Senator Robert Byrd's War Speech to Senate

And I''d expect there to be more, not less, debate in the Congress now. We''ve been talking about it for a year, but in an official capacity, they''ve only talked about it for a few weeks. Further, the only reason we''ve been talking about it for a year, is because a year ago, the administration leaked its timetable for war. Further, do you really think this war has had more debate than, WW2, or the Vietnam war? Really?

WW2 had no debate when we went into it. It''s the only real war where the majority of the population were for it. I think that we should look at the war with Iraq in the over-all war against Isalmo-facisism because we will be going to war with at least two more countries before we''re ""done.""

I think the anti-war democrats sold out their beliefs for the election. They wanted to get the ""war"" out of the papers so they supported something they didn''t believe in.

Again, Ulairi, I''m not really taking you to task for being in favor of action. I get the impression that you''ve thought about it, and come to a rational conclusion. Actually, I take your position far more seriously than the position of the article.

I just linked the article because it''s from a Democrat in my local paper. I actually think a majority of the war protesters (not people who are anti-war) would not march if a Democrat was in office. These are the people that think Bush is more dangerous than Saddam. I don''t like Bush but he''s no more dangerous than Saddam.

I''Ve got a really bad case of the flu so my spelling and grammar will be worse than normal. Bare with me.

I''ve got the same problem doesn''t distract me from posting moderately long theses on the cold war though

WW2 had no debate when we went into it. It''s the only real war where the majority of the population were for it.

Again, I think you''re mixing popular discussion with congressional debate. There was a huge amount of controversy over our involvement in World War 2, as it was seen as a largely European problem for several years. The President and Congress spent two years going round and round about the need for US involvement or intervention as Hitler rumbled through Poland, invaded France, and mobilized his Axis across most of central Europe, which is one of the reasons we didn''t genuinely show up until Germany had fortified all the way to Normandy. When Japan finally bombed Pearl Harbor, everyone had a sudden and dramatic change of heart, and the issue of moving into the conflict became the foregone conclusion you''re assuming now, but that perception forgets that half of World War 2 was waged before we engaged. Now, before someone argues that over-discussion led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which is an ill-informed conclusion people love to jump to), it''s again not comparable since we''re talking about a global climate already steeped in war, a mobilized alliance of well armed countries, and opposition leaders whose countries were unified in their resolves, which is just not the case now. Just heading that off from the start.

The more I think about it, we''ve had more genuine and constructive discussion in Congress about nearly every other war above this current one (with the possible exception of the 1991 Gulf War), from WW2 and 1, to the conflict in Vietnam, to the American Civil War all the way back to the Revolutionary War. American wars are legitimized by congressional discussion, and should be founded on more than politically motivated resolutions authorizing force three weeks before a contentious election.

I think the anti-war democrats sold out their beliefs for the election. They wanted to get the ""war"" out of the papers so they supported something they didn''t believe in.

Actually, I agree. I''m pretty disgusted with the Democratic party these days, and I think it deserves a lot of the negative press it''s receiving. It''s a party without a goal, without a leader, and without a backbone. I hate to admit it, but I think it''s almost a certainty that Bush will win in ''04.

I''Ve got a really bad case of the flu so my spelling and grammar will be worse than normal. Bare with me.

Don''t try and pull the sympathy card with me!

- Elysium

[quote=""Elysium""]

WW2 had no debate when we went into it. It''s the only real war where the majority of the population were for it.
The more I think about it, we''ve had more genuine and constructive discussion in Congress about nearly every other war above this current one (with the possible exception of the 1991 Gulf War), from WW2 and 1, to the conflict in Vietnam, to the American Civil War all the way back to the Revolutionary War. American wars are legitimized by congressional discussion, and should be founded on more than politically motivated resolutions authorizing force three weeks before a contentious election.

1/3 of the American population didn''t want the Revolution war. The ended up moving to Canada though.

I think the anti-war democrats sold out their beliefs for the election. They wanted to get the ""war"" out of the papers so they supported something they didn''t believe in.

Actually, I agree. I''m pretty disgusted with the Democratic party these days, and I think it deserves a lot of the negative press it''s receiving. It''s a party without a goal, without a leader, and without a backbone. I hate to admit it, but I think it''s almost a certainty that Bush will win in ''04.

