An American idol in Germany

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-567148,00.html

Obama...
(...) will be in Berlin this Thursday, when Germans will hail him as a magician with the ability to transform a gloomy world into a brighter place. Never before has there been so much excitement in Germany over the visit of a presumed US presidential candidate. Obama may be running for the White House, but judging by the commotion, one would think that he had already advanced two steps further and were the president of the world.

Which is precisely the issue. Obama raises hopes that he will not just change America, but politics as a whole.

Obama is the hope of a Western world filled with concerns. A recession looms as does high inflation sparked by exploding demand for commodities and natural resources. Furthermore, no one has yet come up with a convincing response to global warming. No one knows how to bring peace to the Middle East, Afghanistan or Iraq. And no one has a promising strategy for dealing with Islamist terrorism.

At the same time, the West is searching for its place in an "incomplete world order," as journalist Peter Bender describes the current state of affairs. How strong will China, Russia and India become? How should the West interact with these countries? And is there even such a thing as the "West" anymore?

It is time for leadership. And only one man inspires the kind of confidence that would enable him to assume this leadership: Barack Obama.

Germans, in particular, are pinning their hopes on this man. Whereas just 10 percent favor the Republican candidate John McCain, fully 76 percent consider Barack Obama the better candidate.

(...)

Chancellor Angela Merkel was also a candidate for the global presidency once. But by now it has become clear that she even has trouble leading her coalition government at home. Obama will be visiting a country that lacks leadership.

(...)

In the end, though, despite the weeks of headlines the site search produced, it will be the content of Obama's speech to which political Berlin will pay the closest attention. Already, a divide is forming in Berlin's political circles over how to assess the candidate. Conservatives insist that the differences between Obama and the Republican candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, are exaggerated. Perhaps the "honeymoon" will last a little longer with Obama, says Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg, a CSU foreign policy expert. But, Guttenberg adds, the "fracture point" will be reached no later than the NATO summit in the spring of 2009, when the new US president, be it Obama or McCain, outlines exactly how he envisions trans-Atlantic cooperation in the future -- and that will include US demands that Germany send more troops to embattled southern Afghanistan.

Most US experts at research institutions share this assessment. They warn of exaggerated expectations. They warn against discounting McCain and the experience he brings to the table. And they warn of Obama's lack of experience, speculating that the presidency could very well turn out to be a rude awakening for the Democratic candidate.

But foreign policy experts in the SPD, the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Green Party refuse to be deterred by such rhetoric. With Obama as president, Germans and Americans could finally "talk about shared values once again," says FDP foreign policy expert Werner Hoyer. Green Party politician and former Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin is hoping for a "true new beginning," and former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer agrees: "With McCain, one has a pretty good idea of what to expect." Fischer believes that McCain, unlike Obama, would not bring about any significant change as president. For Fischer, Obama could "fail, possibly even in a big way, but he could also turn out to be one of the truly great American presidents." Foreign Minister Steinmeier hopes that the Democratic senator, should he become president, will promote a "new, open foreign policy."

Such are the expectations in Germany, despite the fact that Germans still have an unclear picture of the candidate. Every word he utters about foreign policy is eagerly absorbed and interpreted -- like the keynote address Obama gave in Washington last Tuesday. It was a smart speech, strong on content, and for the first time he sounded more like a president than a presidential candidate. If the words he uttered in a windowless conference room at the Reagan Building in Washington D.C. become reality, the trans-Atlantic relationship faces an exciting and possibly even turbulent time ahead.

(...)

Just how Obama feels about the Europeans becomes clear from chatting with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security advisor under former President Jimmy Carter and a current advisor to the Obama campaign. Brzezinski's language is peppered with the kinds of words that will likely be heard more often in the future: partnership, responsibility, sharing burdens. "I think the Europeans have to decide whether they want to be a global power or not," says Brzezinski. Should they decide they do, Brzezinski's message continues, they will be called upon to assume their fair share of the decision-making process, responsibility and the financial burden.

(...)

John Kornblum, the former US ambassador to Germany, has an appealing theory to explain why the relationship between sister nations is so complicated. Today's Americans, says Kornblum, are the descendants of Europeans who couldn't abide life in Europe, and who wanted something more radical and therefore emigrated. For this reason, Kornblum believes, it is wrong to expect similarities. America is, in a sense, an anti-Europe.

The situation is somewhat more complicated in Germany, because the Germans have the Americans to thank for so much: liberation from the Nazis, a functioning democracy and the basis of their prosperity.

Attention to everything American is enormous in Germany. Hardly any other nation in Old Europe is as thoroughly Americanized. The Germans are almost indistinguishable from the Americans when it comes to eating, drinking and watching television, but they never miss an opportunity to reassure themselves of just how superior they are to their relatives across the Atlantic.
Germans, in their own assessment, are not as materialistic as Americans, have more depth and culture, better washing machines and -- it goes without saying -- better cars. When there is a blackout on the American East Coast, it makes headlines on Germany's evening news. Look at those Americans, the Germans are then quick to point out, they want to rule the world and yet they can't even keep the lights on.

In this respect, George W. Bush was a godsend for Germans and their complex inventory of emotions. Never before had they been able to complain so openly about the Americans' hubris and arrogance and then feel so vindicated afterwards. Texan Bush embodies everything the Germans criticize about America: the small-minded and swaggering demeanor of a Southerner.

Obama is far closer to the Germans. In fact, he seems almost European: not some Texas cowboy, but a Harvard graduate from an urban environment, and not a "straight shooter" but a man who emphasizes dialogue and mutual understanding.

But even if Obama replaces Bush, America will still be America. The United States is still the military superpower, and yet the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed the limits of its superiority for the entire world to see. The United States is still the world's largest and most important democracy, and yet several countries, especially Russia and China, are doing their best to replace democracy as a forward-looking model of government.

(...)

Steinmeier believes that it is important for the nations of the West to stick together, especially if the rise of emerging economies leads to a realignment of the world map. To this end, Steinmeier warns, the West must take a pragmatic and cautious approach to defining common interests. "The attempt to reshape the West without the rest of the world would leave us with a world without the West."

Steinmeier's predecessor, Joschka Fischer, disagrees. After the Iraq war, he argued for a "reconstruction of the West." According to Kornblum, who shares Fischer's view, Europe and North America form a community of values and are thus natural allies. Germany, says Kornblum, could never achieve the same level of commonality with Russia or China. In fact, Kornblum envisions a partnership so close that relations between countries of the West would not be a matter of foreign policy, but of a "trans-Atlantic domestic policy."



For Germany, it will be tougher to resist American claims for leadership with a president Obama than with a president Mccain. McCain does not enjoy as much disgust, ridicule and antipathy than Bush, but he surely is not any popular over here.

In a reverse view this means that if it is in other nations like in Germany, America may be better off in foreing politics with Obama as president, instead of McCain, for it will be harder for these other nations to reject Obama's demands than Mccain's.

Even if both men as presidents I would expect to have very much the same claims.

[rifleman13]

SUBMAN1's gonna have a field day with this one!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Frame57]

Europe and in particularly Germany has embraced the Democratic party since JFK. I am not sure if it is that the European's relate to a liberal party more-so than a conservative party. The prudent student of history knows that the Iranian situation we have today is due to Jimmy Carter's regime. The man made way for the current leadership in Iran as we know it today. The American economy started to take a downward spiral because of Bill Clinton's NAFTA agenda. Since JFK there has not been a democratic President that has done anything but damage the American people. It is a disgrace that one of our Seawolf Submarine's bears the name of the Peanut farmer, but that is my opinion only. Ronald Reagan was not liked much by the German's either, yet the American economy was never better during his Presidency. The sales of BMW and Mercedes Benz vehicles were at an all time high in the 80's. The German's cannot thank the peanut farmer for that. It is puzzling though, that the German's seem to denounce certain President's like Reagan and both Bush's, and paint them as "war mongers" of some sort. Yet the German's have an intense history of war mongering themselves in starting both world wars. There is an air of Irony and some hypocracy if this is truly the case.

G.W. is not the best President we have had. Iraq was a mistake because you cannot liberate a people that does not desire it. But at the very least America has not suffered an attack since 911, and I give G.W. credit for that. The House and Senate has a lower popularity rating than does the President amongst American's and it has a democratic majority. This tells me that the people are sick and tired of both parties in general, as well they should be. Both parties are guilty of "burning the candle at both ends." The only viable solution to improve America and foreign relations will be a strong independant party that holds the vision of the American Constitution first and foremost. Then amendments have to be made to limit terms for the Senate and to ensure political corruption has no place in serving the American people. I am a firm advocate of withdrawing troops from Europe and Japan. WW2 has long been over along with the Cold war, so it is high time that America scales down and brings those resources home. The money could be spent it much better ways even from a military standpoint. So as long as our German friends no longer start world wars and keep making great beer and mediocre cars, I say tho them, "Ich bin ein Deutchlander...":know:

[Schroeder]

Medicore cars compared to what (thinking of Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, [O.K. VW is way to expensive for what you get])?

Besides, Mr Bush jr. has ****ed up your country hasn't he? Your financial situation is a catastrophe and he still spends billions of dollars he doesn't have. His foreign policy can only be described as that of someone who has no idea of diplomacy. The reputation of the US has never been lower than today (or at least I'm not aware of any time when it was lower).

So why the hell should we like him?
What good has he done that should make us like him?
We have been insulted as "old Europe" ,by Cheny, because we didn't want to participate in Iraq, a war that was started without the proof of WMD, without the proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and therefore based on lies!
Clinton was at least way more diplomatic and charismatic.
By the way since you are mentioning a certain peanut farmer all the time, what was Bush's profession again? Alcoholic? Unsuccessful Team manager? Deserter?

And maybe you should look up again who started WW I.;)

Don't take this post wrong, it's not supposed to be a rant, it is just supposed to show the German (or at least my) opinion.
Besides, I'm not sure whether I like Obama at all. But I think it can't get any worse than Bush!

[Lurchi]

I don't think that Reagan and old Bush were seen as warmongers here. Reagan was surely polarizing - same as in the US i would say.

Personally i always liked Reagan: He was the perfect President and leader of the western world in that very dangerous time when it was needed against a highly armed but economically troubled USSR. Although he was consequent in his opinions and actions he also was a great moderator and listener (so described by former german chancellor Kohl). Reagan's pragmatism and social abilities showed up when he met Gorbachev. Reagan will always be positively remembered in Germany for his speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate and is honorary citizen of Berlin.

