Back when the US didn't do such things, you may have had a point. Now the US has no claim to the moral high ground.
They never really had. I find it hard to believe that this is something new. Governments / States always used whatever things they had available in order to get what they wanted.
During the cold war it was just easier to keep secrets.
But that is very against the spirit, which is why the UN is a jury of different countries. To make sure you don't get (or have much less chance of) misinterpretations of the law, as it was intended to be enacted.
The sad thing is that the only teeth the UN had in the past 13 years is the US, and not it seems the teeth decided to eat on their own.
We'll see how the world reacts to it.... Who knows, maybe we see the forming of a UN Army now?
The Weimar Republic was an attempt to graft democracy onto a population that was not clamoring for it and did not want it. It failed. Postwar Germany was an attempt to graft democracy onto a nation that had not demanded it. It worked. That's the irony and the riddle -- how to make post-war Iraq more like 1945 Germany and not like 1920 Germany.
The problem in the Weimar republic was not that the people didn't want a democracy, the problem was that they went from one extreme (Der Kaiser) to another (free vote for all), that comprised of a leader that didn't had an understanding of the working plus a failed world economy led to the rise of Hitler who played the system very successfully.
Hitler was never directly elected, but much like it happened in the US in 2000 people stood behind him because they had the impression he was doing something.
After the second world war Germany had a teacher (in the US, France, UK), but also Germany was NOT (and still isn't really) independant. There was no peace treaty signed between Germany and the Victors (up to this day). Germany doesn't have a constitution but rather a "Grund Gesetz" something that for example states that Germany can pass any law they like if any of the Victors doesn't agree with it they can overrule it.
Yes, in reality Germany acts like an autark country and most people wouldn't think twice about it, but the reality is that Germany was (and in part still is) a domain of the US and other forces. The only reason Germany is not under full control and actually has it's own government is something we have to thank Stalin and the cold war for.
So yes, it could work out in Iraq as well, once you manage to slice and dice the country up so that the different ethnic groups (like the Kurds) have their own territory (something that the turks most likely won't be happy about) and then manage to garrission it for the next Generation or so. Building Nations, bringing democracy means more than just rolling with a tank into a country, remove whoever is in power and then put up a sign reading "Democracy" and then leaving.
If the US is serious about democracy in the region show a committment, keep troops there, build schools, build infrastructure, make sure people have enough food and overall: Be nice in the region.
In the past though the US's attemps seem more like a "hit and run" with others (sometimes) picking up the pieces. How far is democracy in Afghanistan? The country is falling apart again and because the US has lost interrest in it nothing is really happening there anymore. Karzai (for better or worse) was in Washington not too long ago asking for US support and was basically sent home empty handed.
When it comes to foreign policy (especially the one carried out with the gun) it seems the US is suffering a severe form of ADD. As soon as the gun poweder has settled the US is moving on to something else.
Yep, France said: "No War" and the US said: "We only accept war."
I think France was right, there was nothing they could have said. They DID suggest to give the Inspectors more time and what did the US say? "Nope, sorry we're not interrested, please just sign this declaration of War, you know, our tanks are already there and it is expensive to keep them in the desert."
In the end though I think France was right in their decision to Veto the US request (or threaten to).
And for the matter of Vetos and "why bring anything in?" The US Vetoed a lot more things in the past (especially concerning Israel) than a lot of other nations, so don't tell me that the council doesn't work for the US.
That sounds nice. How do you explain the Germans and the Japanese, then? There were no home-grown democratic fronts in either, before Allied occupation.
Ironically, the Germans serve as examples for both when democracy can be imposed (de-Nazification) and when it cannot (Weimar Republic). In other words, the world is a complicated place and anyone who pretends it isn't, is lying or deluded.
Excuse me, but Germany had a democracy before, the way Hitler got into power is not unsimilar to how Bush got it: In a very doubtful way.
The failure was in the system in the Weimar republic, the idea that ANY party who got a vote should be allowed in, that lead to chaos. Today there is a 5% minimu, this means if your party doesn't get at least 5% they don't get in, be it the city council, Landtag or Bundestag.
Japan didn't had a democracy but the US stuck around long enough to actually teach people how democracy works.
Moreover: Both Germany and Japan where countries that had existed before, there weren't tribes like in Afghanistan or Iraq who struggled for power and the law of the gun still rules.
The fundamental difference seems to be this: Many Europeans feel that the use of force cannot be justified, ever. Many Americans feel that the world is not a civilized place.
I don't think thats right. I think most europeans see the need for force at times, but also as the "last resort".
I think that is still something that is the back of the minds of many, mainly because of the cold war as well. It is a lot different if you are sitting in the US and look at the Berlin Wall on TV or if you can actually walk up to it and touch it, your perspective changes.