The Democratic parties whole platform is not to agree with bush on anything. They haven''t built a better mouse trap and I don''t see them doing it. I didn''t vote for Bush in 2000 but I will vote for him in 2004. He''s the only person that I think will fight the war to it''s fullest. Being a classic liberal means that there isn''t really anyone I want to vote for.

[

Wow nice to see some grounded and mostly factual arguing about this. Ulairi: some things I would like to point out:

What defeated the Russians was trying t compete with the Americans. We could build more weapons than they could, the United States bankrupted the nation.

Partially correct :). Another very important reason was that is became impossible to reign a country that big with centrally planned economy.
It''s not just the weapon manufacturing, they tried to use that form of economy in all categories, which is from a logistic pov not really a smart move.

Afghanistan is very different from Iraq and you''re not saying that Afghanistan isn''t better than it was unber the Taliben are you? We''ve been in Korea for fifty years and in Afghanistan for one.

He is generally right when he is saying that the situation is in no way better than before.
The current government has only political influence in Khabul. For the rest of Afghanistan the warlords are still waging for against each other and currently they are even starting to attack the ""peacekeeping"" forces stationed there.
If we are not careful, that region can destabilize quicker than we have thought. With we I mean the western civilizations invading Afghanistan to deprive the taliban of their power.

Where you can compare Iraq and Afghanistan is, that both were so far no democratic nations. The problem that arises from this is that any attempt to force them into democracy is almost right from the start doomed to failure.
Just look at how long it took most European countries to become democratic nations. This also became a lot easier once the influence of the churches crumbled with industrialization.
The influence of fanatic muslims (which has nothing to do with the muslime in general) is very strong in the middle east and as long as these people manage to turn people into living bombs by calling out a ''holy war'' this influence is too strong to ignore.
One of the reasons arguments like ''you are fighting on the side of god'' bears fruit are the strong roots of religion in the middle east. Another very important reason is the hatred against the western civilizations that were cultivated by the dictators and fanatic leaders of the region.
A lot of the people especially in the rural region lack an education comparable to ours. Most of these people were raised with the propaganda that the western civilizations are the real evil and only seek ursurpation and exploition of the middle east for their own good. Sad thing is that this is to some extent correct, but this is not to discuss here.
If we attack iraq now, we are just playing into the hands of the fanatics, who then can prove to the people their point. And what we least of all need is the US and some willing nations going out on their own and invading iraq without sanction of the UN. That would be throwing all our moral standards and human rights overboard and going back to law of who has the bigger gun (sorry I don''t know the correct phrase ''recht des stärkeren''?) We have to prove these people that we ourselves obey to the same rules we want to ""enforce on them"" (if we are really going to invade it ends up like that). Sure there may be a point where war becomes inevitable. But currently this is not the case. Some rockets that have a range of 20 kilometers higher than allowed and an assumed connection of Iraq towards terroris groups is not really enough for invading an autonomous state. It is of no doubt that Saddam is a cruel dicator who has no qualms of using bio/chemical weapons. But there are others as well and several pose a bigger threat than iraq - north korea comes to mind. We have to apply the same rules to them as well to retain integrity of the UN.
As others have pointed out another reason against invasion is that the region is far to instable to strike on Iraq without risking to bring up half the middle east against us.

Pulse: Schröder the new and old chancellor who stationed troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan indeed abused anti american feelings for his reelection. There is no excuse for that. By the time we had elections here a war on iraq was not imminent. But currently at least for most of the germans he seems to be the lesser of the two evils in comparison to the conservatives candidate, as he, well not he, let''s put this correct his foreign minister, is trying to prevent a war on iraq and instead trying to solve this issue within the UN. With the conservatives winning the election our troops would already be sitting next to your''s, ready to invade iraq. Frightens me a bit. When you listen to most of the people here in Germany, they are not against you as Americans, they never were and they never will, the people here remember what you, the USA, have done for germany, but against the current policy of your government to solve problems by imposing war on other nations and dividing the world into good and evil nations. Sorry but that is just shortsighted to me and to them. The fuzz your papers are currently stirring up about strong anti american feelings in germany is a fabrication. Of course we have a minority here that is anti american, but then a democracy has a minority for anything one can be against :).

I''m with ChrisG, even though I support a war to some extent he is spot on with his argument on the fabrication of anti-American feelings. Most Europeans simply aren''t anti-American, they just don''t want a war.

