Forums | MacLife

RU wrote:

Isn't that the basis of an alliance? Mutual agreement and benefit? Of course they need to agree! Perhaps not on all issues, but on key issues. This, apparently, is a key issue.

Yes, but unconditional mutual agreement as a necessary condition of alliance can easily exascerbate bad situations. . . this is just such a case.

For me, it's a key issue in a wider theatre than just mutual co-operation between the US and Germany in the case of dealing with Iraq. Here is a dictator, who is not a threat to the US, and who the US wants to oust anyway by way of an invasion. It's questionable what the real US agenda is with regard to Iraq.

Does the US government have the right to assert its will over the rest of the world? If it does, to what extent? Ought the US government demonstrate a credible threat to its own homeland in order to justify invasion of another?

In other news, the German gov't requests the immediate closing of all McDonald's and Pizza Hut franchises, gaudy "American themed" bars and the return of some 85 million AOL CDs.

Rap music has been banned as of this morning.

The Americans are expected to send back all decent beer, various sausage products, the secret recipe for hamburgers and several ex nazi rocket propulsion engineers.

Rap music has been banned as of this morning.

I could only wish

The Americans are expected to send back all decent beer, various sausage products, the secret recipe for hamburgers and several ex nazi rocket propulsion engineers.

Well, no german beer would have to be sent back. English beer would have to be sent back by the tanker full.

What use would germany have for rocket engineers except to bomb Britan once again.

Alliances are hard. Back in the 60s and early 70s, Europe disagreed powerfully with Washington's war in Southeast Asia. There were giant protests, even riots, but NATO held firm.

I guess the difference between now and then is the Soviet threat. Europe doesn't feel like it needs the US as once it did. That's a pretty short-sighted attitude, because Europe most definitely does need the US. The West needs to stay united, especially in an age of international terrorism.

At the same time, the US needs to understand that it not only needs to respect Europe, but respect its opinions. People are talking about the "unproductive attitude" of the French, but American leaders are going smurf here. One senator was making anti-French jokes on teh Senate floor. How in the hell is that going to help anything?

When allies disagree, they need to talk to each other, adjust their policies and work out their differences. I think the US attitude is deplorable. They're being totally rigid and intransigent on the Iraq issue, and refusing to tolerate dissent. I think every US president of the last 60 years would be horrified by the prospect of jeopardizing its European alliances over this dumbass war.

The US may feel free to insult its erstwhile friends, but a few years down the road it is going to feel very lonely indeed.

I find it quite sad and amusing that some of the same people who protest US military bases overseas as imperialistic also attack the US when those bases are removed.

Sure it's harsh politics, maybe a little extreme (it seems to be a pretty big gun, I would have prefered to save it for later), but it's a valid political move.

I'm sure that hundreds in Germany who protested the bases will now protest their removal. Hehe.

I don't think the people from germany care if the USA army leaves them, they don't need them at all but punishing germany because they disagree is very wrong.

S Korea needs ot be next. The people don't want us there.
Close the bases and come home.
Let them reunite with the north like Vietnam did.

Or the US could stay and help Vietnam like they did. 

My Vietnamese worker looking over my sholder found you quite funny.
I think stupid was the best translation I could find.(my Vietnamese is rather poor)
You should really speak to a citizen who fought to keep the NV out.
His father was sent to a reeducation camp for 10 years and didn't come home. Yeah real funny. He was glad the Americans came to help.

Didn't keep him out of the reeducation camp, though, did it? And killed a couple million of his countrymen to boot. That was the point of the post -- not questioning the value of US intervention, but whether or not it did any good.

Hang on I'll ask...

From what I can understand, the American intervention opened a pandora's box of freedom the NV could not completely quell. The NV have now started a more capitalistic aproach to life in Vietnam. This started not long after 1975.

He also tells me thet if we had bombed the hell out of Hanoi(and I quote) the North would have declared an armastice and his dad would have never been persicuted. He appreciates every American that tried to save his country. He sends his many thanks.(my best translation)

Well, let's just leave it at that. The issue of Vietnam is a large and divisive one.

Even though I'm against the war, I think that this is just a reality of International relations.  If Germany is confident in her actions, then she is more than certainly prepared for this.  If she isn't, then she needs to decide which is more important to her:  her morals or her economy.  I should hope that Germany is not so shallow so that bribery undermines her morality.

I do not believe that morals play into the issue at all... Germany stands to lose quite a bit of revenue if Saddam is overthrown and if the new regime will not play nice with the Fatherland.. France as well, I believe their trade with Iraq brings 1.5 billion annually to the French economy...


Americas pascifist idealogy of the 30's nearly led to 3/4 of the world falling into the hands of the Axis powers, but we were awakened from our indifference just in time. Now we have been awakened early to a new threat to the world and our allies are still snoozing and they may not be awakened at all because at this time they feel that the threat has little to do with them. The threat is to US, our Middle Eastern allies, and the Eastern Block.

No-one is pro-war but I am anti-oppression and believe we should do what it takes to help our fellowman. We should have removed Saddam a decade ago but didn't in accordance to the U.N. resolutions. Since then the people of Iraq have suffered. Saddam is a tyrant and a muderous dictator who should be removed from power.

What tickles me is the Liberal/Pacifist of the world are the first to come out and scream "oppression, tyranny, the lack of human rights" about a country but then when something is going to be done they yell "warmongers, baby killers, the lack of human rights"... It will be near impossible to oust Saddam without War and if he is left in power (Which our moral allies would prefer) thousands nigh millions will suffer...

General Patton said it best:

"Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men."

"God deliver us from our friends, we can handle the enemy."

"In case of doubt, attack."