Germans gone Wild!

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Monk


If I recall correctly, it was Tripledoc who accused Ned of hostility towards Europeans. Ned answered and here we are.

Yeah well. He is not answering my trolling so I think he has put me on ignore.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Monk: What is that thing in your avatar?!

Ned's mother.

[Alexander's Horse]

Imagine if you had been to that guy's house recently for cocktails and fingerfood

[Monk]

Still hoping for Ned to return...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Yeah well. He is not answering my trolling so I think he has put me on ignore.

That's a good idea.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Ned


Think Schroeder.

Think Chirac.

Think how the Euros hate Jews and Israel.

well ****youtoo ...

[BeBro]

This thread is full of nonsense.

Ned, you're wrong, France and Germany did not side with the enemy. They sided with the UN, and that was their good right. Iraq had not attacked the US, so the NATO rule of mutually support in case of an attack against one member did not play a role.

After 9/11, when the US really was attacked, both nations had not the slightest problem to support the US. But Iraq was a completely different case.

Also, Germany and France made clear that an Iraqi attack on Turkey would not be tolerated, and then they would help as NATO members. The only difference was that Germany and France did not agree initially (february 10, 2003) with the steps planned to protect Turkey, but they agreed a week later (february 17, 2003). The reason for this were differences about whtether those steps would mean that a war is the only solution for the problem - a view wich France and Germany did not share.

Oh, and I can't believe that you simply continue with that "we hate the US" part. Maybe some Germans do, but others do not. Since when is it a good idea to generalize from such individual views into a stereotype about an entire people?

Tripledoc, the Marshall-Plan was responsible for the (West-) German "Wirtschaftswunder", at least to a good part, as a kind of "help to get started". This is generally accepted as a fact in Germany.

[Drogue]

Good post BeBro.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Tripledoc, the Marshall-Plan was responsible for the (West-) German "Wirtschaftswunder", at least to a good part, as a kind of "help to get started". This is generally accepted as a fact in Germany.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

From Nationmaster.com:

In the 1980s criticism of the Marshall Plan's claim to a decisive role in Europe's recovery developed. These critics point out that growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of U.S. aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While Marshall aid eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the post-war nadir was largely an independent process. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward. European socialists argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in US banks during World War II.

Source

In other words the Marshall help was largely indirectly funded by the liquid funds that Europeans put into American banks during the war. No?

Had the US confiscated these funds for its own use, this would only have meant a slight delay in the reconstruction of Europe. This according to an American scholar (Milward).

[Ecthy]

I remain the only contributor proven right by BeBro

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
In other words the Marshall help was largely indirectly funded by the liquid funds that Europeans put into American banks during the war. No?

Had the US confiscated these funds for its own use, this would only have meant a slight delay in the reconstruction of Europe. This according to an American scholar (Milward).

Nobody claims that Euro states would have never recovered from WWII without the ERP. Also, everyone knows that the ERP was not done without self-interest from the USA. Still one cannot ignore that it was a practical help.

German scientists like Wolfgang Benz argue that in a concrete situation of the late 1940ies the ERP helped to buy resources needed to restart the own production, and that without this help the recovery would have come several years later. A "slight delay" can make a big difference, when we discuss whether a national economy recovers some years earlier or not. Just look at Eastern Germany, where the same aid was not given, because the Soviet Union refused to take it because of political reasons.

Also, the ERP was the first step to integrate Western Germany into the Western European economy after 45.

[Ned]

BeBro, and fellow Germans, my apologies. It seems from your posts that there is indeed a great deal of goodwill towards America in Germany.

As to the point about all this being in the past, that is hardly the case as many Americans still alive and kicking were alive and kicking during WWII even if they did not participate. Their fathers, uncles and grandparents fought in that war and manned the armies that for decades stood off the Bear. Their taxes went to pay for the protection of Germany and the Marshall Plan. For all that, we have a free and prosperous Germany -- that is free to disagree with us, unlike the situation would be had the Soviets won the cold war.

Still, put yourselves in our shoes just for a moment. We were attacked and an old enemy, Saddam, appeared to be very chummy with the terrorist organization that attacked us and also appeared to be in open defiance of the UN concerning WMD. We make the call that our security was at stake and called on Germany for help. Germany disagreed with our assessment and says no that it will not help. Perhaps the German assessment was better than ours. Perpaps it was not. But the point remains that it was OUR security that was at stake, not Germany's, and Germany said no when we asked.

A true friend and ally perhaps would not have said no particularly under circumstances where its own interests were only marginally at risk.

As to the point about the people being against the war, it seems that this attitude was greatly influenced by European media who virtually campaigned against the war claiming that it was all about America's Imperialism and not about its security. Not so?

[Nubclear]

true friend and ally perhaps would not have said no particularly under circumstances where its own interests were only marginally at risk.

The world tried telling the US that it's intelligence was flawed, that Iraq had done nothing to the US, and that there were bigger threats out there.
The US response was that they were no longer allies. The American people condemned them as enemies.

And now the US has become an international pariah. Why should any nation respect you after the disrespect you have shown towards them?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Quote:

true friend and ally perhaps would not have said no particularly under circumstances where its own interests were only marginally at risk.

The world tried telling the US that it's intelligence was flawed, that Iraq had done nothing to the US, and that there were bigger threats out there.
The US response was that they were no longer allies. The American people condemned them as enemies.

And now the US has become an international pariah. Why should any nation respect you after the disrespect you have shown towards them?

It was our security at stake, not theirs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


It was our security at stake, not theirs.

Actually, it wasn;t our security. Since no one has yet shown a single piece of evidence of how the Saddam regime was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the point about the people being against the war, it seems that this attitude was greatly influenced by European media who virtually campaigned against the war claiming that it was all about America's Imperialism and not about its security. Not so?