What happened this time around was the a certain arrogance on the side of the US lead to a shouting match and in the end the US storming out pissed. What happened? The US didn't get what they wanted at the time they wanted it, so the US government reacted like a spoiled child.
The only reason Blair was on his side was that he probably thought he could get brownie points by going with the US, in the end everybody lost.
Europe because the door for a peaceful resolution has been closed.
The US because now really nobody right now really likes the "bullying".
The UK because nobody in europe can understand why the UK (and spain) could go along with this.
And of course the people who are going to die in the near future because of the stubborn behaviour of everybody involved.
There is arrogance in the European position every bit as much as in the American. That's the real failure here... neither side is listening anymore.
True, there never was anyone who listened. The US had concerns, justified or not, so did Europe. The problem was though (and most likely will be in the future) that Europe as well the US are more into navel gazing than problem solving. That's actually the problem.
Someone wrote today that you cannot force democracy, it has to grow out of the people. And I agree. The war in Iraq will not accomplish anything, there won't be any democracy in Iraq for a long time to come, and if Afghanistan is any indication it won't be the US who will clean up the mess (not only from GWII but also from the last one).
Ah, yes, Europe -- known for centuries as the eden free of bloodshed...
Of course it was not. But people have learned out of that bloodshed. They have come to realize what war can do.
The Second World War is still alive in peoples minds today, there are still reminders everywhere about what has happend. That is something the US doesn't have, never experienced, and that is where the US arrogance comes from.
When 9/11 happened I had hoped that people would wake up, that the U.S. Government would realize what was the cause of it, but of course I expected to much.
A year and a half after 9/11 the U.S. is alienating the rest of the world even faster, and worse: They still believe they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Our disarmament continues to this day. US biological programs were halted in, I believe, the early 70s, and all materials destroyed. Chemicals we don't have, as per the various laws of war banning them.
I think the UN should send inspectors into the US and make sure that the US really doesn't have any of those WMD anymore.
After all, it is in the best interrest of world peace, is it not?
Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.
Yeah, isn't it ironic how the "Students of the US" are now opposing the teacher?
I think both Germany and Japan have learned their lessons and are actually still believing in all the Propaganda that the US is broadcasting about itself.
A shame that the US lost it's own way somewhere along the lines.
If you watch "Band of Brothers" in the first episode they have some of the old soldiers talking. One of the thing one says was: "It was a different time, it was a different war."
How true. Morale doesn't seem to be the most important thing anymore.
Even if we opened our borders and invited their people to come here, not all of them would; there are bigger trends at work over the long haul. But that doesn't mean you want to encourage the opposite with a stupid policy. If you're self-interested you have to at least try, eh?
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the US seems to have turned a little bit xenophobic lately which is quite a feature for such a diverse country.
The chances for the US to let in more immigrants and people who want to come to the US is pretty mute, much more so with the current situation.
I do agree though that at the end of the day the US (and other countries) would profit from it.
we could use it to brain-drain the 3rd world, to suck the talent out of where it can charge 10% to here, where it will charge 100%.
I'll take it that this is why already a lot of countries are complaing about the brain drain that is happening towards the US.
Let's face it. The Bright ones who can really propell the industry forward won't have a problem to land in the US (look at Linus Torvalds as an example) As such your point is pretty mute, countries like Canada complain about the brain drain to the US!
I agree with your statement. The reason I brought this up though was that most people in America are still better off (and profited more from Globalization) than the programmer in India or the H1B guy who came into the country.
Leaving everything you know behind and start over is a HUGE undertaking, something that a lot of people never get.
Will Globalization work in the long run? Yes, IF done right.
IS Globalization done right? Not by far.
Will be all be happy with what we get? Most likely not.
But again, no changes will be made until the whole house of cards collapses.
We can't changed what happened, but we can prevent it from happening again. And giving all the power to the corporations is categorically not the way to do that.
But that would mean to give up on the "American Dream(TM)" and that would mean that people would need to abadon at least the idea that they can become rich one day themselves.
In other words: Fat chance. Only after everything collapses will people reconsider.
People do not have a right to two cars, a huge house, overseas vacations, etc. They do however have a right to a government that looks out for the well-being of their own nation, their own people.
True in part, but you can't get that by cutting taxes, somehow the government has to pay for it, so either you have to pay the appropriate taxes for this or you have to look out for yourself. Normally the people screaming about too much regulation are the ones that start screaming for the government when they want something from it. You can't have it both ways.
Why the fuck do I pay taxes? It's for services rendered. One of those services is that my government does not sell me and my community out so that one guy can have twenty-two cars, a huge home abroad and a two week vacation here.
