Author Topic: Why Germany is not supporting the US policy on Iraq. (Read 1585 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #45 on:** February 04, 2003, 09:20:16 PM »

Maybe.

Dowding · « **Reply #46 on:** February 05, 2003, 03:02:28 AM »

Quote

Well, what exactly is the point of this stream of "dick-measurement" posts?

I might ask the same thing the next time there's a general whine that the US is giving away so much money, but isn't getting any support for it.

Quote

Well Dowding, while you might have defeated Germany and/or the USSR without help from the US in WWII and thereafter I have my doubts. Where would you personally be without that help that my uncles (one still alive) willing provided

Let's cut to the chase. In your opinion, does the debt I owe to men for their actions 60 years ago, mean that I can't disagree with US foreign policy devised by their descendants, even though I wasn't born until 33 years after the end of WW2? Does that not strike you as completely ridiculous?

You dodged the other questions in my post.

fffreeze220 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 05, 2003, 03:06:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"The fact that you let the Soviets use your airspace to wage war in Afghanistan shows this quite clearly."

Hmmm??? Do you know where afghanistan is, or yugoslavia for that matter? Just saying that statement makes no sense geographically...

Hey Grunherz u can send Bumsfield err Rumsfeld a copy of this map and show him where europe is.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #48 on:** February 05, 2003, 06:29:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by fffreeze220
Hey Grunherz u can send Bumsfield err Rumsfeld a copy of this map and show him where europe is.

Why should Donald Rumsfeld care where where europe is? I mean aside from the UK...

Toad · « **Reply #49 on:** February 05, 2003, 08:32:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
I might ask the same thing the next time there's a general whine that the US is giving away so much money, but isn't getting any support for it......

....You dodged the other questions in my post.

Gotta love the irony.

Habu · « **Reply #50 on:** February 05, 2003, 08:39:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why should Donald Rumsfeld care where where europe is? I mean aside from the UK...

I am sure that post war, the US diplomatic map of Europe will have big holes (like the kind that are all over Africa) where France and Germany are.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #51 on:** February 05, 2003, 08:54:39 AM »

So France and Germany are modeling their USA foreign policy on that of various failed African regimes. I see, brilliant!

Habu · « **Reply #52 on:** February 05, 2003, 09:06:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So France and Germany are modeling their USA foreign policy on that of various failed African regimes. I see, brilliant!

No. What I said is that Germany and France will get the same diplomatic attention and access to the President as those failed African regimes.

The US will be too busy being buddies with England Spain and the rest of Europe who supported them.

I am not just saying this. When GWB got elected he snubbed the Prime Minister of Canada big time and continued to right up to the Afganistan war. He made a point out of visiting Mexico before Canada and inviting the Mexican President to see him and spend lots of one on one time with him.

GWB was upset over comments the Canadian Prime Minister made during the election. And Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the US and Canada is the US's biggest tradeing partner. Even now relations are still not good and I bet they will not be until Canada gets a new leader.

I imagine Powel and Rumsfeld and the rest of the inner circle will have little time for people like the leaders of France and Germany.

Dowding · « **Reply #53 on:** February 05, 2003, 09:11:29 AM »

I answered your question Toad. The point about aid overseas was made as a reply to the 'US is the biggest donator of aid in the world' argument. I don't believe that sentiment tells the whole story. I thought that was quite obvious.

Anyway, I ought to bow to the undisputed champion of the 'Switch and bait' tactic. I don't think I need to spell out what I'm referring to - or the fact that the whole thing was an epilogue to what was effectively a biggest tool in the box series of arguments.

So there's some more irony for you to chortle over.

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** February 05, 2003, 09:34:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
His stand on America is fine. He is welcome to it. As long as he remembers that his own economy, good or bad, is because Americans cared enough to help rebuild their country....

Final note. Just guess who he would come to for aid if there was some natural disaster in his country. No doubt he would squeak about American aid then too.

Dowding, this post of Mav's is the FIRST mention of "aid" in this entire thread, and it is early on.

Your IMMEDIATE reply was:

Quote

Originally posted by DowdingWhy do some Americans seem fascinated by how much aid they give around the world? As a proportion of GDP, they are 22nd in the world. That's nothing to boast about.

60 years ago the US committed itself to a great deed - the Marshall plan. But it was in American interests to have a strong barrier against the USSR, and I'm sure there has been a fair amount of money made in trade in the mean time.

Either it was altruistic and designed to forge a strong democratic, independent nation state and partner or it was a cynical ploy to make sure American interests were always looked after on the continent. I like to believe the former.

[/b]

I believe it was YOU who started the "measurement" process, although Mav did mention aid but NOT as in

Quote

Dowding: 'US is the biggest donator of aid in the world'

YOU made that assumption.

And I don't blame you for choosing % of GNP as the yardstick because otherwise.... well, let's just say that between the US and Japan it takes th next 7 contributors to approximately equal the $ value of their contributions.