[size=9]Hell, even the Germans don''t want to fight this one </troll>[/size]

"Koesj" wrote:

I''m with ChrisG, even though I support a war to some extent he is spot on with his argument on the fabrication of anti-American feelings. Most Europeans simply aren''t anti-American, they just don''t want a war.

[size=9]Hell, even the Germans don''t want to fight this one </troll>[/size]

I''m not disagreeing with him but I''ve seen polls showing close to 80% of the French and German people think America is worse than Saddam. I''ve been in Europe but only to Paris and the UK so my view isn''t going to be as good as someone who lives there.

Well, approach it purely objective... wouldn''t you consider America a bigger threat to ''world peace'' than Saddam? Since that is what the polls you are referring to asked us Europeans. Don''t get me wrong, I love your country, but even I as a pro-war person believe that both on short and long term America should be considered as a threat to world peace.

(feeling a bit insecure with stating this stuff on an American messageboard... is it okay with you guys?)

(feeling a bit insecure with stating this stuff on an American messageboard... is it okay with you guys?)

Koesj, it''s a presumably logical conclusion backed by evidence. It''s not presented in an inflammatory manner, and is qualified as not being critical of a class of people. That is to say, while it''s not precisely how I''d characterize the situation, it''s a reasonalbe position to take, and is fine for the discussion.

I should remind you, though, that Certis (who lives in America North ... or the colloquial Canada) might not agree with this being characterized as an American board. I, however, encourage anything that even mildly frustrates him.

- Elysium

"Koesj" wrote:

Well, approach it purely objective... wouldn''t you consider America a bigger threat to ''world peace'' than Saddam? Since that is what the polls you are referring to asked us Europeans. Don''t get me wrong, I love your country, but even I as a pro-war person believe that both on short and long term America should be considered as a threat to world peace.

(feeling a bit insecure with stating this stuff on an American messageboard... is it okay with you guys?)

Can you explain that in more detail please?

(feeling a bit insecure with stating this stuff on an American messageboard... is it okay with you guys?)

You''d be surprised how many non-Americans are lurking around here, I happen to be one of them

I agree with Ulairi, Pyro, there''s no where you can look right now without hearing discussion about this. The trick is to find intelligent commentary, and that''s not an easy thing to track down.

Youre right, I should have been more clear. I didn''t mean that I knew nothing about it, but finding relevant, factual information is very hard. Everyone is spouting opinions, or talking very generally in broad sweeping motions with no real information. Thats what I meant when I asked. That being said I still found your suggestions helpful, thanks.

Wow. You are in the dark. 34 nations support the US now. NATO voted 18-0 to protect Turkey for the war (barring the French). So it''s not the US versus the world or anything.

Thank you for your courteous reply.

Seriously though, you make that Turkey thing sound like it was all peaches and puppies. Inspired by this thread a bit, I read up on the Turkey protection treaty, and several of the nations involved only signed under certain conditions, one of which being that this did not necessarily mean war. Sounded like they aren''t 100% behind the US on that one. This war situation is far from resolved, and more importantly to me the anti-war sentiment is gaining momentum, instead of the other way around. Also, thanks for your suggestions, they were helpful.

It''s up to 34 nations and I don''t pay much attention to the population of any country. The population in Europe didn''t want us placing missles in Europe but it brought down the wall.

If this was people protesting against Tom Cruise''s latest haircut, I''d wholeheartedly agree with you. Sometimes the population can protest and it happens anyway. But this is war. Wars can be long, and several of these countries are democracies. And if Civilization has taught me anything, the quickest way out of office in a democracy is a really unpopular war

Seriously though, I may not know about other countries, but if we have an unpopular war, which the war on Iraq currently seems to be, Bush''s chance of getting re-elected goes down pretty quickly. The American population can be fickle, true, but the economic effects of this war would be hitting us right when he is up for re-election. And the only other thing I know of that keeps you from getting re-elected quicker than an unpopular war is a bad economy.

If other countries have any similar mechanics to thier political structure, they must be pretty wary of the whole situation. Hell, Im not sure why Bush isn''t more wary of the whole thing.

Can you explain that in more detail please?

As said before the whole Iraq issue is not America vs. the world, well, not yet anyway. Take a look at the future though and things might seem a bit darker then they are now. America almost has a monopoly on military, economical and (according to some of your governments statements) moral power. Now I am not saying that it is quite the case yet but I think history has seen enough cases of the arrogance of power and I fear that the US of A is heading towards that direction. Arrogance.

