An American idol in Germany

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

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).
That's actually what made us really dislike him.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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? 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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by 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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.

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

[Schroeder]

Depends on how much you pay me.
:rotfl:

Sorry Skybird, we're going OT again.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Depends on how much you pay me.
:rotfl:

Sorry Skybird, we're going OT again.

Jedem Tierchen sein Pläsierchen.

[AntEater]

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Depends on how much you pay me.
:rotfl:

Sorry Skybird, we're going OT again.

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

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

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.

Well that's 63 years ago, how about we talk of todays situation.

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.............