An American idol in Germany

[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!

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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]

Originally Posted by 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?.

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...

[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.

[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.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by 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!

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!

[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?"

[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

[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.............

[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.

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. 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.