You can''t just call heads of state of some of the most powerful countries in the world members of an axis of weasels. Certainly not when one of those countries posesses nuclear weapons and both are key allies in your own struggle for freedom and democracy. Don''t try to simplify international politics into right and wrong, it''s not that easy. War should always be considered as a last option, and it certainly shouldn''t be waged with ANY weapons of mass destruction, including ''bunker-buster'' nukes.

Certain tendencies in the American government policy over the last year have led me, and with me hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans, to believe that the US is becoming too arrogant and should be more concerned with other countries requests. Requests such as an elaboration on their anti-Iraq arguments or seemingly isolasionist policy. Right now, with the US military prepped and ready to strike in regions where even the smallest acts of terrorism can infuriate one billion people, there isn''t even the slightest debate on the whole issue of rebuilding a nation and potentially a region.

Personally, I don''t think you morally have much to brag about when the media controlled to the point where they start self-censoring or where important issues such as medicare are swept off of the debating table in favor of creating Big-Brother like departments & agencies.

You surely don''t have much to brag about on the military front when you have permitted the Pakistani''s and North Koreans to obtain nuclear weapons and when your country still can be destroyed in a matter of hours because you failed to end the arms race. I account that to various administration''s hard heads in ratifying START agreements, questioning the TBT and restarting the ABM program.

And economically? Come on, America has the biggest defecit in the world and with the weak dollar it isn''t getting any better. A war will only strain the economy more and more workers already are laid off in new ''streamlining'' rounds.

Make no mistake about it (bad pun), I am against Iraq, pro-America and I do think that the US has done little wrong in their foreign policy yet. However, grave danger lies ahead when the administration continues its policy of shunning the international community, rushing over moral standpoints with ideological rhetoric and threatening with military and economical punishment against everyone who will get in their way.

This is by no means a ''liberal'' or leftist rant as I am in total agreement with the US policy as presented today but you can''t enforce peace, prosperity and stability with wars and rhetoric. I haven''t even touched issues like the Kyoto protocol or the refusement to co-operating with the international court of justice as this is, again, by no means an anti-American rant, I still prefer the new world to my own rusty and crummy continent of endless debate and overused nuance. I fear, however, for the fate of the American people when the arrogance of power finally shifts the balance of our current one-superpower world towards a holy war or jihad of many against one.

Disclaimer: I am not a native writer so don''t pin me down on it

Hell, even the Germans don''t want to fight this one </troll>

ouch

Jokes aside I think another reason why the people in germany and also the people throughout Europe are protesting against war is, that they still know what carpet bombing means firsthand. Also with the german history, a lot of people feel uneasy when it comes to going into war. This does not mean any other western nation wages war easily, its more in the way of remembering that our ancestors were responsible for WW2. That is something you just can''t ignore even if you have good reasons and only best intentions in mind for intervening.
It was like that when it came to interfering in the Kosovo and there were also protests when it came to invading Afghanistan, though not in the same numbers, because the reason was different. In both cases Kosovo and Iraq we were/are not directly attacked.
In all three cases there was a lot of debating: ''Is there a way preventing war?'' For both Kosovo and Afghanistan the answer was ''no'' although the answer took us quite long. To me this shows that we learned our lesson at least a bit. And for Iraq it is ''currently there is a way around invasion''.
I am sure if Saddam is further ignoring the resolutions and continues to not cooperate with the inspectors, even though the World Security Council is trying to avoid war if possible, the people will understand that it can not longer be avoided to intervene in Iraq at some point. They will still be against it, but they will understand that there is no way around it.

To what Koesj said: He hit the nail on the head. Let me elaborate a bit more. Currently for the people the reason of your government for intervening in Iraq seems just made up. For almost 10 years the Iraq is playing cat and mice with the inspectors, has ignored several resolutions and is surpressing its people. And all out of a sudden your government decides to put an end to this for the good of the people there? This just does not add up for a lot of Europeans.
Why now? Where are the proofs that a strike by Saddam is imminent so a preemptive strike is necessary? Those are both questions your government is not able to answer thoroughly. And even worse at the same time North Korea is threatening the US with a nuclear strike and we still have trouble in Iraq and Kosovo. All three are far more important issues than Iraq at this time. And your gov still insists on invading Iraq. This is what worries the people and a result of this are the polls you mentioned.
And some more words on the polls. We both know that if you set up your questions in the right manner you always get the results you desire for a poll. Don''t read too much into that one. I have seen the results too, but be assured the people here don''t see you Americans as a threat, they are just worried about the actions your gov is currently undertaking.