Old Bush is seen similar. He was Vice President under Reagan and he is well- remembered in Germany as the only western leader who fully supported german Re-Unification right from the start. For this, old Bush is still highly respected here.


*irony on*
Ah starting two world wars is too much honor ... i doubt if Germany started WW1 although anglo-french propaganda seemingly likes to teach this. And WW2 ... hmmm i don't know either, maybe it started in Versailles '18, Spain '36, China '37, Czechoslovakia '39, Finland '39, Poland '39 or eventually with the declaration of war on Germany by Britain and France ...

By the way - germans also drive american crap cars like Ford and GM (<=me) despite little Bush ;).
*irony off*

[August]

Besides, Mr Bush jr. has ****ed up your country hasn't he? Your financial situation is a catastrophe and he still spends billions of dollars he doesn't have.
Uhm, obviously you are unfamiliar with how our government works. CONGRESS controls the national checkbook, not the President.


So why the hell should we like him?
What good has he done that should make us like him?

You don't, but then again being liked by the Europeans is not part of the US Presidents job description either.

We have been insulted as "old Europe"
You think that's insulting you probably don't want to know what our founding fathers thought of Europe. "Old Europe" is extremely mild by comparison...

Don't take this post wrong, it's not supposed to be a rant, it is just supposed to show the German (or at least my) opinion.
Besides, I'm not sure whether I like Obama at all. But I think it can't get any worse than Bush!
That's nice but if Americans didn't like Merkel would you Germans care all that much?

[Schroeder]

1)
Who has brought your country into this mess that all those billions are necessary? (I know, not only Bush alone, but great help of his buddies like Cheny). If the congress were cutting the money now this would lead to an even bigger mess, so what choice do they have?.

2)
Being liked by us is surely not part of his job, but it makes things easier. Maybe more nations had followed you to Iraq or were willing to offer help in Afghanistan...

3)
Nope, I don't care much whether you like her or not (since I don't like her myself that much;)).
I just wonder what great deeds Mr. Bush has done to deserve your loyalty.:hmm:

[August]

1) Who has brought your country into this mess that all those billions are necessary? (I know, not only Bush alone, but great help of his buddies like Cheny). If the congress were cutting the money now this would lead to an even bigger mess, so what choice do they have?.

You're missing the point. Congress were the ones who appropriated the money in the first place so blaming Bush for spending money congress gave him to spend is like blaming the rooster for the dawn. Besides, taking out Saddam was still a good thing in my mind although i understand you Europeans liked doing business with him. Some people like to seize on 9-11 connections but the bottom line is the middle east would be far more unstable than it is with him still in power in Iraq.

2) Being liked by us is surely not part of his job, but it makes things easier. Maybe more nations had followed you to Iraq or were willing to offer help in Afghanistan...

Somehow i think that nations did whatever was in their own best interests, regardless of what Bush said or didn't say.

3) Nope, I don't care much whether you like her or not (since I don't like her myself that much;)).

That's cool. Perhaps i phrased that wrong. Would you base your vote (for or against) for Merkel on a foreigners opinion, or is that decision something for you and your fellow countrymen to work out?
I just wonder what great deeds Mr. Bush has done to deserve your loyalty.:hmm:

He is the person the nation chose to be our president, that alone deserves our backing, at least until Feb of next year when we toss him out on his ear and vote in a new one. Before you start listing his faults, which we have heard many times over, especially on this board, ask yourself this: Have any more terrorists come into this country, hijacked airliners and flown them into our buildings since 9-11? Give credit where credit is due my friend...

[Jimbuna]

SUBMAN1's gonna have a field day with this one!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yeah, possibly...where is he :hmm:

[mrbeast]

You know I was just waiting for another pointless p*ssing contest between Europe and the US! :nope:

[JHuschke]

Germany doesn't like U.S. and neither does half of Europe..what is U.S. thinking? Stupid :roll:

[August]

Well I, for one, like the Germans.

[Skybird]

There are plenty of irritations between Germans and Europeans on the one side, and america on the other. These originate from false assumptions about each other, and misperceptions of the other. Ultimate I-want-it-all-demands and beyond that: just shrugging shoulders and turn one's back on the other will not help to solve actual problems, nor will it improve the actual situation and relations. Fact is that both spheres have more in common than what separates them, despite the obvious differences, and that no other block or culture there is in the world that is closer to us than our difficult partners on the other side of the atlantic. We depend on each other, that is true for Europe, and that is true for America as well. I know that America loves to consider itself to be autarc, and independant, but that is an illusion. Times get tough for America without europe's support, and much in the field of foreign politcs even becomes impossible if acting against the europeans. Economics are a global issue today, isolationists in america trying to withdraw from the international scene only would do unrepairable damage to their own econmic survivability. This is not the time during and after the second world war - this is the multiple times more difficult and complex present sixty years after WWII. foreign powers today have the power to crush America financially and economically, if they want that. And Europe is vulnerable to the same powers, and for the same reasons.

The transatlantic partnership is difficult, and irritating, no doubt. It has not become more comfortable, but more problematic since 1989. Today there are global challenges and risks and problems, that nobody can solve all by himself alone. that makes cooperation a penultimate priority. and this has to be relearned again - on both sides of the Atlantic.

I am realist. Of course I see that in reality the trend since one and a half decade works opposite, and that there is a huge difference between what I say is needed to be acchieved, and what is actually happening. This does not mean that what I say about vital priorities is wrong. It only means that the situation is worstening due to these priorities being ignored.

the world is a chessboard. economically, europe and america are rivals. Politically, we must not become close friends anyhow. Becoming partners again and both knowing (and by that: trusting in) what reasonable self-interest the other has in this partnership, could prove to be far more enduring.

And more realistic and less dreaming as well.

[Frame57]

Medicore cars compared to what (thinking of Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, [O.K. VW is way to expensive for what you get])?

Besides, Mr Bush jr. has ****ed up your country hasn't he? Your financial situation is a catastrophe and he still spends billions of dollars he doesn't have. His foreign policy can only be described as that of someone who has no idea of diplomacy. The reputation of the US has never been lower than today (or at least I'm not aware of any time when it was lower).

So why the hell should we like him?
What good has he done that should make us like him?
We have been insulted as "old Europe" ,by Cheny, because we didn't want to participate in Iraq, a war that was started without the proof of WMD, without the proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and therefore based on lies!
Clinton was at least way more diplomatic and charismatic.
By the way since you are mentioning a certain peanut farmer all the time, what was Bush's profession again? Alcoholic? Unsuccessful Team manager? Deserter?

And maybe you should look up again who started WW I.;)

Don't take this post wrong, it's not supposed to be a rant, it is just supposed to show the German (or at least my) opinion.
Besides, I'm not sure whether I like Obama at all. But I think it can't get any worse than Bush!Medocre in comparison to a Ferarri or an Aston Martin, I would even say the Corvette for that matter. Anyway, I see that you do embrace the peanut farmer which is great! Plus I love the warmogering German's. Donitz is my hero next to Admiral Rickover. But seriously you are not going to blame WW1 on the Serbs are you? Not a Bush fan here. But on his bad days he outshines the peanut farmer 2 to 1. Me and Homer Simpson love Donutz!:D

[Frame57]

Our economic problems stemmed from NAFTA. That coupled with a huge burden of illegal aliens that are taxing the taxpayer. Bad business practice by loaning institutions etc... This is not the fault of one, but the fault of many and stands to be corrected. Globalization is cutting the throat of America. The "progressive" mindset of this movement will only further it. A serious wake up call is happening in Washington DC. More people are registering as "Independants" more than ever before and will hopefully continue, because that is the only hope for America in the long run or we become a third world nation. But the World opinion, in my opinion of America is that we are despised when things are OK, and embraced when things like when WW2 happened. The most shameful thing IMO was the civilian bombing of the Serbian people by none other than a democratic President. If there was a treacherous act then it was that! To bomb allies of both World Wars was a disgraceful act. I suppose because Serbia is not an economic powerhouse. The European union did nothing in protest to this. If the Muslims were to inhabit let's say Bavaria and the decided it was theirs and tried to claim independance, I wonder how the German people would react? It is easy to be an arm chair quarter back in discussing world affairs, but when the reality strikes things change very quickly. May the words of the great sage 'Rodney King' prevail, "Can't we just all get along?":yep:

[Schroeder]

You're missing the point. Congress were the ones who appropriated the money in the first place so blaming Bush for spending money congress gave him to spend is like blaming the rooster for the dawn.

Did Bush ask for the money before starting the war? If he did then it's really not his fault alone.


Besides, taking out Saddam was still a good thing in my mind although Agreed, but the costs (no, not the money, I mean the loss of lives) were/are too high (in my opinion).


Somehow i think that nations did whatever was in their own best interests, regardless of what Bush said or didn't say.

If your president had not used lies to gain allies but had clearly said what he was after, and had not pissed those who refused to follow him, maybe he had found more nations in the coalition of the willing/less leaving it after the war (I don't think Germany would have been among them, but anyway). Or at least he might have gotten more foreign support to rebuild the country after the war.


That's cool. Perhaps i phrased that wrong. Would you base your vote (for or against) for Merkel on a foreigners opinion, or is that decision something for you and your fellow countrymen to work out?
No, you are right here, I wouldn't.;)


He is the person the nation chose to be our president, that alone deserves our backing, at least until Feb of next year when we toss him out on his ear and vote in a new one.
We once had a guy here too who was (more or less) chosen by the people. And then he started WWII. So I think loyalty is nothing that is deserved with a certain position one achieves. Otherwise you would make yourself prone for the same mistake that we once made. Blind loyalty is never a good thing.:-?


Before you start listing his faults, which we have heard many times over, especially on this board, ask yourself this: Have any more terrorists come into this country, hijacked airliners and flown them into our buildings since 9-11? Give credit where credit is due my friend...
Have any other terrorists tried it? (I actually don't know...)
Were it his plans that stopped them?

How many people were killed on 9/11? I think something around 3000 or so.
How many people have been killed in the name of fighting terror? Not to mention all those civilians that were killed in Iraq. Not only those that were "collateral damage" but also those who fell prey to the terror you want to fight. I think it's several 10,000s by now.:hmm:
I don't call this a successful strategy. Maybe you stopped terror in your own country, but you brought a lot of death and destruction to other people.
:-?



