Two old buddies continue to sparr

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...728482,00.html

"We noticed that the intellectual level of the (US president) was exceedingly limited," Uwe-Karsten Heye, Schröder's former government spokesman, told the television news station N24 on Wednesday in reference to Bush. "As such, it was difficult for us to communicate with him."Heye continued: "He had no idea about what was going on in the world. He was so fixated on being a Texan. I think he knew every longhorn in Texas."

Who said there is no life after Bush...?

The book has not received friendly feedback by the few commentators in Germany who thought they must lose a word on it. The author's memory and sense of realism is being questioned. What certainly is no news.

Earlier this week, Bush compl,ained about Schroeder having signalled support, but then having left Bush alone, not standing by his word. Schroeder, asked over the words by which Bush has quoted him, is reported of immediately having put it straight by using no different formulation than: "He lies."

[Takeda Shingen]

In fairness, the German political intellegentsia had it in for George W. Bush well before the man even took office. Asking for Schröder to say anything nice about Bush is like asking a Washington Redskins fan to compliment the Cowboys; ain't gonna happen.

Hot air.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

In fairness, the German political intellegentsia had it in for George W. Bush well before the man even took office. Asking for Schröder to say anything nice about Bush is like asking a Washington Redskins fan to compliment the Cowboys; ain't gonna happen.

As if in return it had been any different! Old Europe, anyone?

Hot air.

Of course. But quite funny to witness from the sideline.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...728336,00.html

"At a G-8 dinner in St. Petersburg," Bush writes, "most of the leaders challenged Putin on his democratic record. (French President) Jacques Chirac did not."

He continues: "That was nothing compared to what Gerhard Schröder did. Shortly after the German chancellor stepped down from office, he became chairman of a company owned by Gazprom, Russia's state-owned energy giant."
Schröder so far has declined comment on the implied insult.

I even admit that here Bush had a point. Even in Germany Schroeder was attacked - and still is - over this. On the other hands, I stick with Helmut Schmidt who said that a country outside Russia should feel lucky to gain such a trustful position inside the most important economic sector of Russia.

Becasue as things are today, Russia simply is quite important for Germany. I would even unsentimentally say Russian-German relations are more important to Germany than German relations to most - not all - European countries.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I even admit that here Bush had a point. Even in Germany Schroeder was attacked - and still is - over this. On the other hands, I stick with Helmut Schmidt who said that a country outside Russia should feel lucky to gain such a trustful position inside the most important economic sector of Russia.

Becasue as things are today, Russia simply is quite important for Germany. I would even unsentimentally say Russian-German relations are more important to Germany than German relations to most - not all - European countries.

I think Merkel called in private it a treasonous deal by Schoreder after taking office.

I have sensed you effection with this idea of Russia and Germany forming an continental pact.

No one else in Europe will tolerate such politics if it will lead to any hegemony over others..especially in between.
The Franco-German deals are enough to bare for the rest.

I remind there are others that are net payers in this European experiment and they should have a saying.
If not, secession is the word, but even that right has been taken away by undemocratic means.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

I think Merkel called in private it a treasonous deal by Schoreder after taking office.

I have sensed you effection with this idea of Russia and Germany forming an continental pact.

No one else in Europe will tolerate such politics if it will lead to any hegemony over others..especially in between.
The Franco-German deals are enough to bare for the rest.

I remind there are others that are net payers in this European experiment and they should have a saying.
If not, secession is the word, but even that right has been taken away by undemocratic means.

Pact? I see regarding the Russians you are as paranoid as ever.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pact? I see regarding the Russians you are as paranoid as ever.

Regarding Russo-German relations im not alone in observing what path it takes.
The countires in between have their interests to consider, they dont want get trampled.


Germany After the EU and the Russian Scenario
By George Friedman
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100...ssian_scenario

[Skybird]

Russia-provoking Poland and paranoid Fins are not my standard to assess a people objectivity on Russia. Nobody gets trampled upton. But possibly some who think they are mor eimportant than they are, gets rejected acceptance for being taken more important than they are. Like Poland wanting to serve as the needle's eye for energy transfers from Russia to Europpe, and Germany, and that way always being able to project disproportional influence in Brussel due to that. Germany has no reason at all to play by those rules and not build the Baltic pipe,line that bypasses Poland. If that is what qualifies as "trampling", well, then I am happy to lend the boots.

However.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...728973,00.html

In the run-up to the Iraq war, US President George W. Bush made empty promises to German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder about consulting the international community before taking a decision on military action. In truth, he was already preparing an invasion.

Gerhard Schröder was still popular in Washington when he visited President George W. Bush on Jan. 31, 2002. A few months earlier, the chancellor had risked his political future by calling a confidence vote on the issue of dispatching German troops to join the US-led anti-terrorism operation in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.

