He did not beat a cop "nearly to death" and I don't think he threw molotovs, either (I would not swear he didn't, but I don't think so). Also, he definitely does not harbor a deep hatred for the United States. I have seen many interviews with him, and he is not that good an actor that he could hide that if that was the case. Stop exaggerating or making up facts just to support your almost fanatic view of the world.
Good. Way to go, Rumsfeld. Step 1. Troops to Bosnia. Screw Germany, Screw France. No money for you. And when it's over - you get squat for oil.
Sir Jackie: What, did he just "beat a cop lightly"? Perhaps he "scolded the cop harshly with his boots"? Maybe - as the cop saw it - he was "readjusting the man's worldview with the lighter side of his left knuckle"? Apparently, everyone who was there at the molotov cocktail incident says that he is the one who actually threw it. Perhaps he was trying to realign the existing peace movement along more fiery lines? Or maybe he was just trying to heat up the peaceful conversation? At the cop's expense? (I mean, it was only a cop, so who cares??? All cops are evil, right?) Jesus, you guys b**** about Rumsfeld - a man who has given his life to defending Freedom - over 30 years in the Navy. He is certainly rough around the edges; diplomacy is not his strong point (it is not his job, either - making the US strong militarily is). But I am absolutely certain that Rumsfeld was not a street punk with ties to terrorist organizations when he was younger. While Fischer was trying to beat cops to death, Rumsfeld was sacrificing his youth, sailing on US ships, and putting his life on the line to prevent the Reds from raping the entire friggen world. I realize that many of you will not appreciate the difference, but... Those who count will. Our DefSec is an old hand Cold Warrior - one of the men who defeated Soviet Communism and saved the world from that particulkar scourge. Germany's Foreign Minister - and the architect of Germany's current foreign policy - was a part of that scourge...
While Fischer was trying to beat cops to death, Rumsfeld was sacrificing his youth, sailing on US ships, and putting his life on the line to prevent the Reds from raping the entire friggen world. That's nice and all, but none of that makes you a good defense secretary, and certainly not a good diplomat. Our DefSec is an old hand Cold Warrior - one of the men who defeated Soviet Communism and saved the world from that particulkar scourge. Unfortunately, that's part of the problem. He may be trying Cold War tactics and philosophies in a non-cold-war world.
Damn Treeman, isn't this so obvious? No matter who our enemies are, some in this country will always focus their attacks on the Republican leadership. Germany, whose as* we saved twice last century, is now refusing to honor its NATO commitment and placing their short term economic interests ahead of our national security- and the anti-Bush crowd attacks Rumsfeld for an off the cuff remark. I guess in many ways this is healthy though. We need "devil's advocates" to keep our leadership on its toes, but this is getting a little ridiculous.
OK, we saved half of Germany by winning the Cold War, but that's it. We defeated them twice last century though.
LOL, I am sorry. I thought we saved them from Nazism, but I guess you disagree. I think you may be nitpicking a little.
Germany, whose as* we saved twice last century, is now refusing to honor its NATO commitment and placing their short term economic interests ahead of our national security- and the anti-Bush crowd attacks Rumsfeld for an off the cuff remark. First of all, Germany signed on to the NATO plan. Second, France assisted us in the Revolutionary War - The US may not even exist if not for them. Maybe we should do everything they want regardless of our own people's opinions too?! Its amazing that some people here expect the world to do whatever the US says, regardless of the will of their own people.
We've been through this...that wasn't the same France, so that doesn't count. Nevermind that they also helped us in the War of 1812.
What is your point in this exchange, other than acting oddly? Let me slow this down for you. We save the German people in WW2 from a maniac who was first elected, but then took the country by force. The people had no say in Hitler's regime, and those who spoke out against the leadership were killed. After defeating Hitler, we primarily governed Germany, leading them back to financial and cultural greatness. We installed the kind of government that allowed the German people to excel. Those bastards owe us plenty.
We installed the kind of government that allowed the German people to excel. Those bastards owe us plenty. We did this so that communism wouldn't spread into Western Europe. Since they were the ones that worked their asses off to become successful and keep communism away from the West, that benefitted us. Perhaps we owe them plenty as well. Again, no one seems to answer why some of you expect these <I>democracies</I> to ignore the will of their people and just do whatever the US wants.
During our parent's lifetimes, our country defeated Hitler, fed the German people after WW2, restructured the German government and economy, saved West Germany from Communism, defended Western Europe from Soviet aggression, outspent the Soviets and help facilitate the freedom of the people in East Germany, and have been a friend to Bonn and now Berlin. To compare these recents acts to the France's role in the Revolutionary War is intellectually insulting.
LOL, are you a big fan of MOB RULE? I have very little regard for the emotionally driven opinions that prompt the masses to march in the streets. Our founding fathers didn't either, as you no doubt are aware. I am confident that the representatives in our representative democracies will guide us through this mess. If they do a poor job, we will just boot them out to the streets. btw, Tony Blair is going to be regarded by history as the of the great Prime Ministers that GB has ever produced for his principled stands during this, and the upcoming clashes with the totalitarian regimes left in the world. Thank goodness our friends in the UK House of Commons put stock in CHARACTER.
johnheath: Theoretically speaking, how long do you think that Germany and France should be obliged to unconditionally support US initiatives that they don't agree with in order to discharge an obligation of a different era? It's a very difficult position to assert that everything we did in Western Europe wasn't purely in support of our own national security. The dollars that went into the Marshall plan, etc, were won from congress by the administration with warnings that if they weren't forthcoming... then Germany would become Communist. I find it hard to believe that such self-interested actions demand a moral obligation 50 years later. However, I do want to know what you believe the extent of this moral obligation is... please be explicit. Define exactly how far it goes... and the limits of what it entails... and when it shall be terminated (if ever). ps - Rumsfeld needs to shut his mouth. His childish remarks humiliated Colon Powell in the UN and supplied ammunition for anti-Americanism abroad. If nothing else, he needs to be spanked.
haven -- i can't speak for johnheath...but I think this backlash against the french stems from anti-americanism that seems to run so rampant there. that prompts statements like, "well what have you done for me lately? oh, and don't forget..we bailed your ass out on numerous occassions." i think that's only natural to feel that way, haven. i don't know what the limitations period is for those feelings...but i don't think they'd exist if this were just a country who disagreed with us on this one issue.
madmax: The French piss everybody off, and have been trying to re-establish themselves as a superpower since the early 1950's, believe it or not. I have no doubt that they're attempting to manipulate this situation as best they can to ensure an French-dominated EU... and an EU-dominated UN. Regardless, I don't think that we can expect them to obey us simply because we did some things that benefited them 50 years ago (well, continuing into the 1990's )... that were done primarily for our own self-interest, no there's. I dislike the French policy positions. And I certainly think they should treat the US w/more respect. But you can't make foreign policy based on dislike. They have to be rational... otherwise, you get Rumsfeld-esque statements. I want johnheath to couch his feelings in rational terms upon which you could base foreign policy decisions. IF you can't then such sentiments are meaningless.
LOL, are you a big fan of MOB RULE? So you're telling me that you think democratic countries should go to war without the support of their own people? I am confident that the representatives in our representative democracies will guide us through this mess. If they do a poor job, we will just boot them out to the streets. And that's exactly what they are doing in France and Germany -- and it looks like the people there think they are doing the right thing.