Maybe some more "European thoughts" for a better understanding of our relationship with Bush:
What bothers us Europeans most is simply the way he treated us. Like we had to follow him. Another thing is that he disrespected human rights. That's something that ticks us Germans really off (probably still the bad conscience;)).
We didn't expect Saddam or any third world country to play by the (human rights) rules but we thought you would because you are better than that (at least I hope so).:roll:
That's actually what made us really dislike him.:yep:

[Schroeder]

Medocre in comparison to a Ferarri or an Aston Martin, I would even say the Corvette for that matter. Well, Ferraris and Aston Martins are very special cars. Although I don't see why a Porsche 911 shouldn't keep up with them. Its technology is among the best you can get for money. I don't know that much about the technology behind the Corvette.

Anyway, I see that you do embrace the peanut farmer which is great! Plus I love the warmogering German's. Donitz is my hero next to Admiral Rickover.
Well that's 63 years ago, how about we talk of todays situation.;)


But seriously you are not going to blame WW1 on the Serbs are you?
Nope, I don't. But have a look at the events again. And then please show me where Germany started it all.;)

[baggygreen]

hope for the world??

get &*%&^%

what a load of utter BS...

how does Obama inspire leadership?? flip flops about like a fish out of water, a man full of contradictions that the media with few exceptions seems to ignore... I guess its a phase the world is going through at the moment. hopefully momentarily

[August]

Did Bush ask for the money before starting the war? If he did then it's really not his fault alone.

Congress not only appropriated the money for Iraq beforehand but voted overwhelmingly for the war. Remember, we had been keeping Saddam contained for over a decade while he repeatedly broke the ceasefire agreement that ended the first gulf war. That alone justified removing his regime from power but he also did everything he could to make himself look as dangerous as possible. Congress made it's decision not on some new song and dance by the Bush administration but rather because it was the same things they had been hearing about Saddams capabilities for over a decade.

"Motive, means and opportunity" The 3 classic aspects of a crime No one doubted the Saddam had the first, Saddam himself was claiming he had the means and we darn sure weren't gonna wait until opportunity presented itself to him.

Agreed, but the costs (no, not the money, I mean the loss of lives) were/are too high (in my opinion).

No life lost is something to cheer about, but to put it in perspective we lost more troops just wresting Anzio from you Germans than we have lost in the entire Iraq war. Most of our dead come from our efforts to rebuild the country afterwards. Not many countries through history have even made that effort.

If your president had not used lies to gain allies but had clearly said what he was after, and had not pissed those who refused to follow him, maybe he had found more nations in the coalition of the willing/less leaving it after the war (I don't think Germany would have been among them, but anyway). Or at least he might have gotten more foreign support to rebuild the country after the war.

So in other words Europe is making the Iraqis suffer because of it's displeasure with George Bush? :o Who exactly are these "unwilling" nations trying to hurt here?

We once had a guy here too who was (more or less) chosen by the people. And then he started WWII. So I think loyalty is nothing that is deserved with a certain position one achieves. Otherwise you would make yourself prone for the same mistake that we once made. Blind loyalty is never a good thing.:-?

Lest certain forum members accuse me of argument "reducto ad nazium" ;) i will refrain from examining that comparison in detail. Suffice to say I have never seen or heard of a US president that commanded the degree of loyalty that you are implying.

Have any other terrorists tried it? (I actually don't know...)
Were it his plans that stopped them?

There have been a number of plots foiled at various levels of preparedness but think about it for a second. For all the trouble we have given the terrorists in the past 7 years, destoying their bases, driving them into hiding, killing or capturing thousands of their operatives, I can't imagine that they wouldn't have hit us again by now if they had been able to, do you?

How many people were killed on 9/11? I think something around 3000 or so.
How many people have been killed in the name of fighting terror? Not to mention all those civilians that were killed in Iraq. Not only those that were "collateral damage" but also those who fell prey to the terror you want to fight. I think it's several 10,000s by now.:hmm:
I don't call this a successful strategy. Maybe you stopped terror in your own country, but you brought a lot of death and destruction to other people.
:-?

The argument might be made there wouldn't have been nearly as much death and destruction in Iraq had our continental allies actually tried to help instead of criticize and hinder the effort, but whatever, they certainly weren't doing it for those reasons.

In hindsight, was it worth it? I think so and you don't obviously, but ask yourself without using the advantage of hindsight, what could (not would) have been the result if Saddam had been left in power? Do you think he wouldn't have struck back against the west the moment he had the chance? Was Germany or France willing or able to take over the responsibility for guarding him while we went after terrorists in Afghanistan? Could we trust Europe to do a better job of it than say the UN does presently in South Lebanon? Would Kahdaffi have been motivated to give up his chemical weapons stocks if we hadn't invaded Iraq, thinking that he might be next on the hit list if he didn't? Do you think that "we didn't want to take the chance of hurting anyone" would EVER be an acceptable excuse for allowing a second 9-11 to occur?

Saddam needed to go. I'll agree that, in hindsight, we could have done a better job than we did in removing him or fixing the damage caused by the effort, but that doesn't change the fact it needed to be done. Far worse than a bad job would have been the lack of effort we'd have gotten from a Jimmy Carter type of President.

[Skybird]

Guys, this is about US-German relations. It is easy to stray off and repeat old patterns, I just have fallen into that trap myself again in a reply to Baggygreen. Threads tend to shift in their foucs and content, it is common in the GT forum, but I do not want it here. I deleted my latest reply now, for exactly this reason, because this is not the thread to drum the beat of the old Republicans-are-the-better-Americans-song or the usual Democrats-for-a-democratic-America-prose. It is about transatlantic relations, and the trap of unrealistic mutual perceptions, and what unites us and what separates us.

[Schroeder]

@August

I'm not so sure Saddam had done anything in big scale since he knew he couldn't win a war against the US.

I also fail to see how we should have prevented the civil casualties.

What is really odd is that it seems as if Bush hasn't had a plan for what to do with Iraq after the war.

We don't make the Iraqi people suffer. You decided to go there, so it is your responsibility to clean up the mess and take care of the people. To say that we make them suffer is a bit inappropriate isn't it?
Besides I'm not even sure whether we would have the manpower to actually send troops to Iraq even if we wanted to. We are already engaged in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and some other operations like "Enduring Freedom".

[August]

@August

I'm not so sure Saddam had done anything in big scale since he knew he couldn't win a war against the US.

I also fail to see how we should have prevented the civil casualties.

What is really odd is that it seems as if Bush hasn't had a plan for what to do with Iraq after the war.

We don't make the Iraqi people suffer. You decided to go there, so it is your responsibility to clean up the mess and take care of the people. To say that we make them suffer is a bit inappropriate isn't it?
Besides I'm not even sure whether we would have the manpower to actually send troops to Iraq even if we wanted to. We are already engaged in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and some other operations like "Enduring Freedom".

We'll just have to agree to disagree friend Schroeder. Thanks for the discussion though.

[Schroeder]

We'll just have to agree to disagree friend Schroeder. Thanks for the discussion though.
I don't mind it too and I have no hard feelings about it. It's been a fair and good discussion and everyone has the right for his/her opinion.:D

[August]

We'll just have to agree to disagree friend Schroeder. Thanks for the discussion though.
I don't mind it too and I have no hard feelings about it. It's been a fair and good discussion and everyone has the right for his/her opinion.:D

So you're not going to put me on ignore then? :D

[Schroeder]

Depends on how much you pay me.;)
:rotfl:

Sorry Skybird, we're going OT again.:oops:

[Skybird]

Depends on how much you pay me.;)
:rotfl:

Sorry Skybird, we're going OT again.:oops:
Jedem Tierchen sein Pläsierchen. ;)

[AntEater]

I thought this topic was about Kelly Clarkson or something like that....
:rotfl:

[August]

Depends on how much you pay me.;)
:rotfl:

Sorry Skybird, we're going OT again.:oops:

"Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute"

But forget about Skybird. He's only getting one side of the conversation anyways... :D

[Frame57]

Medocre in comparison to a Ferarri or an Aston Martin, I would even say the Corvette for that matter. Well, Ferraris and Aston Martins are very special cars. Although I don't see why a Porsche 911 shouldn't keep up with them. Its technology is among the best you can get for money. I don't know that much about the technology behind the Corvette.

Anyway, I see that you do embrace the peanut farmer which is great! Plus I love the warmogering German's. Donitz is my hero next to Admiral Rickover.
Well that's 63 years ago, how about we talk of todays situation.;)


But seriously you are not going to blame WW1 on the Serbs are you?
Nope, I don't. But have a look at the events again. And then please show me where Germany started it all.;) Porsche's are great! I forgot about them. A bit small. I like the larger sport cars. Just preference though. Today's situation is kind of moot as far as seeing history repeat itself. The Muslim's will be fighting amongst themselves or anyone else till doomsday. The only solution for America that is a win-win situation is to A. Become energy Independant. B. Re-assign troops and let the religious nitwits fend for themselves. C. When and if any other attacks happen on American soil, then vaporize them rather than deploying troops. There are no "Pattons" today, they have all died and are the type of military leader that is needed to win wars. Clark is a disgrace and one has to wonder how he became a General. The T*U*R*D had the audacity to rail against McCain's war record and his POW experience. But he is a Globalist and not an American in spirit. You see that American's that want a return to the "Good old days". Want America to be far less involved in foreign matters. I agree! It is senseless. We need to trade and have good relations for sure, but this business of having troops all over the world is not in America's best interest. Why in the world do we need troops in Germany? Can someone explain that?

[UnderseaLcpl]

@original post.............:roll:

[mrbeast]

I thought this topic was about Kelly Clarkson or something like that....
:rotfl:

Yeah when i first read the title I was expecting a thread about David Hasselhoff! :o :roll:

[Frame57]

Medocre in comparison to a Ferarri or an Aston Martin, I would even say the Corvette for that matter. Well, Ferraris and Aston Martins are very special cars. Although I don't see why a Porsche 911 shouldn't keep up with them. Its technology is among the best you can get for money. I don't know that much about the technology behind the Corvette.

Anyway, I see that you do embrace the peanut farmer which is great! Plus I love the warmogering German's. Donitz is my hero next to Admiral Rickover.
Well that's 63 years ago, how about we talk of todays situation.;)


But seriously you are not going to blame WW1 on the Serbs are you?
Nope, I don't. But have a look at the events again. And then please show me where Germany started it all.;) Perhaps they did not directly, but indirectly they wanted Austria to declare war on Serbia and supported the declaration of war and were clearly ramping up their war machine prior to this. Even though Austria is a seperate Country it is perceived in the west as being a subsidiary of Germany.