Bush was grateful. But he was already planning the Iraq war. A row over what was said at the meeting has erupted following the publication last week of Bush's memoirs, "Decision Points," in which he claims Schröder offered him support on Iraq. Schröder has denied this.

Bush wasn't telling the truth, Schröder is right about that, SPIEGEL writes in its edition to be published on Monday. The president claimed he had no war plan on the table -- but the military had presented him with the first draft four weeks before he met Schröder. He claimed diplomacy would take precedence, but he was already determined to enforce regime change in Baghdad.

He promised to consult his allies, but unlike the Europeans, he understood that to mean an answer to the simple question: are you for us or against us? The Europeans thought he was willing to discuss the wisdom and the risks of an invasion.

In his own memoirs published in 2006, Schröder claims he told Bush that, were there a demonstrable link between al-Qaida and Iraq, the US would have Germany's full support. "The connection, however, as it became clear during 2002, was false and constructed," Schröder said.

However, Schröder himself was not telling the entire truth at the Jan. 31 meeting. It would have been virtually impossible for him to secure a parliamentary majority for German involvement in an Iraq invasion, given that the Afghanistan vote in 2001 had already been so close.

Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister at the time, is due to publish his own memoirs in February 2011. Referring to meetings between Schröder and Bush in Berlin in May 2002, Fischer writes that the chancellor and the president skirted around the issue "because both knew that they held opposing views that could not be reconciled."

"The chancellor asked to be involved in the decision and Bush replied that there was nothing on his desk to be decided and that if things got that far the allies would be informed," Fischer writes. "Schröder wanted to be involved in the decision, while Bush assured him he would be informed when he had taken a decision."

If Schröder had given Bush assurances of German help at the Jan. 31 meeting, "this would have become evident in the discussion in May," Fischer writes.

[Castout]

When you get to the level of being a president it's less about intelligence than moral leadership.

A president has more than enough people and experts to do the thinking while he must make a decision that's most importantly morally accountable to the people that elected him imo.

I would worry about a president's morality than intelligence at least to me.
Of course nobody's perfect but my saying is that we don't need Stephen Hawking at the state presidential level.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Castout

...
Of course nobody's perfect but my saying is that we don't need Stephen Hawking at the state presidential level.

Maybe, but then we don't need to have idiots as presidents/prime ministers, either...
As for the morality issue ... maybe that got caught in one of Hawking's black holes ...

.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

When you get to the level of being a president it's less about intelligence than moral leadership.

A president has more than enough people and experts to do the thinking while he must make a decision that's most importantly morally accountable to the people that elected him imo.

I would worry about a president's morality than intelligence at least to me.
Of course nobody's perfect but my saying is that we don't need Stephen Hawking at the state presidential level.

Both heart AND HEAD, please. Moralists alone imo have committed more crime and barbarism throughout history, than labelled villains or bright minds. To me, "moralist" almost is an invective. Like I differ between honour (good) and pride (bad), I differ between ethics and morals. And moralists being proud of their morals, without doubt are amongst the most despicable types of humans there are, like people feeling ethically responsible beyond themselves and understanding that as part of their sense of honour, appear to be amongst the most noble ones.

Du brauchst mehr als nur die Liebe,
dein Herz braucht den Verstand,
denn sonst ist die größte Liebe
wie ein Zimmer ohne Wand.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Both heart AND HEAD, please. Moralists alone imo have committed more crime and barbarism throughout history, than labelled villains or bright minds. To me, "moralist" almost is an invective. Like I differ between honour (good) and pride (bad), I differ between ethics and morals. And moralists being proud of their morals, without doubt are amongst the most despicable types of humans there are, like people feeling ethically responsible beyond themselves and understanding that as part of their sense of honour, appear to be amongst the most noble ones.

Du brauchst mehr als nur die Liebe,
dein Herz braucht den Verstand,
denn sonst ist die größte Liebe
wie ein Zimmer ohne Wand.

Well the world knows moralists who are not moral

That the only kind of moralist that I despise.
I don't think a proud man would be proud of his moral it just would not make any sense at all. I can't see moral as something that one can be proud of. But the world is filled with funny people indeed . . . . so who knows.

Pride is not always a bad thing. Excessive pride stemming from ego is bad but ordinary people should have pride in their life. Whether it is pride for their country(the other term is patriotism), their work or dedication to their work(called passion), their family or spouse(called commitment) ,their God(not religion, and and it differs from fanaticism and it's called glorifying God of course must be with reason). One with pride can actually work and persevere better than those without and able to take a stand when a stand is needed.

My rule of thumb for checking pride is not doing to others what you wouldn't want to receive yourself.

Above most people I have known about excessive pride all too well considering my ordeal in a certain city state. It's not only sickening but maddening. Pride from ego is equal to madness and pure stupidity imo and a mark of childish and shallow character and insecurities and lack of self esteem.