I am glad you were able to take that joke like most of the Germans I have met would be able to they were by the way some of the friendliest people I have ever had the honor to meet and I consder myself very lucky with a good neighbour like Germany. Thanks for the heads up and I again am in total agreement with your statement, especially concerning the polls. As we all know statistics can either be put to good or bad use, a frightening example is the WWII use of census figures to aid the deportation of European Jews. When anyone takes a poll it is inherently subjective because of the nature of the question. Don''t be fooled by the pretty or grim picture the numbers paint for you, always look at the contruction of the questions and the potential hidden agende the questioners might have had.

"As said before the whole Iraq issue is not America vs. the world, well, not yet anyway. Take a look at the future though and things might seem a bit darker then they are now. America almost has a monopoly on military, economical and (according to some of your governments statements) moral power. Now I am not saying that it is quite the case yet but I think history has seen enough cases of the arrogance of power and I fear that the US of A is heading towards that direction. Arrogance."

This is where I disagree. America is different than Europe and I think that we just have different values when it comes to things. Americans don't want a "one world government" which many European governments want. The ICC is a great example of this.

"You can''t just call heads of state of some of the most powerful countries in the world members of an axis of weasels. Certainly not when one of those countries posesses nuclear weapons and both are key allies in your own struggle for freedom and democracy. Don''t try to simplify international politics into right and wrong, it''s not that easy. War should always be considered as a last option, and it certainly shouldn''t be waged with ANY weapons of mass destruction, including ''bunker-buster'' nukes."

I think the NY Post coined the "axis of weasels" not the Government. The Defense Secretary said "Old Europe" which shouldn't offend people too much when European leaders compare Bush to Hitler.

"Certain tendencies in the American government policy over the last year have led me, and with me hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans, to believe that the US is becoming too arrogant and should be more concerned with other countries requests. Requests such as an elaboration on their anti-Iraq arguments or seemingly isolasionist policy. Right now, with the US military prepped and ready to strike in regions where even the smallest acts of terrorism can infuriate one billion people, there isn''t even the slightest debate on the whole issue of rebuilding a nation and potentially a region."

Do you think Iraq would be cooperating at all if the Military wasn't on his borders waiting to strike?

"Personally, I don''t think you morally have much to brag about when the media controlled to the point where they start self-censoring or where important issues such as medicare are swept off of the debating table in favor of creating Big-Brother like departments & agencies."

The Government doesn't controll the media but media in all countries know that they can't go completely against public opinion. I've read German and French papers and they aren't exactly open minded, unbiased, promoting free-thought. Isn't it kind of arrogant for Europeans to care what types of medicare system we have? We don't' believe in socialized medicine.

"You surely don''t have much to brag about on the military front when you have permitted the Pakistani''s and North Koreans to obtain nuclear weapons and when your country still can be destroyed in a matter of hours because you failed to end the arms race. I account that to various administration''s hard heads in ratifying START agreements, questioning the TBT and restarting the ABM program."

Well all of Europe thought the deal with North Korea was great.

"And economically? Come on, America has the biggest defecit in the world and with the weak dollar it isn''t getting any better. A war will only strain the economy more and more workers already are laid off in new ''streamlining'' rounds"

Our deficit isn"˜t that big (% of GDP) and the economy isn"˜t that weak. Unemployment is a lagging indicator and we are growing.

"Make no mistake about it (bad pun), I am against Iraq, pro-America and I do think that the US has done little wrong in their foreign policy yet. However, grave danger lies ahead when the administration continues its policy of shunning the international community, rushing over moral standpoints with ideological rhetoric and threatening with military and economical punishment against everyone who will get in their way."

But what do we gain from listing to the international community? Will they help with some of the military burden? No.

"This is by no means a ''liberal'' or leftist rant as I am in total agreement with the US policy as presented today but you can''t enforce peace, prosperity and stability with wars and rhetoric. I haven''t even touched issues like the Kyoto protocol or the refusement to co-operating with the international court of justice as this is, again, by no means an anti-American rant, I still prefer the new world to my own rusty and crummy continent of endless debate and overused nuance. I fear, however, for the fate of the American people when the arrogance of power finally shifts the balance of our current one-superpower world towards a holy war or jihad of many against one."