[Skybird]

that was it, the speech has been delivered. Against my usual habit to simply ignore politicians and their oh so precious speeches, I watched it from beginning to end. berlin police said there has been an audience of 215.000. There are 12.000 Americans living in Berlin.

I think it was an extremely clever speech, and he hit the right tone. Of course - I remain to be a realist, and politicians and speeches... you know the story. :lol: But i would say this: McCain should not complain that the media do not like him so much, in handling the media and afdressing people, Obama is so much more intelligent than McCain, despite McCain's reputation of having free, liberal relations to the press. Then the difference between Obama in Berlin, and bush duing his foreign visits - holding a little speech at a handselected audience of sworn in militaries - now compare how easily Obama won the sympathies of the crowds and how relaxed he handled them afterwards! That is worlds apart.

I would say this: Obama expressed a lot of those things that I aolso, here and there in various threads expressed to be desirable in the relations between America, and europe. IF he would get elected, and IF he would turn out to be a president who really acts like he talks, and puts his deeds to where his speech was leading, it could turn out to be a very good presidency for america, and a better, though more mutually demanding relation between the Us, and Europe.

IF. We need to wait and learn what will come of that IF.

I just wonder if all German really understood that on certain issues like Iran he indicated that he has no intention to adapt the european way of doing, and that his stressing of mutual partnership includes the Europeans and namely germany to invest more - last but not least into the military factor. Foreign minister Steinmeier always speaks slow and tired like an old grandfather, but today's news item after he met Obama showed him commenting with a voice that sounded even for his standards somewhat bewildered or disillusioned to me. I think many people in the governemnt and especially in the SPD party will need to learn that just because Obama is not Bush this does not mean that he plans to all-embrace the SPD's unrealistic visions and diplomatic ways of dealing questions of foreign policies.

the worstening of relations in the past eight years, has been the responsibility of a stupid, unknowing and unsensible George bush. I start to think that if Obama becomes president, and if - against the current expectations - relations will not improve and partnership will not become as far-reaching as Obama has outlined - this time it will not be america's fault, but the fault of a Germany that in this case would prove to be too unflexible and unrealistical in it's assessment of what it can expect america to be like - and what not. at the next NATO meeting Spring 2009, germany better has learned to see that difference, else we will start to suffer the same mockery and lacking understanding that has been enjoyed by America and George bush in the past eight years.

and we should not repeat the mistakes of Georgie who gave us so much opportunity to laugh and curse - which only means we understood these to be mistakes indeed. we would be even greater fools then, if repeating them in his place, knowingly.

Thanks for paying a visit, senator. I'm not your fan, but I enjoyed your presence nevertheless. And that is a million times more positive than what I have said about Bush's two Germany visits.

[Platapus]

It was a stirring speech. Obama is a good speaker. I did not agree with everything he said in the speech but I don't think there can be anyone that I would totally agree with.

He said some things I liked, somethings I did not like, and a whole bunch of things I don't really care about. But he is a charismatic speaker and that counts in politics (look at Regan).

Still not a solid Obama fan but not an Obama hater either. We have 3 1/2 months to go. Way too early to get spun up on things.

[AntEater]

Actually he didn't say much, but what do you expect from campaign speeches, and from speeches in general.
Not much new to what he said
One thing was interesting was the call for nuclear disarmament, not only from Iran but worldwide. I wonder if he keeps this up during his presidency.
At least he can pronounce "nuclear", so no more "nukular" weapons in "Isreal" with the next president (McCain can also do that, I suppose)

On the whole, he's really a great speaker. Dubya's problem as a speaker (aside from his sloppy pronounciation and general daftness) was that he always tried to be Churchill.
Churchillean pathos requires a real man like Mr. Churchill was to deliver it convincingly. Just having a great backround and an aircraft carrier (for example) does not do the trick.

Obama, while not really imitating Dr. King, has some similarities.
Instead of sticking to the classical roman approach to a speech, his way of speaking is more pastoral, almost musical with recurring themes and refrains.

[Skybird]

On the whole, he's really a great speaker. Dubya's problem as a speaker (aside from his sloppy pronounciation and general daftness) was that he always tried to be Churchill.

Not to mention churchillian sarcasm. :lol:

Watching Obama holding his speech, I had to remind myself time and again that this is not Denzel Washington in a filmed Obama-biography. :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

I'm keeping my mouth shut!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Let me let the news spell this out for you people:

-S

"While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear.

John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it."

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I have a very personal reason for not wanting Barack Obama to end up in the White House:

If Obaba is elected, for the first time in my life we'll have a president who is younger than I am.

It's going to happen, but I'd really like to put it off as long as possible.:dead:

[Platapus]

Has anyone found a site that has the transcription of his speech?

[Platapus]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/full_text_of_obama.php

[Skybird]

Has anyone found a site that has the transcription of his speech?
http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Full+script+of+Obama%27s+speech+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=29957216&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F0 7%2F24%2Fobama.words%2Findex.html&partnerID=211911

P.S. somebody was faster than me. But my version is more friendly for printing. :)

[Jimbuna]

Well, I have a very personal reason for not wanting Barack Obama to end up in the White House:

If Obaba is elected, for the first time in my life we'll have a president who is younger than I am.

It's going to happen, but I'd really like to put it off as long as possible.:dead:

Better a leader of the nation....then just the young uns :lol:

[JoeCorrado]

Has anyone found a site that has the transcription of his speech?

Better than that- watch the speech for yourself. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaroadblog/gGxyFs)

--

If you are a supporter of Obama's, you will be proud.

If you are not a supporter of Obama, I think you may STILL be proud.

A very moving speech that reminds us of some things, some places, and some truths that we too often forget.

[Skybird]

Has anyone found a site that has the transcription of his speech?

Better than that- watch the speech for yourself. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaroadblog/gGxyFs)

--

If you are a supporter of Obama's, you will be proud.

If you are not a supporter of Obama, I think you may STILL be proud.

A very moving speech that reminds us of some things, some places, and some truths that we too often forget.
Yes.

I called the speech "clever" in my initial assessement. Clever it was becasue - what many german commentators seem to have missed - he adressed, with a soft hand, quite some issues of conflict between Germany and america, and indicated his stand on these, but gave the impression that he did not touch them at all, and certainly did not become confronting aboiut it. Many commentators did not like the speech over here, saying that he just evaded anything that could have hold any risk. but he did not - if only you listehn to what he said between the lines. He just did not yelled it out loud with trumpets and fanfares. And that is what was clever indeed. Clever also was how he brought the crowd on his side in the first 10-15 minutes, and made it look so easy.

That'S why I called it clever. Compared to that behavior, both Bush and McCain act like elephants in a Chinese shop.

When Bush was in Germany, streets got shut down and isolated. Audience was handpicked. His column raced through the emptied streets where citizens were forbidden to stand by the windows of their own flats and houses. It all reminded - no: it copied the way the old leaders of the communist parties in Eastern nations and in Russia used to move around. Bush never was welcomed over here, and people both let him feel it by not being interested - and were forbidden to show any eventual remains of sympathy as well, for reasons of (paranoid?) security. The Secret Service added its own share to make the wall being erected a perfect one. during his last visit some weeks ago, critics even did not attack him anymore, so uninteresting he had become. Officials surely shook his ahnd and friendly said good-bye before his plane left - nobody spend a second glance at his direction, and medias almost ignored the stay, or reported aboiut it in sprinting speed only. Historx has almost closed the chapter bush, and the verdict, compared to the damage this loser has done, may ironcially still hold comfort and relief for him personally, nevertheless: his farewell is that for a meaningless nobody. and that rules as a kind assessement, considering his record.

But of course: in case of Obama there is the IF. It remains to be seen if as president he would put his deeds to where his mouth is (not sure if that phrase is correct?). the brains he seem to have for sure. And that may be enough to search and find the experts he need to help him over fields of politics where he is unexperienced.

A good king must not know everything himself. A good king must know when to ask and when to listen, and whom to trust to get things done.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,567919,00.html

[Diopos]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,567919,00.html

from the link above:
"...the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words -- words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds"

And occasionally gets us killed?:hmm:

Germany and no other European country will change stance and adopt new policies based solely on charisma...
Let him sit on the autocrat's throne, manuver his sub through the shallow waters of Iraq and Afganistan, face the problems of internal and global economy, balance terrorism vs human/civil rights and ... and... and...
And after that we'll see if we still belong to the "old Europe" or not!
With political candidates it'w always "trial by fire". Words are cheap and their value is dropping faster than the dollar!

[Platapus]

But of course: in case of Obama there is the IF. It remains to be seen if as president he would put his deeds to where his mouth is (not sure if that phrase is correct?). the brains he seem to have for sure. And that may be enough to search and find the experts he need to help him over fields of politics where he is unexperienced.



No you phrased this correctly. If Senator Obama gets elected he will have a pretty big bill to pay the first term. People will be looking close at him. I don't mean the Republicans whom I predict will be harassing him starting 22 Jan (Look for the Barack Obama countdown calender in your stores by Christmas 08). I am talking about the Democrats. The Democrats and the citizens of the US will be waiting and watching for this change that Obama has been promising.

The American people can be a tough audience once they elect a President. They want to see results, good results, and they better come sooner than later.

So no, you were quite correct. Using another American idiom. Senator Obama can talk the talk, let's see if he can walk the walk.

[Skybird]

At least one thing certainly all can agree on: the phenomenon "Obamamania" shows that there is a very widespread, very intense, very hot burning desire for a massive substantial change of fundamental politcal course and orientation. Not only in america, but Germany and probably all Europe as well. 215.000 gathered at the victory column. They said on either CNN or ZDF yesterday that inside the US his record crowd size so far had been 75.000. Also, this yearning seem to be most intense amongst surpringly young generations. On ZDF they said the avergae age of the crowd could not have been beyond 25. But German politicians hardly can activate such public interests anymore, nor amongst such young people. Most are very frustrated and disillusioned and no longer interested in politics. Obama seem to have, internationally, an activation potential that only is rivalled by the feeling of starting new that Kennedy once should have caused (had not experienced him myself,and also I am no fan of him, I think he is overestimated).

[Tchocky]

215.000 gathered at the victory column. They said on either CNN or ZDF yesterday that inside the US his record crowd size so far had been 75.000. This is bad news for Obama. US media and the McCain campaign will eat this up.
McCain campaign statement -
While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it. It's stupid and rather weak, but one can see the tack.It will be easy to paint Obama's trip as arrogant and that he is more at home in Europe than America, convincing dodgy voters that he really isn't one of them. Notice the word choice, Obama - world, McCain - American.
Wait for it.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/07/24/obamatrip_3.gif

EDIT - Just found McCain eat his own face while attempting to play the More-American-than-you game.

