school again).
The US has also forfeited the trust of the world by its past
actions, I'm afraid. And if you look a bit more closely at
what's going on in Afghanistan, you'll see that you'll have
to heavily qualify your statement.
> The Germans have a lot of balls talking about us acting unilaterally,
> given their past.
As do Americans.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
chris.holt
Don't you need to bomb it before invading?
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Scott D. Erb
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> >with America.
>
> I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
> doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
> Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
> cabinet.
>
> JSL
The comments were made before the election. They were
in the letter sent to Bush:
http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/21.09.2002/224852.asp
That's a German link, but I'm sure if you search around
you can find an English translation of the letter. He
accepted her denial of making the claim, but later
comments made it seem that she did say something that
was very similar. The damage was such that her
dismissal was inevitable.
Martin McPhillips
news:amqisf$25v$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
> Brain Death wrote:
> ...
> > See, the problem is that you start from the assumption that Germany is
> > right and the United States is wrong. Marty points out quite rightly
> > that Germany has forfeited the trust of the world by its past actions,
> > while the United States has earned the trust of the world by its past
> > actions (most recently in Afghanistan, where we have made it possible
> > for little girls to go to school again).
>
> The US has also forfeited the trust of the world by its past
> actions, I'm afraid.
That's an absurdity, I'm afraid.
> And if you look a bit more closely at
> what's going on in Afghanistan, you'll see that you'll have
> to heavily qualify your statement.
Oh? I suppose that if you look at Washington DC closely
enough, or London, or Baghdad even, that you'll find
something that looking "a bit more closely at" brings
the usual something that heavily qualifies whatever you
say about it. The fact is that al Qaeda is no longer running
things through their olive oil company the Taliban, and
Afghanistan has a shot at pulling itself together.
> > The Germans have a lot of balls talking about us acting unilaterally,
> > given their past.
>
> As do Americans.
Wrong. Your implicit comparison to Nazi Germany probably
escapes you, as does much.
Martin McPhillips
news:3D90CAD5...@maine.edu...
>
>
> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >
> > "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> > >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> > >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> > >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> > >with America.
> >
> > I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
> > doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
>
> > Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
> > cabinet.
> >
> > JSL
>
> The comments were made before the election. They were
> in the letter sent to Bush:
> http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/21.09.2002/224852.asp
>
> That's a German link, but I'm sure if you search around
> you can find an English translation of the letter.
You're becoming quite the odd little character, Scott. That's
about the third or fourth time in the last week or so that
you've backed yourself up by providing a German link. You
have forgotten perhaps that English is the language used in the
United States? Or are you getting a start on fulfilling a
dream of making German the new lingua franca?
If that's the case, good luck.
Perhaps you should start a Bund chapter at Farmington.
Scott D. Erb
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Brain Death wrote:
> ...
> > See, the problem is that you start from the assumption that Germany is
> > right and the United States is wrong. Marty points out quite rightly
> > that Germany has forfeited the trust of the world by its past actions,
> > while the United States has earned the trust of the world by its past
> > actions (most recently in Afghanistan, where we have made it possible
> > for little girls to go to school again).
>
> The US has also forfeited the trust of the world by its past
> actions, I'm afraid.
Hmmm...so Germany sixty years ago means we can't trust
Germany today. How far back does one go? To British
Imperialism? The US conquest of the American Indians?
For Brain Death to suggest that somehow Germany's past
means that they have 'forfeited the trust of the world'
ironically shows that he is closer to Hitler's views,
he's suggesting a genetic nationalist factor that
defines a 'people,' rather than the traditional
American view that once Germany (or Japan, or Italy,
etc.) adopted democratic forms of government and
developed a new political culture the past would not be
something they'd have to pay for. Brain Death's view
here is decidingly un-American and even racist.
As for America having the world's trust, that's a naive
bit of wishful thinking on his part. He needs to read
the world press!
Scott D. Erb
Saddam was a threat (his 'dossier' contained nothing
new), French President Jacques Chirac struck a
different note, promising "total opposition" to the
American strategy of pre-emptive strikes. France, a
Permanent member of the UN Security Council, appears
much closer to Germany on this question. Chirac said
that on this issue Blair might find himself alone in
the EU in terms of support for the American strategy.
Bush's diplomacy is failing, and his behavior -- trying
to do something he doesn't have the power to do, punish
Schroeder -- is starting to backfire.
How can the President squander so much good will in one
year? The arrogance and even hubris of the current
administration in foreign policy is hurting American
interests and American prestige immensely.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
>> >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
>> >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
>> >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
>> >with America.
>>
>> I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
>> doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
>
>> Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
>> cabinet.
>>
>> JSL
>
>The comments were made before the election. They were
>in the letter sent to Bush:
>http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/21.09.2002/224852.asp
>
>That's a German link,
How convenient.
>but I'm sure if you search around
>you can find an English translation of the letter. He
>accepted her denial of making the claim, but later
>comments made it seem that she did say something that
>was very similar. The damage was such that her
>dismissal was inevitable.
Can you post a link in English were he fired her?
Can you post a link in English were he said there was no room in his
government for people who said such things?
I've looked and can't find it.
What I did find was his statement that he didn't think she said it.
What I did find was a government spokesman saying there was no room in
the government for people who said such things.
JSL
Martin McPhillips
news:3D90DF1B...@maine.edu...
> Just as Tony Blair came out trying to convince people
> Saddam was a threat (his 'dossier' contained nothing
> new),
Actually, Scott, that's not true. The time frames for
deployment of weapon and the mention of specific
tactical plans for the use of chemical and biological
weapons are new. But you didn't really pay attention
to what Blair said.
> French President Jacques Chirac struck a
> different note, promising "total opposition" to the
> American strategy of pre-emptive strikes.
So?
> France, a
> Permanent member of the UN Security Council, appears
> much closer to Germany on this question.
How reassuring. Perhaps Chirac would like to get as close
to the Germans as, say, France was in 1941.
> Chirac said
> that on this issue Blair might find himself alone in
> the EU in terms of support for the American strategy.
That will make Blair a real leader, as opposed to the
customes clerk that I always thought he was.
> Bush's diplomacy is failing, and his behavior -- trying
> to do something he doesn't have the power to do, punish
> Schroeder -- is starting to backfire.
Keep hating America, Scott, and pretending that it's
all about Bush. Your country was attacked a year ago. Your
response is to leave it up to European socialists as to how
we respond.
Brain Death
LOL! Nice try, anyway. Why do you think that Germany and Japan,
alone of our major allies, have never been allowed to have their own
armies, since World War II? Why does Germany not have the atomic
bomb, and indeed will never be allowed to have the atomic bomb?
Because we don't trust them. You may think it's horrible and racist
(or nation-ist), but you'd find very little support among our European
friends for allowing the Germans to take charge of their own defense,
even now, sixty years after the war.
>As for America having the world's trust, that's a naive
>bit of wishful thinking on his part. He needs to read
>the world press!
There is certainly an abundance of anti-American feeling around the
world, but it is generally confined to the same quarters as
anti-American feeling inside the USA, i.e., the hardcore left. The
difference is that there are a lot more hardcore leftists in Europe
than in the US, so they make more noise and actually have their own
newspapers and major media outlets. The French actually had a
socialist government for the last couple of years--imagine that! But
that doesn't make what they say any more sensible or significant than
what the leftists say over here.
BD
Jeffrey Davis
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D90DF1B...@maine.edu...
>
>>Just as Tony Blair came out trying to convince people
>>Saddam was a threat (his 'dossier' contained nothing
>>new),
>
>
> Actually, Scott, that's not true. The time frames for
> deployment of weapon and the mention of specific
> tactical plans for the use of chemical and biological
> weapons are new. But you didn't really pay attention
> to what Blair said.
I did. Blair and Bush aren't two minds with but a single thought.
(BTW, if you're reading this now you're missing Life w/ Bonnie.)
Scott Erb
"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:3d90f507.3133244277@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> >>
> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> >> >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> >> >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> >> >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> >> >with America.
> >>
> >> I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
> >> doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
> >
> >> Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
> >> cabinet.
> >>
> >> JSL
> >
> >The comments were made before the election. They were
> >in the letter sent to Bush:
> >http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/21.09.2002/224852.asp
> >
> >That's a German link,
>
> How convenient.
It's my research, I'm not reading American papers much these days.
Look, you're playing the games that have convinced me you are not honest
(and your discussion with Milt proved it).
I guarantee you that you can find (and I think you KNOW you can find) the
comments from Schroeder's letter to Bush, and the fact Daeubler-Gmelin was
dumped as Minister. I'm not about to waste time doing searches for you
because, frankly, I don't think you're honest. If you want to disbelieve
the claim, that's fine. You don't matter.
Ellen Mercer
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <>
> >> <>It wasn't anti-American, it was opposition to Bush's unilateralism, and
> >> <>anti-war.
> >> <>
> >> <>The US response -- Bush not even calling to congratulate Schroeder, makes
> >> <>Bush look like a spoiled little brat who not only wants everyone to do
> >> <>things his way, but can't even tolerate disagreement.
> >>
> >> It was flat out anti-americanism. The idea that on Friday you can Compare Bush
> >> to Hitler and on the following Tuesday everything is hunky dorey is nonsense.
> >
> >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> >with America.
>
> I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
> doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
>
> Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
> cabinet.
>
>
She announced that she wouldn't serve in the new cabinet, allowing
that she "didn't feel very invited there" or words to that effect.
There is enough space between those lines to drive a truck through.
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3d90f507.3133244277@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
> > "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> > >> >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> > >> >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> > >> >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> > >> >with America.
> > >>
> > >> I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
> > >> doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
> > >
> > >> Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
> > >> cabinet.
> > >>
> > >> JSL
> > >
> > >The comments were made before the election. They were
> > >in the letter sent to Bush:
> > >http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/21.09.2002/224852.asp
> > >
> > >That's a German link,
> >
> > How convenient.
>
> It's my research, I'm not reading American papers much these days.
The Fatherland calls, Scott.
Vinlandr
> And why
> doesn't Germany have the military capability? Because it
> had the worst record of military aggression in the 20th
> Century.
The Germans are in an unique position to recognize a "Hitler" when
they see one. Unfortunately, Schroeder doesn't (yet) have the balls
to call it like it is...but at least he's trying.
Vinlandr
> Maybe Bush wasn't satisfied with the apology for the Hitler
> remark. Can't blame him, I'd be furious too.
The fucker's pissed that someone would dare speak the truth. "The
Emperor has no clothes!"
> >Bush is the worst President in modern history
> LBJ gets that dubious title for sending tens of thousands of
> Americans into an unwinnable war, then abandoned them.
Bush is planning to take on the whole planet, which is very obviously
an unwinnable war. Unlike Johnson, Bush's megalomaniac scheme will
likely result in the destruction of our country.
Vinlandr
> ...he canned the woman who allegedly made
> the statement...
Nope.
The former justice minister lost her re-election to the Bundesstag, hence,
no cabinet post.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe Bush wasn't satisfied with the apology for the Hitler
>> remark. Can't blame him, I'd be furious too.
>
>The fucker's pissed that someone would dare speak the truth. "The
>Emperor has no clothes!"
No, fortunately we now have a president who keeps his
clothes on. Heh heh
>> >Bush is the worst President in modern history
>
>> LBJ gets that dubious title for sending tens of thousands of
>> Americans into an unwinnable war, then abandoned them.
>
>Bush is planning to take on the whole planet, which is very obviously
>an unwinnable war. Unlike Johnson, Bush's megalomaniac scheme will
>likely result in the destruction of our country.
The sky is falling, eh Vinloony? You chickenshit lefties were
predicting the end of the world when Reagan was President
too. Instead, he peacefully won the Cold War, and made the
world a safer place. You liberals were breathtakingly wrong
then, why should we believe you now?
Isidore H. Astvatsaturov III
Sure right, the world is much safer with Bush. Just ignore the fact
two 110 story towers, another 40 story building, several smaller ones
and thousands of people are dead because Bozo was more worried about
running in circles at his ranch rather than doing the job he was
installed in.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>vinl...@yahoo.com (Vinlandr) wrote:
>>>Bush is planning to take on the whole planet, which is very obviously
>>>an unwinnable war. Unlike Johnson, Bush's megalomaniac scheme will
>>>likely result in the destruction of our country.
>>
>>The sky is falling, eh Vinloony? You chickenshit lefties were
>>predicting the end of the world when Reagan was President
>>too. Instead, he peacefully won the Cold War, and made the
>>world a safer place. You liberals were breathtakingly wrong
>>then, why should we believe you now?
>
>Sure right, the world is much safer with Bush.
That's not what I said, Isadork. I said the world is safer due
to Ronald Reagan. It's safer after you lefties said it would
be more dangerous. You were wrong then, why should we
believe you now?
>Just ignore the fact
>two 110 story towers, another 40 story building, several smaller ones
>and thousands of people are dead because Bozo was more worried about
>running in circles at his ranch rather than doing the job he was
>installed in.
Ah, so you believe the attack on Pearl Harbor was FDR's
fault! Was he too busy packing the Supreme Court to care
about all those men dying? We can play your little blame
games too.
Scott Erb
"Vinlandr" <vinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae6303f.02092...@posting.google.com...
No, she lost her directly elected seat (ballot one), but was on the party
list (ballot two). Losing the direct election ballot one is not important
to higher ups in the party, as they are high on the party list for
proportional representation (ballot two). She would be justice minister
today if not for her comment, no one doubts that. Though she was allowed to
simply leave gracefully, it's clear she was forced out, and German pundits
are seeing it that way.
The Big Weasel
Any word on how that's going over with the German public? I don't
imagine her views on Putsch are all that unpopular with the average
German in the street.
>
****************************
"My country right or wrong. When right, to keep right; when wrong, to put right."
Sen. Carl Schurz's
ot dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To subscribe to Zepp's News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For Essays delivered to your mailbox: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_essays/join
Or, if you don't want to dick with Yahoo, just email me.
To order a CD in PDF format of 125 of Zepp's essays, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/form_to_order_cd.htm
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
>news:3d90f507.3133244277@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
>> >> >Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
>> >> >in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
>> >> >the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
>> >> >with America.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't see any comments from Schroeder to that effect. Shroeder
>> >> doesn't even think she said it so why would he fire her?
>> >
>> >> Do you have a link? I know she said she would not be in his new
>> >> cabinet.
>> >>
>> >> JSL
>> >
>> >The comments were made before the election. They were
>> >in the letter sent to Bush:
>> >http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/21.09.2002/224852.asp
>> >
>> >That's a German link,
>>
>> How convenient.
>
>It's my research, I'm not reading American papers much these days.
Then translate it Dr. and show how that article supports your claim.
>Look, you're playing the games that have convinced me you are not honest
>(and your discussion with Milt proved it).
Milt's a liar and your defense of a liar is noted.
>I guarantee you that you can find (and I think you KNOW you can find) the
>comments from Schroeder's letter to Bush, and the fact Daeubler-Gmelin was
>dumped as Minister.
She won't be serving in the next cabinet...she wasn't dumped. That's
the second time you've made that claim. Care to back it up?
>I'm not about to waste time doing searches for you
>because, frankly, I don't think you're honest. If you want to disbelieve
>the claim, that's fine. You don't matter.
The Dr has finished his Doctorate of Weaselish.
Congrats.
JSL
Scott D. Erb
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:24:31 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >No, she lost her directly elected seat (ballot one), but was on the party
> >list (ballot two). Losing the direct election ballot one is not important
> >to higher ups in the party, as they are high on the party list for
> >proportional representation (ballot two). She would be justice minister
> >today if not for her comment, no one doubts that. Though she was allowed to
> >simply leave gracefully, it's clear she was forced out, and German pundits
> >are seeing it that way.
> Any word on how that's going over with the German public? I don't
> imagine her views on Putsch are all that unpopular with the average
> German in the street.
Actually, it went over really poorly with the German
public, and probably cost the SPD votes (though it
might have helped the Greens). Germans are extremely
sensitive when it comes to Hitler, and though they
consider Bush incompetent and arrogant, a comparison
with Hitler is something that doesn't play well at all.
Schroeder, on the other hand, is very well liked. If
the race had been head to head between Schroeder and
Stoiber, polls show Schroeder would have won by as much
as 70-30. However, that's not the way elections work
in Germany.
Scott D. Erb
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> <>> It was flat out anti-americanism. The idea that on Friday you can Compare
> Bush
> <>> to Hitler and on the following Tuesday everything is hunky dorey is
> nonsense.
> <>
> <>Except, of course, Schroeder didn't compare Bush and
> <>Hitler, he claimed that anyone who would has no place
> <>in his cabinet, he canned the woman who allegedly made
> <>the statement, and affirmed his belief in friendship
> <>with America.
> <>
> <>For Bush to get in a huff and not even call, for
> <>Rumsfeld to refuse to talk to the German defense
> <>minister...that's all stupidity.
>
> Not stuoidity-diplomacy. Bush is sending the message that there is a price to
> pay for a foreign govt that attacks America for political gain. From what i have
> read their is as much anger(righful IMO) over Schroeders non apology letter as
> there is over the original comment.
>
> I note that germany has suddenly found a new zeal to provide peacekeeping troops
> so perhaps the message has sunk in.
Actually Germany's offer to co-lead the Afghan
peacekeepers has been discussed for quite awhile, none
of this is 'new zeal.'
Also, Schroeder is not hurt by Bush's actions, and in
fact has found support for his position from Jacques
Chirac, and exceedingly kind words from Tony Blair.
The fact is, if the US wants to have a war with Iraq,
it needs Germany and the EU. The way they're
approaching this looks more like pouting than
diplomacy.
Martin McPhillips
news:3D91D84F...@maine.edu...
>
> The fact is, if the US wants to have a war with Iraq,
> it needs Germany and the EU.
You think so, do you?
> The way they're
> approaching this looks more like pouting than
> diplomacy.
You'd be the expert on pouting, Scott.
But I can see that you're starting to move towards
a neutral position on war with Iraq, just so long as
the Euros give it their dismissive blessing.
Will you jump over the fence at some point and
dip your big toe in the pro-war waters? Perhaps in
case of a victory? You'll want to be one of the thousand
fathers, right?
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote...
>>Brain Death wrote:
>>>See, the problem is that you start from the assumption that Germany is
>>>right and the United States is wrong. Marty points out quite rightly
>>>that Germany has forfeited the trust of the world by its past actions,
>>>while the United States has earned the trust of the world by its past
>>>actions (most recently in Afghanistan, where we have made it possible
>>>for little girls to go to school again).
>>The US has also forfeited the trust of the world by its past
>>actions, I'm afraid.
> That's an absurdity, I'm afraid.
So you think it's just a coincidence that the rest of the
world doesn't trust the US?
>> And if you look a bit more closely at
>>what's going on in Afghanistan, you'll see that you'll have
>>to heavily qualify your statement.
> Oh? I suppose that if you look at Washington DC closely
> enough, or London, or Baghdad even, that you'll find
> something that looking "a bit more closely at" brings
> the usual something that heavily qualifies whatever you
> say about it. The fact is that al Qaeda is no longer running
> things through their olive oil company the Taliban, and
> Afghanistan has a shot at pulling itself together.
Mainly because it's back to growing its main cash crop, i.e.
poppies. Last I heard, only about 10% of the money promised
to Afghanistan had actually been provided, and the main
economy is in pretty bad shape; teachers not getting paid
and the like. And the political situation doesn't seem
to be settling down much.
>>>The Germans have a lot of balls talking about us acting unilaterally,
>>>given their past.
>>As do Americans.
> Wrong. Your implicit comparison to Nazi Germany probably
> escapes you, as does much.
Who was it that was condemned by the International Court of
Justice for mining a harbour in Nicaragua?
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Martin McPhillips
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote...
> >>Brain Death wrote:
>
> >>>See, the problem is that you start from the assumption that Germany is
> >>>right and the United States is wrong. Marty points out quite rightly
> >>>that Germany has forfeited the trust of the world by its past actions,
> >>>while the United States has earned the trust of the world by its past
> >>>actions (most recently in Afghanistan, where we have made it possible
> >>>for little girls to go to school again).
>
> >>The US has also forfeited the trust of the world by its past
> >>actions, I'm afraid.
>
> > That's an absurdity, I'm afraid.
>
> So you think it's just a coincidence that the rest of the
> world doesn't trust the US?
It's not a coincidence because it's not true. It's a
patent absurdity. "The rest of the world" places more
trust in the United States than it does in itself. The list
is long and hardly worth reciting for you, but I'll do
it on the odd chance that your ever-receding envelope
of general knowledge might be expanded just a
bit.
Japan, the world's second or third largest economy,
trusts its security to the United States, as do Taiwan and
South Korea, two other formidable Asian economies.
Likewise, the little understood fact that China herself
relies on -- i.e., that most practical form of trust -- the
United States to continue to maintain the security of
Japan and thereby maintain a check on the remilitarization
of China's most formidable rival in Asia. The United
States is, therefore, trusted to maintain the strategic
peace of the Far East.
Since the end of WWII the United States has likewise
guaranteed the strategic peace of Europe, and to this
day provides the military forces and hardware necessary
for that hardship. To whom did Europe turn -- i.e., who
did Europe trust -- to settle the bloodshed in Bosnia and
the potential for the same to happen in Kosovo?
Between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir dispute,
to whom do the parties look for support and guidance?
Who is it that each side trusts? The U.S. has a long-standing
relationship with Pakistan, and a rapidly evolving relationship
with India. When the tensions in that conflict recently
mounted, it surely wasn't the UN that the parties looked
to. No, it was the U.S.
At the end of the Cold War, who was it that gave the
former home of both forms of totalitarianism -- Germany --
the green light to reunify because it was the right thing
for them to reunify?
And before 9/11, when Rumsfeld had announced a plan
that would shift troops from Europe to Asia, who was
outraged at the prospect of diminished security due to
a diminished U.S. presence?
In the Middle East, who restored Kuwait's sovereignty?
Who guaranteed the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia?
Who brokered the peace between Israel and Egypt
after Sadat made his initiative?
Who has the largest market in the world and runs
a stupendous current accounts deficit by importing
goods from around the world?
Who among the regions of the world would like to
have less access to U.S. markets and less help from
the U.S. in an emergency and less support from the
U.S. militarily?
Now, don't you think it's about time to take all the
cheap talk, loose talk, and trash talk and hold it up
to the light of reality?
The fact of the matter is that people from the United
States are not flooding to Europe or Asia or Africa
to find a better life. They aren't flooding there to
find greater economic or personal freedom either.
Maybe you're confused about all of this because
you listen to all the squeaking instead of looking
at the reality.
"The rest of the world's" problem with the U.S.
is that it can't get enough of it. Leftists, when they're
not complaining about U.S. power, are generally
demanding that the U.S. do more. We should
have done more for Afghanistan after the Russian
withdrawal, they say, and we should be doing
more now after complaining that we went into
Afghanistan to oust al Qaeda and the Taliban at
all. We should be doing more for Africa,
schizoprhenically criticizing a famine-relief effort
in Somalia as either imperialist meddling or
too little too late. We should have done something
about the tribal massacres in Rwanda, because
we're racists and should keep our imperialist
hands off of Africa. We should respect the
sovereignty of Iraq because we didn't remove
Hussein from power 11 years ago. We shouldn't
defend the sovereignty of Kuwait because it's
a monarchy, and if we defended its sovereignty,
then the least we should have done was demand
that it become a democracy but we shouldn't
do that because it would be just another form
of imperialism. And on and on and on.
The U.S. is sought to solve problems because
it is powerful and because it is good, because it
is known to treat even its bitterest enemies well
if they should be so lucky as to be defeated. Who
would have cried had Japan been plowed under
after WWII? Surely not the Chinese.
The United States is not perfect, but in an imperfect
world, the imperfections of America are the envy
of the world. The "rest of the world" not only trusts
the U.S., but in the case of its enemies, it trusts the
honor of the U.S., which is why a pig like Saddam
Hussein will put civilians in harm's way as his
last desperate measure of defending his hold on
power, because he knows that the United States,
the silly infidel dogs, will actually go out of its
way not to kill them and thereby give him,
Saddam, another hour, or day, or week, or
month, in power.
The trust and admiration for the United States
is implicit. The bitching and moaning about the
United States is the trash talk of those who
want more, not less, from the United States.
Scott D. Erb
The Big Weasel wrote:
>
> Any word on how that's going over with the German public?
The German papers and websites have gotten news about
the Daschle speech! Daschle and Gore's speeches are
going over well, and demonstrate to the Germans that
Bush's reaction to Schroeder's stance is overtly
political and exaggerated.
Martin McPhillips
news:3D921AF5...@maine.edu...
Actually, Scott, Bush's reaction to Schroeder's "stance,"
is to say the hell with him. And Daschle and Gore's
speeches probably would play much better in a
more thoroughly socialist country among the more
thoroughly socialist weenies in that country -- the
kind of place that would hold you in rapt attention,
as opposed to your own country.
Listen to the call of the Fatherland, Scott.
Victor Pavski
> Mainly because it's back to growing its main cash crop, i.e.
> poppies. Last I heard, only about 10% of the money promised
> to Afghanistan had actually been provided, and the main
> economy is in pretty bad shape; teachers not getting paid
> and the like. And the political situation doesn't seem
> to be settling down much.
If you want to check out the poppy economy of Afghanistan, rent "Traffik"
(the original UK miniseries from 1989, not the recent US remake).
In the subplot of how heroin is getting into Germany (and England) via
pakistan/Afghanistan, there's a scene in which the local Pakistani drug
lord is finding that he's encountering too much heat locally, so he
high-tails it into Afgahnistan to take advantage of the anarchy there
(remember, it's 1989 so I don't think the Taliban was there yet). He asks
the local Afghan war lord how things are going now that the Soviets are
gone and America has lost interest in the region.
The guy's reply is classic: "The Americans are crazy. First they supply
us with all this aid, then they send the DEA in to break us up." It was
on Bravo Canada early this year; you might want to keep an eye peeled for
it. It is a superb mini-series and particularly relevent today.
Vic