The Kyoto treaty wasn't ratified by a single country (save Romania) when we left it and it unfairly targeted Americans. The treaty was also inherently flawed and wouldn't have solved anything. The ICC is great for countries that don't participate in the world and is not needed. The ICC was accountable to no one and had no process of appeal. Many people who build this great "multi national organizations" do so to limit American power.

I would like to add that Europeans must start to worry about ""offending"" Americans. Because there is a growing ""movement"" of Americans that feel when Americans get attacked no one but the UK sticks with us. That''s not true but there is some movement. I read an article over the weekend that the American Government is thinking of removing our troops from Germany which will cost them billions of dollers and a lot of jobs.

Okay you got me there on some issues, but...

<rant>

All I am asking for is some international co-operation, that is all, I know my arguments aren''t that rock hard but try to imagine what most Europeans p.o.v is on this matter. Bush only needs to listen to the international community a bit more and everything would be fine. Again, that is where the arrogance of power thesis kicks in. Why wouldn''t he want to strengthen international ties and co-operate more? Because the IC thinks his goals are all wrong? I guess that tells us more about the current US government than the whole world community thing. Don''t try to distinct the US'' and the rest of the worlds goals, we all strive for peace and prosperity, I just get the feeling that there is no other way than the American way with Bush and his cronies

</rant>

Now don''t take this too seriously, I already explained my views in some earlier points, just expressing them in a stronger sense here...

------------------------------------------------------------

/Doom''n Gloom mode on, ranting gear 5 kicking in, all set to commence flamebait creation...

I read an article over the weekend that the American Government is thinking of removing our troops from Germany which will cost them billions of dollers and a lot of jobs.

Now explain to me, why the hell would they want to do that? The whole troops in Germany situation has been that way since ''45 and there seems no apparant reason to change that right now, other than putting pressure on Germany. That pressure however could only backfire as zee Germans are only saying ''no'', no-one should get punished for a lack of enthousiasm for a war that isn''t needed. You don''t keep your old friends that way and certainly won''t make new one''s and that precisely the problem that I have with the road the US seems to be heading towards.

A much harder, more ideological, stance on foreign relations, might give the administration some great rhetorical chances and all but it won''t pay off in the long run. I am only concerned with America''s future here, it would be hard to call that anti-Americanism right? The way they are heading now might backfire on America as a whole for decades to come. You honestly don''t think the US will always be a superpower right? This continent''s culture has been old enough to see superpowers rise and fall and someday the US hegemony will come to an end. With Bush''s policy, I can only see that getting nearer.

Somewhere along the road a crackpot dictator or nutjob terrorist will succeed in doing unrepairable harm to the US wheter it will be severing their ties with the rest of the world like Saddam is trying right now or striking in America''s hart. Somewhere in the future the US is going to fall, it might be hard to believe but you can''t polarize forever when your economy is based on the free market system, the only breeding-ground for indefinate stability currently known would be Orwell''s 1984 world and even though we are heading that way it won''t be enough to stop the major historical events lying ahead.

These are interesting times we are living in, what we see right now is a turn of events that could change international politics for years to come. I just don''t see what good it would do to the US if Bush can continue his current path of polarisation and ideological hypocrisy. It seems to me that some pragmatic divide and conquer is needed but I am not very confident that these times can provide us with good leaders...

Firstly, non-american folks posting here- please don''t stop posting on this board; it''s totally refreshing to see opinions based on viewpoints from outside the US....that aren''t steeped in american media and surrounded by american culture. I suppose I should specify ''outside North America'', but I think ya''ll know what I mean .

I would like to add that Europeans must start to worry about ""offending"" Americans. Because there is a growing ""movement"" of Americans that feel when Americans get attacked no one but the UK sticks with us. That''s not true but there is some movement. I read an article over the weekend that the American Government is thinking of removing our troops from Germany which will cost them billions of dollers and a lot of jobs.

I personally don''t get this impression at all (as a average joe citizen, anyway). However, I do live in a classic uber-leftist community that has daily demonstrations against just about everything, so public opinion here is probably more pro-european than anything..

Pulling out of germany has gotta be motivated allmost soley by the election debacle- however annoyed your typical american might be at schroder, I would be amazed if this happened.

I must say, I am really enjoying reading this thread. I want to echo Gorey''s post in that it is nice to get the perspective of our international friends.