"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make." It's rather hilarious. Remember his Canada trip only a month ago?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20408282.htm

EDIT 2 - Something to keep in mind when the right attacks Obama for being a "citizen of the world (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/citizen-of-the.html)"

[Skybird]

But he introduced himself to the crowed as "a proud citizen of America, and a citizen of the world.". Also, no illusions about it, any sympathies he gained in Germany are only a bonus. While holding his speech, his eyes and his words were aiming directly at americans at home - not so much at us germans. I think it is possible that Mccain underestimates the tremendous desire of the young americans for a discontinuity of the Bush-way of going. and by choosing his conventional, traditional tactics to attract the masses in his speeches - he maybe does exactly what will keep the young ones away from him.

A week or two ago I critizised Obama for certain turnarounds he just had shown, and that the long democrat's race possibly has damaged him, and that I see McCain gaining advanatge from that. But that founded on the assumption that he would run normally and would not damage himself - then I see McCain as having slight advantages. but his opponent ir running an almost perfect media campaign, and MacCain seem to be incapable to do anythin against that - media interest in him is only a fraction, compared to Obama. All mmajor networks have major personnell following and travelling with Obama on every tep he makes. And McCain? some days ago I read that during a planned stop in some american town where he held a speech - he was greeted by just one single lonely reporter at the airport.

In Germany, Obama already is seen as the next president. the assumption here is that McCain is almost chnaceless. that is also a lot of opportunistic wishful thinking, of course, and I do not buy it. But I see Obama despite the disadvantage from the long Democrat'S internal battle winning the presidency eventually - because McCain simply is unable to make use of this advanatge and to win by his own power, by that handing over victory to Obama. IF Obama should win, I think this will be the most likely explanation for his victory: that he could not lose because McCain cannot win by himself.

[Platapus]

I think there will be a number of Americans who will casting their vote "not for McCain" and just defaulting to Obama instead of voting for Obama.

What this number will be I don't know but I am pretty sure it is more than zero :)

This is what is disappointing about American politics. More often we are forced to vote for the person we hate the least as opposed to voting for the person we like.

I think South Park summed it up well: A decision between a turd and a douche.:damn:

[Skybird]

This is what is disappointing about American politics. More often we are forced to vote for the person we hate the least as opposed to voting for the person we like.

First, it is the same over here as well, Second, nonody forces you to vote. I am a string defenr of actively deciding to boycot elections and by that bpoting against pliticians instead for them. I juust insist oin people not to jump elections, buit to give an invalid vote instead - so that non-voters cannot be accused of keeping away for reasons of comfort and laziness, or avoiding responsibility . I give a vote indeed when chosing to make my billet invalid.My vote says that I actively refuse to legitimize what I consider to be bad and undefendable, that I do not trust the system and it's representatives.

That choice you have over there as well. but if you give a valid vote, it means much more than just voting for a candidate. I means you accept the system itself, and it breeding the same kind of untrustworthy profi politicians all time long, and that you actively accept this to be carried on by parties who rate their own power interests higher than the interests of the national community.

In Germany, for the first time ever, the conservative CDU has more members than the SPD, that has been reported in the news today. but that means only that the SPD is loosing members faster than the conservatives do. Fact os both parties have a massive decrease in numbers of memeberships, and since many years. Why under this condition participating in election still is above 50% , can only be explaoned by that bad habits die hard. Like people jump into churches at christmas, even if it is the only day in the year they do so, and for many of them relgious content means nothin for them - many do it for sentimental reasons while remembering their childhood when their parents took them to church as well on christmas evening. The common phrase "But soembody you just have to vote for" in the main illustrates just one thing: fatalism.

[Platapus]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you. I see no point in not voting. If our candidates needed a minimum number of votes instead of a majority of electors I might see some advantage. But they don't. For the office of President there is a minimum number of elector votes that is needed. Electors do not have a choice of not to vote.

If I don't vote, how can I communicate my choice to my electorates? Not that they have to listen to me, but if I don't vote there is a 100% chance they won't know.

One of the problems we have in America is getting people to vote. For a country that likes to fling the word democracy around the world, we are lousy examples. We are lucky to get 60% of our citizens to even give a crap.

Boycotting an election is undemocratic in my opinion.

1. Either my boycott will go totally unnoticed as I would be lumped in with the 40% who don't care and are normally ignored or

2. I would, somehow, influence events by my boycott (somehow make a statement which politicians will notice) which should not happen. Not voting in a democracy should not count more than voting.

I really don't see any advantage to boycotting unless someone wants to call attention to the fact that they did not vote. I don't know how it is in your country but in America once people find out that you did not vote, they usually tell you to STFU. Our culture is that if you did not vote, you have no right to complain.

Politics in America is always a compromise. It is very rare that there is ever a canidate for any office that a citizen agrees with 100%. There is always a trade off.

Sometimes we are lucky and get a chance to choose between the best of two candidates. More often we are unlucky and get a chance to choose between the worst of two candidates.

But choose we must. Voting is a duty to a citizen.

Just an old guy's opinion.

[JoeCorrado]

But of course: in case of Obama there is the IF. It remains to be seen if as president he would put his deeds to where his mouth is (not sure if that phrase is correct?). the brains he seem to have for sure. And that may be enough to search and find the experts he need to help him over fields of politics where he is unexperienced.


No you phrased this correctly. If Senator Obama gets elected he will have a pretty big bill to pay the first term. People will be looking close at him. I don't mean the Republicans whom I predict will be harassing him starting 22 Jan (Look for the Barack Obama countdown calender in your stores by Christmas 08). I am talking about the Democrats. The Democrats and the citizens of the US will be waiting and watching for this change that Obama has been promising.

The American people can be a tough audience once they elect a President. They want to see results, good results, and they better come sooner than later.

So no, you were quite correct. Using another American idiom. Senator Obama can talk the talk, let's see if he can walk the walk.
The Republican Party enjoyed a majority in the House of Representatives as well as the Senate- along with the office of the President for 6 years. Six years when they had their way and ran roughshod over any who stood in their way. They had the means and they had the will to impose their wishes upon America, her economy, and her people. And that is just what they did.

Look at where we are today because of it. Americans losing their homes at a rate not seen since the great depression, financial institutions driven by greed and now about to collapse under the weight of that greed, unemployment at higher rates than we have seen in two decades, good paying jobs lost and replaced with service sector jobs that do not pay a living wage, an attack on the middle class that has been as unrelenting as it has been unheralded, undeserved and unfair. An attack upon our very Constitution and our rights such as I had never believed possible in the United States. The PATRIOT act was closer to an act of treason and it had absolutely nothing to do with patriotism!

The war in Iraq was the wrong war, wrong place, and for the wrong reasons. The "War Against Terror" has been on the back burner for too long. The War Against Terror was the right war, right place, for the right reasons but today our soldiers in Afghanistan fight for their lives and are told that no support is available. No reinforcements are forthcoming. You are on your own. That in itself is evidence enough for me just how misguided and inept George Bush and company have been- how vulnerable they have left our nation.

In debt to our gills and unable to sustain the war on terror with the resources needed. For Heaven's Sake, what did they spent the trillions of dollars on and what have we gotten in return?? War, poverty, disillusionment and hopelessness???

Barack Obama does represent change and that is what I believe he will deliver. He offers hope to a country in need and he offers us an opportunity to fix what is broken in our country. BUT, in order to make that change possible, we must do for him what we did for George Bush- give him the means to accomplish the task.

Today, the only people who trust America less than our traditional allies around the world, are her own citizens. The Republicans and George Bush have behaved as if they would never have to pay for their foolishness, but the time has come at last.

Give Barack Obama a strong majority in both the House and the Senate and let him impose the will of the PEOPLE around here for a change.

For a change we can believe in.



I believe in Barack Obama and I approved this message. :up:

[Fish]

G.W. is not the best President we have had.

May I nominate that "the understatement of the year"? :up:

[Skybird]

Politics in America is always a compromise. It is very rare that there is ever a canidate for any office that a citizen agrees with 100%. There is always a trade off.

I would say IF you vote you have no right to complain - for you have legitimized the cause of the problem itself, and by that have allowed to be turned into an accomplice. What party you vote for, for the most is totally unimportant, the differences in their policies are minor. no matter whom you vote for - you legitimize the system itself by that - amnd today we have reached a astatus where this is the porblem of all corrupting of what democracy ones meant.

i also say that there is no real demoicracy left in the West anymore. Oiutside the West, this is realsied by people in all the world, and that is why the attractiveness of democracy worldwide is in delcine, and acceptance for othert government systems inclduing dicatorship, is high, and even rising. I linked some news essay on that some weeks ago.

[Skybird]

G.W. is not the best President we have had.

May I nominate that "the understatement of the year"? :up:
Sure, don't stand on ceremony! ;) :D

[Jimbuna]

G.W. is not the best President we have had.

May I nominate that "the understatement of the year"? :up:
Sure, don't stand on ceremony! ;) :D

That's probably the one point/statement most people on this thread will agree on. :hmm:

[Frame57]

"Kazakstan supports George Bush's war of terror" Borat:D

[Tchocky]

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/why-didnt-mccai.html

But it's pretty ridiculous for McCain to be making this absurd, hypocritical attack (http://www.americablog.com/2008/07/mccain-launches-negative-ad-based-on.html) on Barack Obama. They've both visited wounded troops in the past. And as commanders-in-chief, they would both work for the best interests of the nation, even if they would take it in different directions.
McCain is desperate now, in full-fledged panic mode. If this is how he'd handle a crisis as president, it's all the more important that Barack Obama win this election.

[ASWnut101]

But of course: in case of Obama there is the IF. It remains to be seen if as president he would put his deeds to where his mouth is (not sure if that phrase is correct?). the brains he seem to have for sure. And that may be enough to search and find the experts he need to help him over fields of politics where he is unexperienced.


No you phrased this correctly. If Senator Obama gets elected he will have a pretty big bill to pay the first term. People will be looking close at him. I don't mean the Republicans whom I predict will be harassing him starting 22 Jan (Look for the Barack Obama countdown calender in your stores by Christmas 08). I am talking about the Democrats. The Democrats and the citizens of the US will be waiting and watching for this change that Obama has been promising.

The American people can be a tough audience once they elect a President. They want to see results, good results, and they better come sooner than later.

