An American idol in Germany

[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.

[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.

[Platapus]

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

[Platapus]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...t_of_obama.php

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

http://cnn.site.printthis.clickabili...rtnerID=211911

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

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

Better than that- watch the speech for yourself.

--

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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by 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.

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