I also want to commend Ulari, he does not seem to have the same perspective as the majority of the people posting ""against"" him in this thread, yet this is a very touchy topic and he does not make any personal attacks, etc. (we all have a common bond...games!! ). Nobody likes war and conflict, and it''s hard to be the one to say that maybe it''s time.

At any rate, I''ll sit back and enjoy the intelligent political discussions.

sorry I cannot participate in this as much as I would like to, it''s crunch time at my company and release is imminent :(. I would like to point out some things out though:

The Defense Secretary said "Old Europe" which shouldn't offend people too much when European leaders compare Bush to Hitler.

The minister you are refering to did not compare them but their methods to distract from inner problems by stirring up foreign affairs. Still this comparison was inappropriate and inexcuseable. That''s why the minister had to retreat from her position. I personally was not much offended by the term old europe. What bothered me was the comparison to Lybia and Cuba. One does not treat its allies like that even if we disagree in some views.

Do you think Iraq would be cooperating at all if the Military wasn't on his borders waiting to strike?

Well I think it is too much pressure currently. We are risking that Saddam, facing invasion either way as proposed by the US government, might as well just stop cooperating altogether. We are risking that he may act like a cornered rat. In the case he still possesses great amounts of biological and chemical warfare substances, we are risking that he is giving it away to groups that should never get these substances into their hands.
Ulairi is right by pointing out that there are other terrorists than El Qaida. Still the US government is very eager trying to bring these to into relation, which will never happen, because Saddam''s Baath regime and the Shiites of El Qaida would never work together for religious reasons. But there are other groups that may not be as opposed to his regime as El Qaida.

We don't' believe in socialized medicine.

I don''t believe in it either, but I can trust onto it in the case I ever have the need for it (accident etc). It worked fine so far, the problem is the privatisation and demographic problems. Still a bit OT eh ;).

But what do we gain from listing to the international community? Will they help with some of the military burden? No.

Yes they do currently in Kosovo and Afghanistan, as you already know :). Also what you gain is the security of almost all nations standing behind you instead of confronting you.

...it unfairly targeted Americans.

Not true. It unfairly targeted all western civs as well, seince we still cannot manage our resources properly. But that is a thing we need to learn for the very near future as the resources are getting sparse with every year.

I read an article over the weekend that the American Government is thinking of removing our troops from Germany which will cost them billions of dollers and a lot of jobs.

I read that too and it really saddens me. Is it so hard to respect that sometimes we are of different opinions? Is economic boycott really your answer to this?

I am sorry if it seems I am picking just on you Ulairi :). It''s just our opinions are very controversial. That''s fine by me, I like to hear different views. Even though we will likely never come to a full agreement I can respect your view on this and I thank you for respecting mine by the grounded and factual discussion so far. This goes out to the others as well in here :).

Koesj: I am also grateful to have the Netherlands as a neighbour country. It amazes me every time: It is just a 3 hours drive to Amsterdam, but it is like a whole different world everytime I visit it. Also you have by far the superior comic stores :D.

We also the Borussen''s ass with Feyenoord last year in the UEFA cup 8)

"Koesj" wrote:

We also the Borussen''s ass with Feyenoord last year in the UEFA cup 8)

aww don''t remind me. Oh the shame... but then I remember a country that did not even manage to take part in the last world cup ;). /me runs.

The minister you are refering to did not compare them but their methods to distract from inner problems by stirring up foreign affairs. Still this comparison was inappropriate and inexcuseable. That''s why the minister had to retreat from her position. I personally was not much offended by the term old europe. What bothered me was the comparison to Lybia and Cuba. One does not treat its allies like that even if we disagree in some views.

I don''t agree with Rummy grouping countries with Cuba and Lybia (well unless they deserve it). But, I still think that the Germans have a major problem with what some of their leadership has done. Like it or not America is the largest economy on the market and when a leader compares the President to hitler that''s going to hurt the public. I''m surpised the PM was re-elected.

Well I think it is too much pressure currently. We are risking that Saddam, facing invasion either way as proposed by the US government, might as well just stop cooperating altogether. We are risking that he may act like a cornered rat. In the case he still possesses great amounts of biological and chemical warfare substances, we are risking that he is giving it away to groups that should never get these substances into their hands.
Ulairi is right by pointing out that there are other terrorists than El Qaida. Still the US government is very eager trying to bring these to into relation, which will never happen, because Saddam''s Baath regime and the Shiites of El Qaida would never work together for religious reasons. But there are other groups that may not be as opposed to his regime as El Qaida.