So no, you were quite correct. Using another American idiom. Senator Obama can talk the talk, let's see if he can walk the walk.
The Republican Party enjoyed a majority in the House of Representatives as well as the Senate- along with the office of the President for 6 years. Six years when they had their way and ran roughshod over any who stood in their way. They had the means and they had the will to impose their wishes upon America, her economy, and her people. And that is just what they did.

Look at where we are today because of it. Americans losing their homes at a rate not seen since the great depression, financial institutions driven by greed and now about to collapse under the weight of that greed, unemployment at higher rates than we have seen in two decades, good paying jobs lost and replaced with service sector jobs that do not pay a living wage, an attack on the middle class that has been as unrelenting as it has been unheralded, undeserved and unfair. An attack upon our very Constitution and our rights such as I had never believed possible in the United States. The PATRIOT act was closer to an act of treason and it had absolutely nothing to do with patriotism!

The war in Iraq was the wrong war, wrong place, and for the wrong reasons. The "War Against Terror" has been on the back burner for too long. The War Against Terror was the right war, right place, for the right reasons but today our soldiers in Afghanistan fight for their lives and are told that no support is available. No reinforcements are forthcoming. You are on your own. That in itself is evidence enough for me just how misguided and inept George Bush and company have been- how vulnerable they have left our nation.

In debt to our gills and unable to sustain the war on terror with the resources needed. For Heaven's Sake, what did they spent the trillions of dollars on and what have we gotten in return?? War, poverty, disillusionment and hopelessness???

Barack Obama does represent change and that is what I believe he will deliver. He offers hope to a country in need and he offers us an opportunity to fix what is broken in our country. BUT, in order to make that change possible, we must do for him what we did for George Bush- give him the means to accomplish the task.

Today, the only people who trust America less than our traditional allies around the world, are her own citizens. The Republicans and George Bush have behaved as if they would never have to pay for their foolishness, but the time has come at last.

Give Barack Obama a strong majority in both the House and the Senate and let him impose the will of the PEOPLE around here for a change.

For a change we can believe in.



I believe in Barack Obama and I approved this message. :up:


God, do you work for his campaign or something? Sounds like something copied off his website. :p




"Kazakstan supports George Bush's war of terror" Borat


That was a hilarious movie. Watched it when it first came out and got the DVD. :D

[UnderseaLcpl]

Wow, this has generated quite a bit of interest. I don't agree with all of the points put forth but a lot of them seem to be quite thought out.

Nonetheless, as far as U.S.-German and U.S. European relations are concerned, don't hold out for any major improvements.

Essentially, the two presidential candidates we have are just two sides of the same party. Expect roughly the same results from either of them. And, as August had the prudence to point out, Congress holds the real power. The prez is just a convenient scapegoat, as most people here don't even know their congressional representatives' names.

In my opinion, most of Bush's unpopularity is due to the media. He really hasn't done anything different than most of our administrations have in the past half-century; defecit spending? Check. Unneccesary war? Check. Completely failed social programs which we then throw money at instead of abandoning? Check.
Protectionist trade policies? Check. Pissing off at least one major sector of the world? Check.
Of course, his poor speaking ability doesn't help.

This pattern in turn affects European relations. Someone pointed out that America is like an anti-Europe. Well, that's true, and look how quickly it catapulted us to the forefront of the modern world. Why do other nations emulate us so much and then despise us simultaneously? No worries though, day by day we make the same mistakes Europe's great nations did and eventually we'll be where they are.

I'm also a little miffed that Europe should be so resentful of the War in Iraq, especially Germany, for two reasons; 1) Did we all forget about the Holocaust? Genocide? "Never Again"? If memory serves, the Kurds were being slaughtered in a remarkably genocide-like fashion. Nobody cares about that?
2) For all the grief Europe has caused with two World Wars, and that's all of Europe's leading powers, not just Germany, especially considering WW1, we should be able to have a hundred Iraq Wars. Remember back when we were isolationists? Everyone hated us then for minding our own buisness. After WW1, and even moreso after WW2, we got involved and now everyone hates us for being meddlers.
"Help us help us help us, okay leave us alone"?

I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect or even good in general but we have done a lot more to promote ( or at least a lot less harm) free trade and global stability(without assuming control of other people's nations) than Europe ever has.

If it sounds like I'm saying the U.S. is the good nation and the rest of you are bad, that's not my point. I'm just saying "please have a little patience with us, we're trying to help. Sure we don't always do it right, but at least we try."

In addition, despite all the "helping" the U.S. has tried to do, I would much rather we mind our own affairs and leave the rest of the world alone. "Free Trade with all nations, alliances with none" as Jefferson put it. Luckily for the rest of the world, we don't and eventually will forfeit our position as the the world's leader because we do the same things you did to lose your empires. Namely; war, uncontrollable spending, and too much power in the hands of government.

All that aside, don't look for a significant change with the coming presidential election. Both candidates offer the same-old same-old, and as our financial situation becomes more desperate, we will probably do things to piss you off even more as our leaders grasp at straws to preserve some semblance of U.S. power or at least distract the U.S. public long enough for the next administration to take the fall. You can look forward to; wars and/or condemnation of other countries, borrowing money from you and not paying it back, and blaming Europe or whomever else seems fitting at the time for all our problems. Of course, most European nations should know this, they've done it before.

All I'm saying is we're all in the same boat. At least we can look forward to hating some other nation (probably China) until their government ruins them too. Eventually some European country/countries/coalition of countries will rise to power and we can begin the fun all over again.

Enjoy your repeat of history.

[JoeCorrado]

But of course: in case of Obama there is the IF. It remains to be seen if as president he would put his deeds to where his mouth is (not sure if that phrase is correct?). the brains he seem to have for sure. And that may be enough to search and find the experts he need to help him over fields of politics where he is unexperienced.


No you phrased this correctly. If Senator Obama gets elected he will have a pretty big bill to pay the first term. People will be looking close at him. I don't mean the Republicans whom I predict will be harassing him starting 22 Jan (Look for the Barack Obama countdown calender in your stores by Christmas 08). I am talking about the Democrats. The Democrats and the citizens of the US will be waiting and watching for this change that Obama has been promising.

The American people can be a tough audience once they elect a President. They want to see results, good results, and they better come sooner than later.

So no, you were quite correct. Using another American idiom. Senator Obama can talk the talk, let's see if he can walk the walk.
The Republican Party enjoyed a majority in the House of Representatives as well as the Senate- along with the office of the President for 6 years. Six years when they had their way and ran roughshod over any who stood in their way. They had the means and they had the will to impose their wishes upon America, her economy, and her people. And that is just what they did.

Look at where we are today because of it. Americans losing their homes at a rate not seen since the great depression, financial institutions driven by greed and now about to collapse under the weight of that greed, unemployment at higher rates than we have seen in two decades, good paying jobs lost and replaced with service sector jobs that do not pay a living wage, an attack on the middle class that has been as unrelenting as it has been unheralded, undeserved and unfair. An attack upon our very Constitution and our rights such as I had never believed possible in the United States. The PATRIOT act was closer to an act of treason and it had absolutely nothing to do with patriotism!

The war in Iraq was the wrong war, wrong place, and for the wrong reasons. The "War Against Terror" has been on the back burner for too long. The War Against Terror was the right war, right place, for the right reasons but today our soldiers in Afghanistan fight for their lives and are told that no support is available. No reinforcements are forthcoming. You are on your own. That in itself is evidence enough for me just how misguided and inept George Bush and company have been- how vulnerable they have left our nation.

In debt to our gills and unable to sustain the war on terror with the resources needed. For Heaven's Sake, what did they spent the trillions of dollars on and what have we gotten in return?? War, poverty, disillusionment and hopelessness???

Barack Obama does represent change and that is what I believe he will deliver. He offers hope to a country in need and he offers us an opportunity to fix what is broken in our country. BUT, in order to make that change possible, we must do for him what we did for George Bush- give him the means to accomplish the task.

Today, the only people who trust America less than our traditional allies around the world, are her own citizens. The Republicans and George Bush have behaved as if they would never have to pay for their foolishness, but the time has come at last.

Give Barack Obama a strong majority in both the House and the Senate and let him impose the will of the PEOPLE around here for a change.

For a change we can believe in.



I believe in Barack Obama and I approved this message. :up:

God, do you work for his campaign or something? Sounds like something copied off his website. :p
Nah, I don't work for the Obama Campaign- but I took your perhaps unintended advice, and have since created a member blog on his official website.

You'll find it here. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/corrado/gGxynt/commentary#comment-g9vJ2)

I will be a regular contributer there in the future and will continue to share my views in other forums where I am already a member. Really, I cannot deny that the more I learn about Obama, the more I take the time to really pay attention to the choices in this campaign- the stronger a supporter I become.

[Skybird]

The cleverness of Obama cannot hide that his interest in europe is minimal, and interest in Germany as well. Somebody should tell him that demanding more support from europe is one thing - but cloathing it into a comment that he recently made that if NATO would send more troops to Afghanistan, america could withdraw more soldiers form there, save money and turn it into tax reliefs for americans is a very stupid thing. that could make him a persona non grata in quick time over here.

Nor is McCain'S aid's recent offending of Germans in general in reaction to Obama's trip any helpful in making him a more respectable figure over here. If I would have said something like that about Americans, I would have had trouble with a mod now. :) And his respectability already scores very low over here, not even one in ten sympathises with him.

Not that it means something for american voters. But a next US president wanting something from europe better performs much better in diplomatic behavior than Bush did.

[Frame57]

A win win situation first is that we amend that foreign born citizens can become president. Then we vote in Schwartzenegger. Arnie can then also become king of Austria too then preside uber the EU. We will all no longer be girlie men and will get along. All men under thirty will have to be able to bench press 350 pounds though and will have to marry women that look like skeletor from the He man cartoon, but that is not bad. Then he will lift the Cuban embargo so we can smoke a proper cigar. Hell yes, I say Arnie for world president. Terminator uber alles!:D

[JoeCorrado]

The cleverness of Obama cannot hide that his interest in europe is minimal, and interest in Germany as well. Somebody should tell him that demanding more support from europe is one thing - but cloathing it into a comment that he recently made that if NATO would send more troops to Afghanistan, america could withdraw more soldiers form there, save money and turn it into tax reliefs for americans is a very stupid thing. that could make him a persona non grata in quick time over here.

Nor is McCain'S aid's recent offending of Germans in general in reaction to Obama's trip any helpful in making him a more respectable figure over here. If I would have said something like that about Americans, I would have had trouble with a mod now. :) And his respectability already scores very low over here, not even one in ten sympathises with him.