This is definately not so where I am from. The 3 largest newspapers all supported the war. There are only three large newspapers. The news broadcasting stations supported the war. there were political intervetion to remove critical journalists. Anti-muslim hatred were dissimated through various channels. The government supported the war, and sent troops.

The media here is open to BBC, CNN and FOX, has one of the worlds highest internet connctions per capita.

An yet barely 50 percent were ever for it! And that survey were taken at the moment of immediate action. No survey has been taken since.

I only wish you would understand that people are tired of war. They see people suffering in the third world. They see refugees coming to their countries fleeing from war after war. They see a rising tide of frustration. And they see a USA which is not how it used to be.

This is beacuse, thank goodness, people are still capable of drawing their own conclusions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, it wasn;t our security. Since no one has yet shown a single piece of evidence of how the Saddam regime was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq.

GePap, we have a real question before us as Americans on how good our own intelligence is and whether we can rely on it.

However, I am certain, that even the leading Democrats would agree that if our intelligence says one thing and an ally's intelligence says another, that our government has a right to rely on our intelligence and not have our security be dictated by the intelligence of our ally, however good that ally's intelligence has been historically.

[Nubclear]

However, the leading democrat voted for the war because it was popular at the time.
Doesn't say much of him, does it?

And...is Ned admitting the US was WRONG? And the Axis of Weasels was RIGHT?!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, we have a real question before us as Americans on how good our own intelligence is and whether we can rely on it.

However, I am certain, that even the leading Democrats would agree that if our intelligence says one thing and an ally's intelligence says another, that our government has a right to rely on our intelligence and not have our security be dictated by the intelligence of our ally, however good that ally's intelligence has been historically.

Before the war, on this very forum, I was constantly argueing that even if ALL the intelliegence they had was true, Iraq was not a threat. None of the intelliegence ever showed an imminent threat-that was a total fabrication by the admin. At best, the intelligence was saying the Iraqis had some WMD's left over- but it did not indicate a will to use them vs the US. Russia today had far and away more WMD's we KNOW of than we though Iraq might have-that does not make Russia a threat- it is intent that matters, and no one ever showed intent when it came to Iraq.

So other states had every right to be utterly skeptical about Admin. claims of a threat, even if the amdin. could have made a case for Iraqi non-compliance (which is a different matter)

[Ned]

TripleDoc, I take it that you are not from Germany. Which country calls you citizen?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Before the war, on this very forum, I was constantly argueing that even if ALL the intelliegence they had was true, Iraq was not a threat. None of the intelliegence ever showed an imminent threat-that was a total fabrication by the admin. At best, the intelligence was saying the Iraqis had some WMD's left over- but it did not indicate a will to use them vs the US. Russia today had far and away more WMD's we KNOW of than we though Iraq might have-that does not make Russia a threat- it is intent that matters, and no one ever showed intent when it came to Iraq.

So other states had every right to be utterly skeptical about Admin. claims of a threat, even if the amdin. could have made a case for Iraqi non-compliance (which is a different matter)

I am not going to dispute this GePap. But Congress overwhelmingly determined that war was the proper course based on the intelligence we had. I submit this as evidence that reasonable minds can come to a differenct conclusion.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
TripleDoc, I take it that you are not from Germany. Which country calls you citizen?

I feel no loyalty to my nation any longer. It has been taken over. Or sold rather.l

[Main_Brain]

Ahh Someone from the Papal States.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


I am not going to dispute this GePap. But Congress overwhelmingly determined that war was the proper course based on the intelligence we had. I submit this as evidence that reasonable minds can come to a differenct conclusion.

NO, congress gave Bush a blank check in October to do what he though necessary to do. They did this when Bush kept saying War as the last thing he wanted, so forth, and he also demanded a vote before the elections, to pressure people into voting or pay the consequences. This was one of the great failings of the congress and showed immense weakness on the part of the Legislature when it came for it to stand up for its own oversight powers in this federal system.

[Ned]

GePap, well Lieberman and Kerry differ on what the resolution meant. I think their differences today is based on "politics." If Kerry and you are right, then Bush had no authority to go to war. Not even Kerry has gone this far -- yet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, well Lieberman and Kerry differ on what the resolution meant. I think their differences today is based on "politics." If Kerry and you are right, then Bush had no authority to go to war. Not even Kerry has gone this far -- yet.

Hello!

I said blank check. In essence, the congress washed it hands of the situation and told Bush "do whatever you want, we will back you". This is a blank check, as congress put no controls on the president.

I am sure plenty of those who voted for it supported the war (like Lieberman), but instutionally, it was a craven act by a weak legislature ignoring its reponsibilities to the people to defend itself from demagogery coming from the WH and its supporters.

[Ned]

GePap, I listened to a great deal of the debate in Congress myself. I am sure that Congress knew they were voting for war and not voting just to wash their hands of the affair, ala, Pontius Pilate.

Kerry has a real problem with his vote if he says that he was not voting for war. He may criticize Bush for not doing enough at the UN, but that is a judgment call that Congress did place in the president's hands as it did not require him to come back to Congress in event of diplomatic failure. That is why it was a vote for war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I listened to a great deal of the debate in Congress myself. I am sure that Congress knew they were voting for war and not voting just to wash their hands of the affair, ala, Pontius Pilate.

Well, if they knew, then the president was lying, cause the prez. kept saying he had not made up his mind for war until like, well, February- and this all happened PRIOR to UNSC 1441. In fact, one the rationales given for passing this was to show "solidarity" as the president went to the UN.

[Ned]

GePap, they did not require him to come back.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, they did not require him to come back.

Yes, hence, black check.