Have you ever heard of ""The enmy of my enmy is my friend""? I''m more worried about Saddam giving his weapons to a group like Hammas and then they use them or give them to Al Quada.

Yes they do currently in Kosovo and Afghanistan, as you already know :). Also what you gain is the security of almost all nations standing behind you instead of confronting you.

I was refering to the military power not the peace keeping. I think it''s interesting that the Germans are trying to get back in Bush'' good grace by taking over peace keeping in Afghanistan.

Not true. It unfairly targeted all western civs as well, seince we still cannot manage our resources properly. But that is a thing we need to learn for the very near future as the resources are getting sparse with every year.

I believe that the market will fix it''s self and we shouldn''t meddle in things. I''m an Adam Smith fan.

I read that too and it really saddens me. Is it so hard to respect that sometimes we are of different opinions? Is economic boycott really your answer to this?

I think it has less to do with Iraq and more to do with the ""anti-American"" stance your PM took when running for re-election. Plus, it plays well in the states to say ""If you don''t want us there we''ll leave"" I wouldn''t remove the troops if I was in charge.

I am sorry if it seems I am picking just on you Ulairi :). It''s just our opinions are very controversial. That''s fine by me, I like to hear different views. Even though we will likely never come to a full agreement I can respect your view on this and I thank you for respecting mine by the grounded and factual discussion so far. This goes out to the others as well in here :).

I''m use to it.

and when a leader compares the President to hitler that''s going to hurt the public. I''m surpised the PM was re-elected.

Well, here you just gave the perfect proof that you don''t know what actually really happened and how.

Agree with JD here, how can you comment on stuff like that when you don''t know that the secretary in question was immediately fired and the chancellor apologized for it

I don''t agree with Rummy grouping countries with Cuba and Lybia (well unless they deserve it). But, I still think that the Germans have a major problem with what some of their leadership has done. Like it or not America is the largest economy on the market and when a leader compares the President to hitler that''s going to hurt the public. I''m surpised the PM was re-elected.

1. It was not a comparison of the both persons, it was a comparison of their methods in shifting attention away from internal problems by stirring up trouble with foreign nations. Still there is no excuse for making such comparisons, but I think it is important to point out the difference.

2. We don''t vote the PM directly. Also he never encouraged such statements. He immediatly pointed out that this is an unacceptable statement and that the minister had to go. He was reelected because he gave the promise of not going into any adventures when it comes to the Iraq crisis. This was playing with the fear of the population and it worked. But as I said I think we are better of currently than we would be with the conservatives. Also the reelections was very close. Both of the major parties had an identical percentage of votes. It was the small parties that made the difference between winning and loosing that election.

3. It was not the leader it was a minister and as the others pointed out she was immediatly fired and we apologized for her.
Interestingly Rumsfeld did not have the guts so far to apologize for his statements. Nor does your government take any steps to clear this issue up. That really saddens me.

Have you ever heard of ""The enmy of my enmy is my friend""? I''m more worried about Saddam giving his weapons to a group like Hammas and then they use them or give them to Al Quada.

I have heard of that. But it does not apply so easily here. Most of the terrorist groups would not work together for religious reasons. Muslime is not as coherent as the christian believe is. I also do not see what Hamas has to do with Iraq. They are a fanatic and terrorist movement that is active in Israel/Palestine only. America is not of their interest. Nor is the Iraq.

I was refering to the military power not the peace keeping. I think it''s interesting that the Germans are trying to get back in Bush'' good grace by taking over peace keeping in Afghanistan.

We don''t have big military power for two reasons. 1. because after WW2 we, for good reason, were forbidden for a long time to have an army on ourselves. 2. Our constitution forbids taking part in any non defense military activities. Hence we have mainly military forces for peacekeeping and defense.
In regard to your second point: Germany did take over responsibility in peacekeeping in afghanistan long before the last elections. Where you found a relation here is beyond me, sorry :).

I believe that the market will fix it''s self and we shouldn''t meddle in things. I''m an Adam Smith fan.

Sadly we have seen numerous times that the market fixes itself by busting. The new economy comes to mind. I really doubt any of us western civilisations can take a strike that hard for the main economy. That would mean chaos. And that is why we better take some precautions like fulfilling the Kyoto protocol :).