Not that it means something for american voters. But a next US president wanting something from europe better performs much better in diplomatic behavior than Bush did.

Obama was asked "Why bother to go to Europe during the American campaign for President? Don't you think that this whole trip will backfire as you are perceived as being EUROPE'S candidate? Shouldn't you be focusing on the issues important to Americans? What good comes from your trip? How does it help Americans?"

His answer was as honest as it was correct. While you appear to be narrowed in on just one aspect of his answer there was more to it. He mentioned energy, he mentioned reducing greenhouse emissions, he mentioned the continuing globalism of the worlds economy, he spoke on the importance of rebuilding the trust and working relationships between the U.S. and it's European Partners, etc~ and there is no doubt that Americans will be asked to do more than we have in some areas, and at a high cost- a cost that Bush was unwilling to pay.

HOWEVER as part of his answer, Barack Obama ALSO commented upon the following:

If the United States is truly supported in the War Against Terror then that means we would not have to shoulder the whole (or nearly so) burden associated with it. Our NATO Allies could SHARE the burdens, share the costs, share the fighting.

Was he wrong? Are the Germans now upset that his honesty extends that far?

Not like Obama is asking the European Countries to take on any more of a commitment than the U.S. has shouldered for years already.

As I recall, the question of AFGHANISTAN was never in doubt. When NATO released the following statement regarding the war on terror- maybe we misunderstood?

NATO pledges to support war beyond Afghanistan (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/07/powell.htm)
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/07/powell.htm)
12/06/2001 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/07/powell.htm)

BRUSSELS — NATO foreign ministers pledged the alliance's full backing Thursday for carrying the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network beyond Afghanistan.

"We will continue our support for the U.S.-led operation against these terrorists until it has reached its objectives," ministers from the 19 NATO nations declared in a joint statement. "We reiterate our determination to combat the threat of terrorism for as long as necessary."


I don't have a problem with NATO not supporting Iraq- and I don't blame Germany and others for not wanting to rush in to save the day after Bushes stupidity got us into this dicey situation in Afghanistan as a direct result of his ignorance (on so many levels) regarding Iraq... BUT:

Obama is talking about Afghanistan and the terrorist links there have never been disputed. That was the right war, right place, right time. And it was supposedly the place where NATO agreed to take an active part.

Don't you think the time has come to step it up and finish the job. Is that an unreasonable request; that NATO shoulder it fair share? Or shall the U.S. continue to provide the lion's share of the resources and lion's share of the troops while Europe stands by and watches from what is generally a fairly safe distance from the fighting?

I hate the way Bush has conducted foriegn policy- I hate the way he has treated our allies and the way he has demonstarted a bullying form of diplomacy since he took office. HE has treated most Americans the same way! I hate all of that- but if change is to come and if the U.S. is expected to renew the traditional freindships that is based upon trust, then that emmisary of change must be allowed to show that it is worthwhile. He has chosen the War on Terror to demonstrate it is a worthy quest to undertake.

I understand that the quote below comes from the Bush Administration but as our troops are dying in Afghanistan- the American People are listening.

Allies' refusal to boost Afghanistan troops a threat to Nato, Gates says

· Europeans unwilling to fight and die, US says
· Campaign against Taliban 'vital for western security'

The US administration warned yesterday that Nato could be destroyed if European allied troops were not prepared to fight and die in Afghanistan and argued that, unlike the Americans, Europeans were failing to grasp how much was at stake for western security in Afghanistan. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, also pointed to the dangers of a western alliance divided between US forces who do the fighting and Europeans who follow later to conduct the civilian clean-up operations.

Following weeks of recrimination between Washington and European capitals, particularly Berlin, over troop contributions and fighting capacity in Nato's troubled Afghan mission, Gates told a conference of defence policy-makers and security experts in Munich that Nato's future was on the line in the war against the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

"Some allies ought not to have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations, thus forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying," said Gates.

Nato had no future as an "alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance."

Officials from Germany, whose troops are confined to non-combat duties in relatively stable northern Afghanistan, put up a robust defence of their policy despite pressure from Washington to send more forces and to help the British, Canadians, and Dutch on the frontlines in the south. They rejected Gates's "finger-pointing", saying the Bush administration failed to understand how unpopular the mission was and that the German parliament would not support sending more than the 3,500 troops currently deployed.

The European reluctance to get more involved no doubt lays at the feet of George W. Bush. But to the American People- we would rather not see any more bodies of our American soldiers piled there than is necessary. We do not wish for the Germans or others to do what they simply cannot do- but on the other hand, freinds do help freinds in time of need. We could use a hand.

If your government chooses to ignore Obama's request then so be it- we will succeed in the end. There is absolutely no doubt about that as American anger buids. The only question is whether the old alliances can truly survive what the American PEOPLE will no doubt veiw as a betrayal when we called and nobody answered.

A matter of trust, maybe?

[Schroeder]

Well Germany has recently taken over the "Quick Reaction Force" (I think that's the English name for it) for the entire north of Afghanistan.
Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.

Maybe you aren't familiar of the strength of the German forces. We can't send conscripts on missions in foreign countries. Our constitution forbids that (safety measure after WWII that should make sure that Germany will never start a big war again). So the only guys we can send are volunteers and professional soldiers. There aren't that many of them (our army is based on the draft of people) and since we are already involved in KFOR, SFOR and Enduring Freedom I don't see much capacity left to raise the number of our troops in Afghanistan significantly.
Besides, Germany is way smaller than the US. How much more are we supposed to do?;)

[Platapus]

Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.




Those Tornado aircraft are pretty capable planes :up: I never got a chance to work on one but always wanted to.

[Skybird]

Well Germany has recently taken over the &quot;Quick Reaction Force&quot; (I think that's the English name for it) for the entire north of Afghanistan.
Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.
don't make me laugh. Now they have six helicopters. Usually, two of them are operational, but not on rare opportunities all six of them due to their age needed maintenance and where not able when the norwegians (the former rapid reaction force) called them in for quick reaction. you need a lucky day to have the german quick reaciton force reacting quick, really. Better expect them to arrive on the scene of the crime in Marders, many hours or even one or two days later. This is not just my talking, but feedback I get from two friends I have in the BW, two officers who have had tours in Afghanistan.

when the german tornadoes shoot pictures, these are shot without digital live uplink. the data is not available until the planes returned to base, the film was processed and analysed, and then the communication and planning gets doen to react to what citical thing you see on the film.

Reaction time: 4-6 hours. after four hours, the column of men they photographs, is long since gone.

current tropps in Afghanistan are around 54.000. Military experts and the last commander of forces said that 350.000 to 400.000 troops would be needed to gain upper hand in the war and control the enemy. 1.000 mo0re or less - it does not make a decisive difference.



Joe,

Obama gets quoted in practically all major newspapers here to have said, after his return from europe, that if NATO sends more troops to Afghanistan, America could withdraw troops there, save the money for the operation and turn it into tax savings for Americans at home. to this context and quote I refer. and diplomatically seen, it was stupoid to put it this bluntly. As stupid as the general offense by MacCain's apeman, offending Germans for having applauded Obama's adress.

Regarding NATO and Afghanistan, I always was against making this a NATO operation, and have said and argued on many occasions why I think so. That the war for years was led incompetently, was forgotten in favour of Iraq, did not make it better. Regarding Germany, the German govenment still lies to the people about the real nature of this war, and tries to hide it and gloss it over. As a result the german mission is run by false assumptions, is underfunded financially and logistically, and leave the troops in an extremely vulnerable position where they depend on the mercy of their possible enemy whom they cannot escape since they totally lack the needed autark mobility for that. Every cop on German streets is allowed to use more force than german soldiers in Afghanistan, and you better take that statement literally, because it is like that exactly.

the role of NATO in it is a description of how messed up the internal order of the alliancen is, how far america and europe already are apart in the understanding of ehat NATO is, and how limited the will of unity in it really is. German assumptions regarding Obama are - wrongly - that he pould accept to subscrbe to the european position to endlessly blablabla things and swear of methods of war. that si why m,any people here will have a rough awakening with Obama if hw would get elected, and the hype about him could turn into the oppsotie within one day - parts of the leading politicans already voiced their anger regarding careful remarks Oabma made that could be interpreted that he wants to wage a tougher stringer war in afghanistan by use of more european troops. No honeymoon is forever, and for europeans and especially germans it could become a tough awakening.

the war on Afghanistan I have very complex views on, and on the role of the germans and NATO in it. Almost two years ago I wrote along essay about it and linked it, &quot;Trapped in the Afghan maze.&quot; It close to thirty pages, and is a thorough description of how I saw things 24-48 months ago. the old link is no longer active, but I could send you the text, if you want. I see both the Us and Europe failing in Afghanistan, but for very different reasons, and for reasons of deceiving themselves and even working against each other, partially. the Germany position about Afghanistan is one of self-deception, and overestimation of the european attractiveness. the american position is one of self-justifying for the past 30 years, and simplifying the present. the enemy had been allowed to regroup and has been prematurely written off the table, Pakistan is leftf untouched, and more than half of the financial aids have dissappeared in dark channels. Just a question of differing opinions within NATO? If it only would be as easy as that. Truth is the reality on the ground is many times more complex and difficult.

since years I see the afghanistan war as a war lost, and it was lost without need, what is happening now is buying time to evade needing to admit that. One could say that pragmatism should take over and NATO should send more troops there, but one can also rightfully point at that the mess was self-made, and that NATO was brought into it by playing tricks, intimidation, and even cheating. My position is thta as long as I see prctically all european goverments taking nonsens about Afghanistan and designing their non-working policies on the basis of decpetions, lies and a total inabulity to form a reaistic assessement of the country and the ideological drive behind this conflict, I must refuse to send troops - including american troops! - there on the basis of lies and telling them to risk their lifes for anti-intellectual BS, dreams, follies and illusions. Because you do not have any justification to give to your men when sending them there that would allow you to escape needing to lower your eyes when telling them. insteasd of looking straight.

at least if you are not a trained and experienced liar.

Afghanistan is a mess, and it is a maze, and everybody is running around blind and meaningless. I recommend the reading of these books:

Youssaf, M. (General from Pakistan)
The bear trap

Rothstein, H.S. (Colonel from USA)
Afghanistan and the troubled future of unconventional warfare

Obama and MacCain are politicians, and that means: don't trust them. They drive their own selfish agenda, and for that both talk their propaganda. they pour right that honey into your ear that is serving best to make you listening to them.But the reality is so much more complex, and uneasy.