BTW, look at the % of GNP given by Japan as well; it's not significantly better than the US in the light of some of the other smaller Scandinavian countries as well. yet they give a huge $ amount also. Yet I don't see them being hammered for their insensitivity here.

There's 5, count 'em 5 coutries that apparently make their UN designated target. They're all Scandinavian contries. Good on 'em.

Yet as I said, this is ONE measure of a nation's contribution to progress for the human race and for world peace.

I also find your comment about altruism ...interesting... especially as it comes immediately after your subtle "they did it for trade" remark.

Particularly after just returning from England, I'm amazed at my personal reaction. Clearly, there are Englishmen and Europeans that I respect and in fact hold near and dear to my heart. My open hand of friendship will always be out to them and willing to lend a hand.

Then there's others.

Dowding · « **Reply #55 on:** February 05, 2003, 10:36:52 AM »

My reply about aid, wasn't really in reply to Maverick - there's been many other references about it and I said nothing. Other instances of 'US is the biggest donator' argument as a reason why everyone should agree with the US administration's stance. I happened to talk about it in this thread - perhaps I should have done it elsewhere.

Quote

BTW, look at the % of GNP given by Japan as well; it's not significantly better than the US in the light of some of the other smaller Scandinavian countries as well. yet they give a huge $ amount also. Yet I don't see them being hammered for their insensitivity here.

I don't think anyone has argued Japan's contribution (or any other country's) is exemplary - perhaps I've just missed it. Feel free to point me in that direction. I'm not sure what you mean by insensitivity.

Quote

Yet as I said, this is ONE measure of a nation's contribution to progress for the human race and for world peace.

I agree 100%. As is pointing out simple totals of money distributed. I believe % GNP is more illustrative of aid effort than a simple totaliser, but there are other key indicators.

Quote

I also find your comment about altruism ...interesting... especially as it comes immediately after your subtle "they did it for trade" remark.

I didn't say 'they did it for trade' and I certainly don't believe that. I pointed out what America obtained from the deal.

I then went on to present two opposing viewpoints on why the Marshall Plan was implemented, followed by a statement regarding which one I subscribe to. The idea that European countries should blindly support US foreign policy because of the Marshall Plan runs hand in hand with the idea that the US 'did it for trade', as you put it. Both are absolutely ridiculous concepts and I was trying to illustrate that. Like I said in the post (which you deliberately overlook), I believe the US extended that helping hand to avoid the mistakes made in 1919 and produce a strong democratic set of allies. Does that really mean those allies should show unconditional support over all issues at all times?

You seem to be grasping for something that really isn't there, Toad. But I'm glad you put me firmly in the 'others' camp. It shows just how personal you've let this become.

In the words of the great Liam Lynch:

"Whatever"

AKIron · « **Reply #56 on:** February 05, 2003, 10:39:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Let's cut to the chase. In your opinion, does the debt I owe to men for their actions 60 years ago, mean that I can't disagree with US foreign policy devised by their descendants, even though I wasn't born until 33 years after the end of WW2? Does that not strike you as completely ridiculous?

You dodged the other questions in my post.

Dowding, I didn't dodge your post, don't know what you're referring to. Sometimes I give up on an argument when it finally gets through to me (yes, I've been called stubborn) that it's futile.

Anyhow, your free, I guess, to disagree with whatever you want. There is probably more division within the US over Iraq than there is outside the US (except perhaps the middle east).

Even long standing alliances and friendships can be fragile. As I mentioned before, America is not it's government but rather a nation of people just like in your country and everywhere else in the world. The US government reflects the will of it's people more than in many of the other countries in this world.

People remember the friends that help in time of need as well as the ones that don't. I will agree that help doesn't mean agreeing with someone when you think they are wrong or perhaps on a disaterous course. Most of the criticism I'm seeing is an attack on our motives and comes across as very anti-american. Such display of anti-american sentiment will be remembered, not by the US governement but by Americans.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #57 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:18:01 PM »

The Canadian PM is a little French salamander and the whole Canadian government is worthless - why should we care about them? They spend three times more money registering and/or confiscating guns from law abiding citizens than they do on their military. Canada is worthless to the world, they have nice scenery and have good trade with the USA but they have no say and should have no say as a government in world affairs. For gods sake the little Canadian government toejams refused their few brave men being awarded medals for curagesus acts in saving some pinned down US troops during the 911 war. Utterly pathetic.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #58 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:26:51 PM »

In general for toejams and giggles...

But specifically I mean to be insulting towards Canada's awful government - so it would be appropriate to use such words.

Toad · « **Reply #59 on:** February 05, 2003, 02:20:10 PM »

Dowding..... nice tapdance. Just chose this thread to finally bring it up eh?

All of us chooses the values which we espouse here. Other people will interpret those as they see them and through their own biases.

I'm no different and neither are you.

It isn't "personal" with me but as Iron says, it's only natural to evaluate and remember.