Well as for Head and hearts, don't we all know what George Bush Jr looks like? :-P
He's not exactly an imbecile. I'm not saying that a leader doesn't need a brilliant mind but a political leader must above all be held accountable for his policies and decisions. I'd rather have a not so bright political leader than a bright leader turned dictator or WORSE a not so bright leader turned dictator. As long as one doesn't turn into a despot or dictator it's quite acceptable to me.

As for love like a room without wall when the heart is not accompanied with the mind well I think only the divine(God) is able to love without limitation and it's not because God doesn't have a mind and only heart but because He knows all too well than the average of mankind , no all too well than all people(I know this for a fact actually). So God loves the smallest of a person who doesn't even know Him at all and for that one occasion who practiced a form of shamanism, a well taboo for religious people.

[Skybird]

You cannot be proud of what you have not acchieved yourself. That rules out to be proud of things like religion and nations. That is pride in the meaning of a collective habit that you have been taught. So: no positive from this kind of pride.

One meaning of honour is to do what you do as best as you can, and be wise in what you choose to do (or not to do). That way, you try to do what is right and appropriate for the need of the situation. But if you are proud of your acchievements, then you stick to them, gte loocked to them - and then your acchievements, may it be merits of service or solid results of your hand's work, are not yours, but you are owned by them.

I more follow a Buddhist than a Catholic understanding of the term "pride". For Catholics, pride as the most profound of the seven sins (which leads to the others) means the self-aggrendisement of the ego until it thinks it is equal to or superior to the grandness of God, and it means the perverted self-love that culminates in the hate on others. In Buddhism, pride is one of the ten fetters, which are ten factors that keep a human trapped in the karmic cycle of endless rebirths. That means a type of pride that for a description can use terms like "arrogance" as well as "staying stuck with acchievements" of yours because you wallow in sentiments of boasting with them. You cannot move on, you cannot improve that way. You allow blindness to paralyse you, and you deny the chance of true enlightenment to you.

And honour, it does not depend on outer symbols, nor is it connected to the rules of "outer" authorities and organisations. Honour is in what you chose to do, or not, and in the way you do it. Your deeds and decisions is what defines your honour - no external honour code, and no acchievements by others, and no rules by some group. What others believe we are,m means nothing, what we chose to do even when nobody will ever know is what defines who we are. True honour knows neither pride nor glory - it knows service, and duty.

Pride for membership in an organisation, pride of one's religion or country - is just pathos, and narcissism, and is directed against others. Nothing good can come from it.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You cannot be proud of what you have not acchieved yourself.

Yea. That words weigh themselves in gold

Originally Posted by Skybird

And honour, it does not depend on outer symbols, nor is it connected to the rules of "outer" authorities and organisations. Honour is in what you chose to do, or not, and in the way you do it. Your deeds and decisions is what defines your honour - no external honour code, and no acchievements by others, and no rules by some group. What others believe we are,m means nothing, what we chose to do even when nobody will ever know is what defines who we are. True honour knows neither pride nor glory - it knows service, and duty.

Again
But I must add most people can't help but mixing pride and honor. Most people including me are too shallow to be above pride.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pride for membership in an organisation, pride of one's religion or country - is just pathos, and narcissism, and is directed against others. Nothing good can come from it.

Well too many people subscribed to shallow patriotism imo

[Skybird]

Berlin efforts to prevent Iraq invasion

Classified papers prove German warnings to Bush

According to the notes -- all in German -- the meeting amounted to 90 minutes of verbal blows, which primarily stemmed from Rice's "relatively rigorous and uncompromising" defense of the US position. The same notes indicate that Scharioth didn't budge an inch toward Washington, either. In retrospect, though, they document a high point in German diplomatic history, because the objections and predictions put forward by Berlin on that Tuesday have turned out to be legitimate and correct.

The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."

The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Likewise, they prophesized that going to war would precipitate a "terrorist backlash." Scharioth stressed that it was important "to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim elite and youths," according to the notes, and that this was "not to be achieved" by going to war. He also added that doing so would greatly increase the danger of prompting an "influx to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism."

(...)

During this time, the Americans were growing impatient because they wanted to launch their attack before the onset of the heat and sandstorms accompanying the warmer months of the year. This, in turn, prompted Rice to push for action in a conversation with Scharioth. She argued that "everything had been tried"* over the last 12 years but Saddam Hussein has "always misled, hidden and stalled."


In response, Berlin called for the inspections regime to be intensified and for the inspectors to be given more time. Chancellor Schröder even teamed up with then-French President Jacques Chirac and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin, forging an alliance on the Security Council, of which Germany was a non-permanent member in 2003. Rice justifiably complained that the Germans were apparently pursuing the goal of "preventing the United States from going to war."