[JoeCorrado]

Well Germany has recently taken over the "Quick Reaction Force" (I think that's the English name for it) for the entire north of Afghanistan.
Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.

Maybe you aren't familiar of the strength of the German forces. We can't send conscripts on missions in foreign countries. Our constitution forbids that (safety measure after WWII that should make sure that Germany will never start a big war again). So the only guys we can send are volunteers and professional soldiers. There aren't that many of them (our army is based on the draft of people) and since we are already involved in KFOR, SFOR and Enduring Freedom I don't see much capacity left to raise the number of our troops in Afghanistan significantly.
Besides, Germany is way smaller than the US. How much more are we supposed to do?;)
I think that Germany is doing pretty much all that it can at the moment given the political situation among other things. Obama's staements probably were not intended to insinuate otherwise. "People of Berlin, People of the WORLD" - Namely the nations of NATO (and of the world) in this particular regard.

I believe his statements were intended more as a recognition that the German Government is fulfilling in large part it's legitimate committments and not simply dabbling in the art of war ('they need our troops, they need your troops') while others are coming up short and could do much more than they seem willing. The U.S. is taking up much of that slack. As is Germany. We can all do more. We MUST do more.

Germany already has the largest number of troops inside Afghanistan besides the United States and she is sending additional troops and expanding their role at the same time. As an American Citizen I am thankful for her assistance- and keenly aware of her concerns as well as her sacrifices. COMBAT missions are what is needed. Taking photo's is great, but that doesn't eliminate the threats you may be able to see- for that bullets are needed.

Under pressure from NATO, Germany announced Tuesday that it would increase the number of soldiers available for duty in Afghanistan by almost one-third to 4,500, but that it would maintain its policy of keeping the bulk of them away from the relatively violent southern provinces.

On July 1 the German army took command of a NATO strike force in the north of Afghanistan, providing a combat force in the region for the first time.

The Quick Reaction Force (QRF), consisting of 200 well-armed German soldiers, is stationed in Mazar-e-Sharif and will be deployed mainly for combat missions in northern Afghanistan. Deployments in the war-torn south of the country are also possible, and there is no time limit for the QRF mission, although military planners estimate that troops will be needed in the country for between 10 and 15 years. Until now, the role of the QRF was filled by a Norwegian unit, which has been operating in the region under German responsibility since 2006.


Defence Secretary Franz Josef Jung, (Christian Democratic Union—CDU) stressed that the German population should be clear there was a high risk of casualties with the deployment of the new force.

At the same time, the German army wants to supplement its troop strength in Afghanistan by an additional 1,000 soldiers. This was announced by the German defence secretary last week. In future, an extra 1,000 German soldiers will join the current force of 3,500, “in order to be able to react more flexibly to challenges”, according to Jung. The planned increase to 4,500 soldiers effectively quadruples the number of German troops in the country since the German army commenced its mission seven years ago.


The Bundestag will vote on whether to increase troops deployments this autumn, but it is already clear that there exists a broad majority, both in the ruling coalition (Social Democratic Party-CDU-Christian Social Union), and among the opposition Greens and pro-business Free Democratic Party. The only party to reject the deployment is the Left Party. There are already indications, however, that the Left Party is willing to use the issue of deployment in Afghanistan as a bargaining chip in order to secure its participation in the near future in a federal coalition government.


The current mandate for German operations in Afghanistan runs out on October 13, 2008, and Jung plans to push for its extension until December 2009. The two months extension to the yearly renewal is clearly intended to prevent the German deployment becoming a theme in the parliamentary elections due in autumn of next year.


Barack Obama will be meeting with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani today or tomorrow and Obama will be voicing the same message of doing more along the Afghan-Pakistan Border.

Obama also has stated that the United States must do more. The message is not limited Germany or the nations of Europe. Other countries who have enjoyed the benefits of strong alliances in the past must also step up to the plate and do what they reasonably can to assist. Germany is doing her part troop wise- MISSION wise, it could do much better.

NATO as a "group" is not and others around the world are not. I am certain that the "people of the world" will eventually take a closer look at Germany and hopefully realize their own responsibilities in the fight against this "global" terrorist threat.

I hope that sheds a little more light on the subject.

[JoeCorrado]

Joe,

Obama gets quoted in practically all major newspapers here to have said, after his return from europe, that if NATO sends more troops to Afghanistan, America could withdraw troops there, save the money for the operation and turn it into tax savings for Americans at home. to this context and quote I refer. and diplomatically seen, it was stupoid to put it this bluntly. As stupid as the general offense by MacCain's apeman, offending Germans for having applauded Obama's adress.

Regarding NATO and Afghanistan, I always was against making this a NATO operation, and have said and argued on many occasions why I think so. That the war for years was led incompetently, was forgotten in favour of Iraq, did not make it better.

Regarding Germany, the German govenment still lies to the people about the real nature of this war, and tries to hide it and gloss it over. As a result the german mission is run by false assumptions, is underfunded financially and logistically, and leave the troops in an extremely vulnerable position where they depend on the mercy of their possible enemy whom they cannot escape since they totally lack the needed autark mobility for that. Every cop on German streets is allowed to use more force than german soldiers in Afghanistan, and you better take that statement literally, because it is like that exactly.

the role of NATO in it is a description of how messed up the internal order of the alliancen is, how far america and europe already are apart in the understanding of ehat NATO is, and how limited the will of unity in it really is. German assumptions regarding Obama are - wrongly - that he pould accept to subscrbe to the european position to endlessly blablabla things and swear of methods of war. that si why m,any people here will have a rough awakening with Obama if hw would get elected, and the hype about him could turn into the oppsotie within one day - parts of the leading politicans already voiced their anger regarding careful remarks Oabma made that could be interpreted that he wants to wage a tougher stringer war in afghanistan by use of more european troops. No honeymoon is forever, and for europeans and especially germans it could become a tough awakening.

the war on Afghanistan I have very complex views on, and on the role of the germans and NATO in it. Almost two years ago I wrote along essay about it and linked it, &quot;Trapped in the Afghan maze.&quot; It close to thirty pages, and is a thorough description of how I saw things 24-48 months ago. the old link is no longer active, but I could send you the text, if you want. I see both the Us and Europe failing in Afghanistan, but for very different reasons, and for reasons of deceiving themselves and even working against each other, partially. the Germany position about Afghanistan is one of self-deception, and overestimation of the european attractiveness. the american position is one of self-justifying for the past 30 years, and simplifying the present. the enemy had been allowed to regroup and has been prematurely written off the table, Pakistan is leftf untouched, and more than half of the financial aids have dissappeared in dark channels. Just a question of differing opinions within NATO? If it only would be as easy as that. Truth is the reality on the ground is many times more complex and difficult.

since years I see the afghanistan war as a war lost, and it was lost without need, what is happening now is buying time to evade needing to admit that. One could say that pragmatism should take over and NATO should send more troops there, but one can also rightfully point at that the mess was self-made, and that NATO was brought into it by playing tricks, intimidation, and even cheating. My position is thta as long as I see prctically all european goverments taking nonsens about Afghanistan and designing their non-working policies on the basis of decpetions, lies and a total inabulity to form a reaistic assessement of the country and the ideological drive behind this conflict, I must refuse to send troops - including american troops! - there on the basis of lies and telling them to risk their lifes for anti-intellectual BS, dreams, follies and illusions. Because you do not have any justification to give to your men when sending them there that would allow you to escape needing to lower your eyes when telling them. insteasd of looking straight.

at least if you are not a trained and experienced liar.

Afghanistan is a mess, and it is a maze, and everybody is running around blind and meaningless. I recommend the reading of these books:

Youssaf, M. (General from Pakistan)
The bear trap

Rothstein, H.S. (Colonel from USA)
Afghanistan and the troubled future of unconventional warfare

Obama and MacCain are politicians, and that means: don't trust them. They drive their own selfish agenda, and for that both talk their propaganda. they pour right that honey into your ear that is serving best to make you listening to them.But the reality is so much more complex, and uneasy.
Item 1. If others do not step up and participate in a more meaningful way in Afghanistan the the U.S. WILL go it alone. Have no doubt about that. And that going it alone will cost the Americans dearly. THAT is what he meant- we can do it alone if we must, but it would be easier and far less expensive for many nations to participate instead of the one. And that would be good for America. Maybe it was just lost in the translation?

Item 2. Of course Obama agrees with you. The war in Afghanistan was where we should have stayed focus and done the job there as we needed to. He was against the war in Iraq from the start.

Item 3. Yes, Germany has more troops on the ground in Afghanistan than anybody else besides the United States. The problem is that they are not allowed to take part in combat missions for the most part. A soldier who cannot perform the duties of a soldier is not all that much help.

Item 4. Please do send me the text. I look forward to reading it!

Item 5. Obama has stated that the United States sent Pakistan some $10 billion and wonders just where it was spent. Clearly no additional aid is warranted unless it will go towards the intended purpose.

Item 6. Most wars are more complicated close up than they are from far away. This one is no different and no less messy.

Item 7. George Bush and much of his administration have been dishonorable, misleading, lying, bullying, and generally all around bad guys since they took office. Their abuse of trust has only been exceeded by their abuse of power.

Having said that- what happened on 9-11-2001 was not a fairy tale. It did happen and we know who, we know where, and we know how- and we also know our duty. When it comes to Afghanistan all Americans stand united.

We WILL track them down, we will kill them and we WILL do it, with or without anybody elses help. THAT choice, is yours.

[Skybird]

Hope this works:

http://rapidshare.com/files/133192014/Afghanistan.pdf.html

Please note the date: Nov. 2006. But all in all I do not see it different today.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7528112.stm

Close ally...? Dream on. Pakistan is an active war faction, and ally, protector and supporter of the Taleban that it had created itself. Has China been an ally of the US in the Vietnam war?

[JoeCorrado]

Hope this works:

http://rapidshare.com/files/133192014/Afghanistan.pdf.html

Please note the date: Nov. 2006. But all in all I do not see it different today.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7528112.stm

Close ally...? Dream on. Pakistan is an active war faction, and ally, protector and supporter of the Taleban that it had created itself. Has China been an ally of the US in the Vietnam war?

Got it, thanks.

I imagine it made Pakistan a little uncomfortable to say the least- a U.S. violation of it's sovereignty just hours before their Prime Minister landed in Washington. Hmmm, what to do, what to do. :rotfl: