Don't you guys think having our troops over there is part of the reason they hate us? It seems to me that wherever we have a presence to protect a country, we also become convenient and easy scapegoats. Look at South Korea and Saudi Arabia. While I don't think we should be petty, removing troops is probably a good long- term goal.
Not in Germany. I grew up close to Bitburg and the population there never had a problem with the American presence. Actually, my family was friendly with the family of the commander in a base near Bitburg. But mostly, the American soldiers seemed to keep to themselves. There was some anti-American stuff going on during the Vietnam war, but when I grew up, there was no anti-American sentiment in my area at all.
The base closings will effect Germany the same way a base closing in the US effects the surrounding area. The effect over the whole country will be minimal, but the threating language used is just completely out of line.
So, will I still get the dreaded 'rolleyes' if I state that the US, under Bush, is rapidly becoming the Global Bully. I mean, from ref or tree etc., obviously, but their stances are so predictable I could almost write them in advance...but from those with any semblance of non-entrenchment, are you getting just a tad worried? It's not like you can isolate this as just the work of one man, etc...It's pretty indicative of the way things have been going... I am asking this question in all seriousness and with actual curiosity...Are any of you who previously supported the administration's stance getting even a little wary of the current " Our Way or The Highway" dictates coming out of the White House?
Unlike the French, the German's are standing up for their beliefs.... What a bunch of bull. This is the type of statement Rumsfeld would make. What proof do you have that the French actually believe that Sadam Hussein is a direct immediate threat to France or others and who must be invaded asap and that they are lying about this? BTW since the vast majority of the French are against the Bush guys' refusal to accept disarmament or containment without war and regime change, maybe one could accuse Chirac of taking the path of least resistance and going with the overwhelming majority.
Who said he went to diplomacy school? He's Secretary of Defense, not State...he shouldn't be off 'making' foreign policy on his own.
There's a sunstantial amount of evidence that part of the French foreign policy is to create a 'balance' against the US, their supposed 'ally'. Therefore, their motivations are not entirely based on the underlying issue, but to counter the US position. No such evidence exists regarding the Germans. And for the 'type of statement Rumsfeld would make' quip.. F.U. too.
The Germans, along with the French, are intent on protecting their financial interests at the expense of our country's security. I absolutely agree that we need to hit them in the pocketbooks. Friendship is a two way street, and they are treating us like punks.
Well, maybe a little more than that. If those defense contracts are very large, some specific manufacturing areas may be in for a hard time. The fall of the Berlin Wall/post Cold-War hammered Southern California (which by itself would have a respectable GNP).
Originally posted by johnheath The Germans, along with the French, are intent on protecting their financial interests at the expense of our country's security. How do you know this? I find this claim as tenuous as the claim that we're in this only for the OIL. I absolutely agree that we need to hit them in the pocketbooks. Friendship is a two way street, and they are treating us like punks. How are we being 'mistreated' by the Germans? They are allowed to disagree with us, right?
Why not just go ahead with the attack and once the war is over mend fences? This is like 2 kids in the playground arguing... And these are our leaders.....???? DD
I am convinced, unlike some, that Saddam supports terrorists. I am also convinced that Germany and France want Saddam to survive in power for purely financial reasons. Based on our historical support of freedom in Europe, I believe that Germany and France are obliged to put our national security ahead of their economics. We certainly made HUGE human and financial sacrifices for them for the sake of spreading freedom and democracy, and they owe us the same consideration. The German people were rescued from Nazism and Communism greatly due to our idealism, and now they are stabbing us in the back (in my humble opinion).
Since 9/11, we've: --Squandered all good will from that event and built up anti-American feelings to record levels throughout the world. --Rang up the greatest budget deficit in history. --Are on the verge of ending our alliances with France, Germany and other countries. --Are on the verge of dissolving NATO. --Undercut and threatened the United Nations. --Lost individual liberties. --Have freaking anti-aircraft batteries ringing the Washington Monument. This is madness.
Well I'll be damned if this Rumsfeld comment didn't finally drag me into a political discussion on this BBS, something I have avoided since I started posting here. This is pure madness. Threatening our allies because they won't fall in line with the U.S. I'm at a loss for words. Let me say for the record that I support the movement for force against Iraq, but absolutely not like this! And no I'm not straddling the fence here... but statements like this make me start to question my stance.
Rimrocker, please, you are getting hysterical. Anti-American feelings are not at an all time high level. We are coming out of a recession, while being forced to rebuild a decimated war machine. Our deficit is a necessary evil. Our alliances with France and Germany are impossible to dissolve at this point. Our economies and cultures are inexoribly intertwined. NATO will only dissolve if France and Germany refuse to honor their commitment to Turkey. We did not cause this crisis. The UN will only become impotent if the Security Council makes idle threats to rogue states. The UN has already warned Iraq that dire consequences will result if Iraq does not cooperate with weapons inspectors. Iraq is not cooperating, and now France and Germany are basically saying that 1441 was not a serious document. The credibility loss of the UN as an international governing body is due to France, Germany, Russia, and China at this point. You have not felt any loss of individual liberty. Please correct me if I am wrong. We have always had anti aircraft batteries in Washington D.C. in our lifetimes. We have just added more security.
Originally posted by rimrocker Since 9/11, we've: --Squandered all good will from that event and built up anti-American feelings to record levels throughout the world. Agreed. --Rang up the greatest budget deficit in history. Really? Largest ever? I guess a new, large terrorist threat and recession don't mix. --Are on the verge of ending our alliances with France, Germany and other countries. Who else? And I still wonder how much of an 'alliance' we've had with France for years. It goes back to JFK, maybe before. --Are on the verge of dissolving NATO. That's not entirely our fault. --Undercut and threatened the United Nations. We're not the ones who are turning it into the League. --Lost individual liberties. Patriot I? Which ones do you refer to (honestly)? --Have freaking anti-aircraft batteries ringing the Washington Monument. A result of 9-11; not of poor leadership, eh? This is madness. Countrys, like people, are faced with challenges that provide them the opportunity to overcome their shortcomings. If the shortcomings are not addressed, I believe nature's challenges have increasingly serious results. As bad as it is under normal circumstances, you don't want a weak leader(s) with a inadequate vision in challenging times.
u know why people believe that bush biggest motivation for this war is oil, here is my opinion, 1.librerating the iraqis , they need democracy. ok,why iraq, why not saudi arabia why not so many other countries. 2. believe that iraq possesion of wmd n threat to the american. ok , how about north korea and iran , especially now that north korean have missile that can reach the west coast of usa n they would use it too. 3.iraq breaking the agreement that they make with un. ok, what about isreal n all the other country that break the un treaty . 4. possiblilty of terrorist harbour country n may sell weappon or work with terrorist. ok, bin laden is in pakistan, saudi is funding the terrorist and possiblities of north korean n other anti-american country that will sell arms to terrorist. 5.saddam is an evil man . ok, there is so many bad ruthless crazy leader in the world , so why saddam now, or is he the first in the list n then later the american will take out all the evil leader in the world? with all the reasons above shouldnt bush be invading north korea, iran, saudi arabia and many other countries now? oh wait , iraq is a little different cuz iraq got oil , alot of OIL!