True enough, but I am sure you were all in favour of the latest tax cuts?
It isn't about making a profit at all costs for these companies. It's about ensuring the well-being of ALL people, both here and elsewhere.
Wrong, that is how companies would like to see themselves portrait but at the end of the day for them (and their shareholders) it is all about profits. Sure they like to say: "Stay out of this government, we can take care of it." But they will only do just enough to look at least halfway good.
If these people were to get paid comparatively, then their standard of living would go up, but instead you insist on bringing MY standard of living down.
There has to be a tradeoff: You can't grow indefinetly and as such you have to give up one of your cars in order for someone else to be able to use the resources. You can easily lower your standard of living (well most people can) without really impacting your QUALITY of living.
You can fuck right off, and take your fucking multinationals with you.
If you would revert back to a time before the "globalization" and produce everything at home your standard of living would diminish even faster. The costs for the companies would be higher, the companies would look for other ways to cut corners and in the end you wouldn't be better off.
There have been studies done that show very clearly that the countries (as a whole) who profited most from Globalization are the first world countries.
1. Stabilization of a country next door to Moldova's crazy separatists, Serbia's nasty nationalists, Turkey's growing tilt towards islamism, and Georgia which is relatively quiet now but can explode at the slightest provocation
Interrestingly enough though all of those countries are also interrested in the EU at the same time.
To say that Turkey is tilting towards islamism is bullocks, they were always tilted towards islam as it is the dominant religion in the region (as it is with the other countries you are listing).
The problem is that you paint with such a broad brush like the Bush administration thinking that by "punishing" countries like Germany you actually make more friends in the world.
2. Lower costs in hiring locals
Again, unless you talk about the prostitutes I don't think there is much love lost in Germany.
3. A truly grateful country that has a centuries long political memory of being a border country, to be picked over from every direction
Yeah, and germany in the past 50 years wasn't the playball of the powerful. I am sure Romania is going to be very grateful to the US to come in and abuse them a little bit more, after all they are used to it, aren't they?
4. Black Sea access
Ahh, Oil again?
Germany:
1. A country perfectly capable of adequate defense spending but who prefers defense subsidies from the US and later of its EU defense partners
Funny, this was exactly what the US wanted after the second world war, now that it is inconvinient for the US they start whining.
2. A country in the middle of an already stabilized region
Oh my, no more war for the US to wage? Let's move out, I mean how good is an army if you can't wage any wars? (do you get the hint of my sarcasm?)
3. A country that has no problems whipping up anti-US sentiment to win an election
Two words: Freedom Fries. Quite frankly it itches me extremly right now to drive down to Bufallo and order some French Fries.
The thing blockheads like you (and the wast majority of the american media as well as the government) never understood is that the times have changed. Germany (and most germans) aren't against the US they are against the US foreign policy and so are (surprise surprise) quite a lot of countries on this planet. That this became subject in the last election was pure cooincidence, and I am sure if the situations would have been reversed Bush wouldn't have thought twice about using the same tactics. That's politics for you. Get over it.
4. A country that is likely to impose worse and worse conditions on the future use of those expensive bases.
Oh my, a country that actually has a conscience and politicians who acctually listen to their people. I know this must be a shocking concept for a country where Lobbying is part of the business and Joe Sixpack gave up long ago on the illusion that he actually has any impact on the ones in power.
Finally, for refueling along the way, why would the FRG be any better than a Romania or Bulgaria that is closer to the likely final destination?
[Insert Snitty remark about american understanding of world geography].
Look at a map, how do you want to get to Romania when for example Germany would not allow American war planes to fly over there? You would have to fly a huge de-tour. But through where? Spain? For now maybe but Aznar won't be in power for much longer and the people in spain think along the same lines as the ones in Germany and France.
The UK? Blair is most likely done after the next election. Not only that but it seems like the UK finally seems to realize that they can't make the island to the 51st State of the Union and have to choose between Europe and America... I venture the guess that they choose Europe. Heck, even though they don't have the Euro yet it is accepted everywhere because people realize
This is something I never got about Xbox people. You always say that the Xbox comes with a network adaptor. So what? You have to pay $50 to use something you already have. The PS2 one only costs $40. This isn't cheaper?
You can use it without having to buy the LIVE subscription. So in the end: No you don't.
But if you want to get any deeper into this: The HDD: I don't have to shell out huge amounts of money for memory cards, something that always bugged me. I don't own one, for the first time since I had a console.
In the past I spent easily a hundred or more on different memory cards, they were always grossly overpriced, considering how much memory in itself costs.
But listen to yourself, the US needs to "strike deep into eastern europe, russia and the far east". There's nothing there that either needs to be done (eastern europe, russia) or couldn't be done better with bases further east. In case you didn't notice the FRG isn't on the front line anymore against the e. bloc. Or better said, it's no more on the front line than anybody else in the 1st world as the muslim world decides whether jihad's going to come back in style.
The problem is: Your planes need to refule somewhere along the way. Germany is such a great location for it because it is right in the middle of everything. That plus the US (and NATO) poured tons of money into building those bases. I find it highly unlikely that the AF is going to give up on Ramstein for example, and that was the Airbase where most of the troops that ended up in the Gulf where travelling during the first Gulf War.
Darn, I can find the Japanese rent payments but not the German ones. I find it unlikely that the US paid in one case but not the other. I did find a web page that refers to Article 49 of the SOFA and says it requires that most US paid for construction projects be done by german firms. I think the actual text of the SOFA SA became a casualty of the US military info pullback after 9/11.
Considering that Germany like the US is part of NATO (Japan is not) I venture the guess that this is the reason why the US got it for free. Same is true for German pilots for example training at Red Flag.
Good luck funding your own defense needs and your social spending too.
I guess the military is going to get the short end of the stick. I would also think that in another 10 years time there will most likely be an amalgamtion of the different EU armies into one (it is already beginning).
I guess one of the reasons the Blair is so pissed is because of French being the official language of the EU not English;)
?The world economy is much more complex than can be modeled by any 2-variable formula. Unionization and health care really have no logical connection, here.
I tend to disagree, the unions for example were the ones who brought healthcare to the masses, something that most employers by default would probably never have given.
And I doubt very much that a lot of companies these days would if it wouldn't be already "standard".
Don't kid yourself, the oh so much hated unions (why do you hate them actually?) did a lot of good that even you benefit from as a non Union member.
Does she get 3.5 years off for each extra kid she has?
Yes.
Can't you see that those types of policies are totally irresponsible economically? How the hell is that German company supposed to compete with an American company or a Japanese company that doesn't have such ridiculous policies?
Well let's think here for a moment. The mother can afford to stay home, take care of the kids and make sure that they are stable, healthy etc. That in turn means that they will probably do better in school because mother isn't torn between working overtime just to make it and at the same time raise their kids.
Quite frankly I think it is a splendid idea and should be implemented in other places as well. Kids (as you americans like to say it so nicely) are the future and shouldn't you invest in the future? You seem to think that the only person who gains from this is the mother? Kids are a fulltime job, enough that *I* right now definetly don't want my own.
What happens when that company can no longer afford to stay in businessness? Who's going to pay for the mother then?
The company doesn't pay for it, the government pays for it. All the company has to do is to give her the job back when she is returning to work.
How is Germany going to keep its social programs funded when the tax revenue goes down the drain because no one can afford to employ anyone anymore?
There is something called "Generation Contract" the idea was pretty smart (in theory at least).
Because the state didn't had billions in the bank they decided that instead of everybody saving up for their own retirement they just hand out the money you pay into your pension fund right now to the person who goes into retirement. Not bad, the problem is though that the birth rate in germany is plummeting and as such there aren't as many young people coming into the work force as people are retiring and that results in the deficit.
A new system has to be found and people try to figure out how to rebuild the card house without having it all come down.
1. Occupiers generally don't pay the occupied country for the right to stay there. The US does.
Since when is the US paying for the bases they are using? They pay from time to time when they managed to throw some bombs on civilians (of course it's an accident) or a plane falls onto a house but besides that I am not aware of any payments from the US to the German Government.
2. Wait until you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Rumsfeld's force repositioning plan gets released. Occupied countries generally don't beg to keep their occupier when the occupier wants to leave.
Yeah, he already did, and the reaction in Germany was: "So what?"
The US has reduced forces ever since the end of the cold war. Stuttgart were I grew up had at leat eight bases in the vicinity (it was after all the HQ), there are now (if I am not mistaken) three active ones left, they even closed a army hospital down.
No, what the US WANTS to keep are airbases like Ramstein as they allow them to easily strike deep into eastern europe, russia and the far east. Without an airbase in Germany it gets more complicated, of course they could land in spain or Italy but the infrastructure isn't there, as such it is much more of a problem for the US right now than int is for Germany.
And just so you know: Germany was occupied until after the reunification, there was never a peace treaty signed nor was Germany in that sense autarc(sp?). The only reason Germany (both states) had something to say in the world was because of the cold war. They were both pawns for the super powers. A little fact Bush & Co. seem to have overlooked as well, considering their irritation with Germany.
From the FRG's viewpoint, they lose out on US money spent in their economy, whatever land payments they were getting for those bases, and their general staff will revolt over the prospect of having to say with a straight face that they can defend the FRG with the defense budget that is allocated by the FRG parliament.
The amount of people emplyed by US forces is pretty small. And I know what I am talking about I grew up in Stuttgart which is where the US forces had their main bases.
The US BTW, never paid the FRG a penny for their use of the land, in fact some of the bases they abandoned during the 90s were left in a rather toxic state and to the best of my knowledge the US never paid a cent for the cleanup either (that includes tons of buried life ammunition!).
Germany BTW was never able to defend itself after WWII, the defense plan by the US in case the Soviets attack was to delay any Russian advance at all costs (that means even the use of tactical nuclear weapons) for at least a week until more troops could be brought in and the Rhine was supossed to be where they planned to make their stance; in other words Germany was supposed to be used a buffer zone, nothing more. The Soviets btw, seem to know this they planned on using tactical nukes on German soil as well and be at the French atlantic coast within a month.
From that perspective: What has Germany to defend itself about? If there is any attack on German soil it will be an attack on the entire EU and as such a reply would be furnited. States like Poland and everybody else is in worse military shape and they won't attack Germany. Russia? They are closer to Germany these days (both politically and business wise) than they are to the US. Germany has nothing to fear military and in fact I don't think I know many people who are sad seeing the US troops go.
It will be an unpleasant set of long-term bills to pay for Schroeder winning his 2nd term.
What does he have to pay? There is no debt, the impact that the American troops have on the German economy by being stationed there is neglectable. You are daydreaming, and so is Rumsfeld if he thinks that moving his paws on the board is going to hurt the enemy (that in this case would be Germany).
Most people I know in Germany didn't really had much of a problem finding work in the past.
The situation really is more to the extend that there is a huge capacity in the east (former eastern Germany) that simple was never put to good use.
The 10% figure is also not really true, as some people never reported, same I guess you can say is true in the US.
Also, if I am not mistaken the 10% for example include people who get ANY kind of social insurance money, be it because they are unemployed or because their job doesn't pay enough, there is a multi tier system in Germany, so not everbody gets full benefits.
Just how big ARE your hands? I find the X-box controllers to be unwieldly and uncomfortable, even the smaller rerelease. On the other hand, I found the GC controller to be too small...
The first comfortable controller I had was the Dreamcast one, which in comparision to the XBox one is small though and too thin.
How big? No idea, let's just say I tend to cramp quite a bit with a PS/2 Style controller and never understood how people could use them for extended periods of time.
The XBox one (not the S version) lies comfortable in my hand and is exactly the right size.
Of course, as a PS2 owner, I can get a headset too, provided I pay $60 for a copy of SOCOMM that comes with it.
Not to forget that you also need to buy a modem / Network adapter, something that comes standard on the XBox.
I was holding back for quite a while, couldn't decide if PS2, GCN or Xbox.... In the end I bougth an XBox and so far I am happy with it, more so than I think I would have been with a PS2 and if it is just for the larger, more comfortable controller.
Slashdot Mirror
Back when the US didn't do such things, you may have had a point. Now the US has no claim to the moral high ground.
They never really had. I find it hard to believe that this is something new. Governments / States always used whatever things they had available in order to get what they wanted.
During the cold war it was just easier to keep secrets.
Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac.
Why shoudl they? Chirac (as opposed to Bush) wasn't ruling out a war, he was just against the timetable and the way the war was forced by Bush.
M.
But that is very against the spirit, which is why the UN is a jury of different countries. To make sure you don't get (or have much less chance of) misinterpretations of the law, as it was intended to be enacted.
The sad thing is that the only teeth the UN had in the past 13 years is the US, and not it seems the teeth decided to eat on their own.
We'll see how the world reacts to it.... Who knows, maybe we see the forming of a UN Army now?
The Weimar Republic was an attempt to graft democracy onto a population that was not clamoring for it and did not want it. It failed. Postwar Germany was an attempt to graft democracy onto a nation that had not demanded it. It worked. That's the irony and the riddle -- how to make post-war Iraq more like 1945 Germany and not like 1920 Germany.
The problem in the Weimar republic was not that the people didn't want a democracy, the problem was that they went from one extreme (Der Kaiser) to another (free vote for all), that comprised of a leader that didn't had an understanding of the working plus a failed world economy led to the rise of Hitler who played the system very successfully.
Hitler was never directly elected, but much like it happened in the US in 2000 people stood behind him because they had the impression he was doing something.
After the second world war Germany had a teacher (in the US, France, UK), but also Germany was NOT (and still isn't really) independant. There was no peace treaty signed between Germany and the Victors (up to this day). Germany doesn't have a constitution but rather a "Grund Gesetz" something that for example states that Germany can pass any law they like if any of the Victors doesn't agree with it they can overrule it.
Yes, in reality Germany acts like an autark country and most people wouldn't think twice about it, but the reality is that Germany was (and in part still is) a domain of the US and other forces. The only reason Germany is not under full control and actually has it's own government is something we have to thank Stalin and the cold war for.
So yes, it could work out in Iraq as well, once you manage to slice and dice the country up so that the different ethnic groups (like the Kurds) have their own territory (something that the turks most likely won't be happy about) and then manage to garrission it for the next Generation or so. Building Nations, bringing democracy means more than just rolling with a tank into a country, remove whoever is in power and then put up a sign reading "Democracy" and then leaving.
If the US is serious about democracy in the region show a committment, keep troops there, build schools, build infrastructure, make sure people have enough food and overall: Be nice in the region.
In the past though the US's attemps seem more like a "hit and run" with others (sometimes) picking up the pieces. How far is democracy in Afghanistan? The country is falling apart again and because the US has lost interrest in it nothing is really happening there anymore. Karzai (for better or worse) was in Washington not too long ago asking for US support and was basically sent home empty handed.
When it comes to foreign policy (especially the one carried out with the gun) it seems the US is suffering a severe form of ADD. As soon as the gun poweder has settled the US is moving on to something else.
France was on one side, the US on the other.
Yep, France said: "No War" and the US said: "We only accept war."
I think France was right, there was nothing they could have said. They DID suggest to give the Inspectors more time and what did the US say? "Nope, sorry we're not interrested, please just sign this declaration of War, you know, our tanks are already there and it is expensive to keep them in the desert."
In the end though I think France was right in their decision to Veto the US request (or threaten to).
And for the matter of Vetos and "why bring anything in?" The US Vetoed a lot more things in the past (especially concerning Israel) than a lot of other nations, so don't tell me that the council doesn't work for the US.
That sounds nice. How do you explain the Germans and the Japanese, then? There were no home-grown democratic fronts in either, before Allied occupation.
Ironically, the Germans serve as examples for both when democracy can be imposed (de-Nazification) and when it cannot (Weimar Republic). In other words, the world is a complicated place and anyone who pretends it isn't, is lying or deluded.
Excuse me, but Germany had a democracy before, the way Hitler got into power is not unsimilar to how Bush got it: In a very doubtful way.
The failure was in the system in the Weimar republic, the idea that ANY party who got a vote should be allowed in, that lead to chaos. Today there is a 5% minimu, this means if your party doesn't get at least 5% they don't get in, be it the city council, Landtag or Bundestag.
Japan didn't had a democracy but the US stuck around long enough to actually teach people how democracy works.
Moreover: Both Germany and Japan where countries that had existed before, there weren't tribes like in Afghanistan or Iraq who struggled for power and the law of the gun still rules.
The fundamental difference seems to be this: Many Europeans feel that the use of force cannot be justified, ever. Many Americans feel that the world is not a civilized place.
I don't think thats right. I think most europeans see the need for force at times, but also as the "last resort".
I think that is still something that is the back of the minds of many, mainly because of the cold war as well. It is a lot different if you are sitting in the US and look at the Berlin Wall on TV or if you can actually walk up to it and touch it, your perspective changes.
What happened this time around was the a certain arrogance on the side of the US lead to a shouting match and in the end the US storming out pissed. What happened? The US didn't get what they wanted at the time they wanted it, so the US government reacted like a spoiled child.
The only reason Blair was on his side was that he probably thought he could get brownie points by going with the US, in the end everybody lost.
Europe because the door for a peaceful resolution has been closed.
The US because now really nobody right now really likes the "bullying".
The UK because nobody in europe can understand why the UK (and spain) could go along with this.
And of course the people who are going to die in the near future because of the stubborn behaviour of everybody involved.
There is arrogance in the European position every bit as much as in the American. That's the real failure here... neither side is listening anymore.
True, there never was anyone who listened. The US had concerns, justified or not, so did Europe. The problem was though (and most likely will be in the future) that Europe as well the US are more into navel gazing than problem solving. That's actually the problem.
Someone wrote today that you cannot force democracy, it has to grow out of the people. And I agree. The war in Iraq will not accomplish anything, there won't be any democracy in Iraq for a long time to come, and if Afghanistan is any indication it won't be the US who will clean up the mess (not only from GWII but also from the last one).
M.
Ah, yes, Europe -- known for centuries as the eden free of bloodshed...
Of course it was not. But people have learned out of that bloodshed. They have come to realize what war can do.
The Second World War is still alive in peoples minds today, there are still reminders everywhere about what has happend. That is something the US doesn't have, never experienced, and that is where the US arrogance comes from.
When 9/11 happened I had hoped that people would wake up, that the U.S. Government would realize what was the cause of it, but of course I expected to much.
A year and a half after 9/11 the U.S. is alienating the rest of the world even faster, and worse: They still believe they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Our disarmament continues to this day. US biological programs were halted in, I believe, the early 70s, and all materials destroyed. Chemicals we don't have, as per the various laws of war banning them.
I think the UN should send inspectors into the US and make sure that the US really doesn't have any of those WMD anymore.
After all, it is in the best interrest of world peace, is it not?
BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.
Yeah, isn't it ironic how the "Students of the US" are now opposing the teacher?
I think both Germany and Japan have learned their lessons and are actually still believing in all the Propaganda that the US is broadcasting about itself.
A shame that the US lost it's own way somewhere along the lines.
If you watch "Band of Brothers" in the first episode they have some of the old soldiers talking. One of the thing one says was: "It was a different time, it was a different war."
How true. Morale doesn't seem to be the most important thing anymore.
Even if we opened our borders and invited their people to come here, not all of them would; there are bigger trends at work over the long haul. But that doesn't mean you want to encourage the opposite with a stupid policy. If you're self-interested you have to at least try, eh?
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the US seems to have turned a little bit xenophobic lately which is quite a feature for such a diverse country.
The chances for the US to let in more immigrants and people who want to come to the US is pretty mute, much more so with the current situation.
I do agree though that at the end of the day the US (and other countries) would profit from it.
M.
we could use it to brain-drain the 3rd world, to suck the talent out of where it can charge 10% to here, where it will charge 100%.
I'll take it that this is why already a lot of countries are complaing about the brain drain that is happening towards the US.
Let's face it. The Bright ones who can really propell the industry forward won't have a problem to land in the US (look at Linus Torvalds as an example) As such your point is pretty mute, countries like Canada complain about the brain drain to the US!
I agree with your statement. The reason I brought this up though was that most people in America are still better off (and profited more from Globalization) than the programmer in India or the H1B guy who came into the country.
Leaving everything you know behind and start over is a HUGE undertaking, something that a lot of people never get.
Will Globalization work in the long run? Yes, IF done right.
IS Globalization done right? Not by far.
Will be all be happy with what we get? Most likely not.
But again, no changes will be made until the whole house of cards collapses.
We can't changed what happened, but we can prevent it from happening again. And giving all the power to the corporations is categorically not the way to do that.
But that would mean to give up on the "American Dream(TM)" and that would mean that people would need to abadon at least the idea that they can become rich one day themselves.
In other words: Fat chance. Only after everything collapses will people reconsider.
People do not have a right to two cars, a huge house, overseas vacations, etc. They do however have a right to a government that looks out for the well-being of their own nation, their own people.
True in part, but you can't get that by cutting taxes, somehow the government has to pay for it, so either you have to pay the appropriate taxes for this or you have to look out for yourself. Normally the people screaming about too much regulation are the ones that start screaming for the government when they want something from it. You can't have it both ways.
Why the fuck do I pay taxes? It's for services rendered. One of those services is that my government does not sell me and my community out so that one guy can have twenty-two cars, a huge home abroad and a two week vacation here.
True enough, but I am sure you were all in favour of the latest tax cuts?
It isn't about making a profit at all costs for these companies. It's about ensuring the well-being of ALL people, both here and elsewhere.
Wrong, that is how companies would like to see themselves portrait but at the end of the day for them (and their shareholders) it is all about profits. Sure they like to say: "Stay out of this government, we can take care of it." But they will only do just enough to look at least halfway good.
If these people were to get paid comparatively, then their standard of living would go up, but instead you insist on bringing MY standard of living down.
There has to be a tradeoff: You can't grow indefinetly and as such you have to give up one of your cars in order for someone else to be able to use the resources. You can easily lower your standard of living (well most people can) without really impacting your QUALITY of living.
You can fuck right off, and take your fucking multinationals with you.
If you would revert back to a time before the "globalization" and produce everything at home your standard of living would diminish even faster. The costs for the companies would be higher, the companies would look for other ways to cut corners and in the end you wouldn't be better off.
There have been studies done that show very clearly that the countries (as a whole) who profited most from Globalization are the first world countries.
Romania:
1. Stabilization of a country next door to Moldova's crazy separatists, Serbia's nasty nationalists, Turkey's growing tilt towards islamism, and Georgia which is relatively quiet now but can explode at the slightest provocation
Interrestingly enough though all of those countries are also interrested in the EU at the same time.
To say that Turkey is tilting towards islamism is bullocks, they were always tilted towards islam as it is the dominant religion in the region (as it is with the other countries you are listing).
The problem is that you paint with such a broad brush like the Bush administration thinking that by "punishing" countries like Germany you actually make more friends in the world.
2. Lower costs in hiring locals
Again, unless you talk about the prostitutes I don't think there is much love lost in Germany.
3. A truly grateful country that has a centuries long political memory of being a border country, to be picked over from every direction
Yeah, and germany in the past 50 years wasn't the playball of the powerful. I am sure Romania is going to be very grateful to the US to come in and abuse them a little bit more, after all they are used to it, aren't they?
4. Black Sea access
Ahh, Oil again?
Germany:
1. A country perfectly capable of adequate defense spending but who prefers defense subsidies from the US and later of its EU defense partners
Funny, this was exactly what the US wanted after the second world war, now that it is inconvinient for the US they start whining.
2. A country in the middle of an already stabilized region
Oh my, no more war for the US to wage? Let's move out, I mean how good is an army if you can't wage any wars? (do you get the hint of my sarcasm?)
3. A country that has no problems whipping up anti-US sentiment to win an election
Two words: Freedom Fries. Quite frankly it itches me extremly right now to drive down to Bufallo and order some French Fries.
The thing blockheads like you (and the wast majority of the american media as well as the government) never understood is that the times have changed. Germany (and most germans) aren't against the US they are against the US foreign policy and so are (surprise surprise) quite a lot of countries on this planet. That this became subject in the last election was pure cooincidence, and I am sure if the situations would have been reversed Bush wouldn't have thought twice about using the same tactics. That's politics for you. Get over it.
4. A country that is likely to impose worse and worse conditions on the future use of those expensive bases.
Oh my, a country that actually has a conscience and politicians who acctually listen to their people. I know this must be a shocking concept for a country where Lobbying is part of the business and Joe Sixpack gave up long ago on the illusion that he actually has any impact on the ones in power.
Finally, for refueling along the way, why would the FRG be any better than a Romania or Bulgaria that is closer to the likely final destination?
[Insert Snitty remark about american understanding of world geography].
Look at a map, how do you want to get to Romania when for example Germany would not allow American war planes to fly over there? You would have to fly a huge de-tour. But through where? Spain? For now maybe but Aznar won't be in power for much longer and the people in spain think along the same lines as the ones in Germany and France.
The UK? Blair is most likely done after the next election. Not only that but it seems like the UK finally seems to realize that they can't make the island to the 51st State of the Union and have to choose between Europe and America... I venture the guess that they choose Europe. Heck, even though they don't have the Euro yet it is accepted everywhere because people realize
This is something I never got about Xbox people. You always say that the Xbox comes with a network adaptor. So what? You have to pay $50 to use something you already have. The PS2 one only costs $40. This isn't cheaper?
You can use it without having to buy the LIVE subscription. So in the end: No you don't.
But if you want to get any deeper into this: The HDD: I don't have to shell out huge amounts of money for memory cards, something that always bugged me. I don't own one, for the first time since I had a console.
In the past I spent easily a hundred or more on different memory cards, they were always grossly overpriced, considering how much memory in itself costs.
M.
But listen to yourself, the US needs to "strike deep into eastern europe, russia and the far east". There's nothing there that either needs to be done (eastern europe, russia) or couldn't be done better with bases further east. In case you didn't notice the FRG isn't on the front line anymore against the e. bloc. Or better said, it's no more on the front line than anybody else in the 1st world as the muslim world decides whether jihad's going to come back in style.
;)
The problem is: Your planes need to refule somewhere along the way. Germany is such a great location for it because it is right in the middle of everything. That plus the US (and NATO) poured tons of money into building those bases. I find it highly unlikely that the AF is going to give up on Ramstein for example, and that was the Airbase where most of the troops that ended up in the Gulf where travelling during the first Gulf War.
Darn, I can find the Japanese rent payments but not the German ones. I find it unlikely that the US paid in one case but not the other. I did find a web page that refers to Article 49 of the SOFA and says it requires that most US paid for construction projects be done by german firms. I think the actual text of the SOFA SA became a casualty of the US military info pullback after 9/11.
Considering that Germany like the US is part of NATO (Japan is not) I venture the guess that this is the reason why the US got it for free. Same is true for German pilots for example training at Red Flag.
Good luck funding your own defense needs and your social spending too.
I guess the military is going to get the short end of the stick. I would also think that in another 10 years time there will most likely be an amalgamtion of the different EU armies into one (it is already beginning).
I guess one of the reasons the Blair is so pissed is because of French being the official language of the EU not English
M.
?The world economy is much more complex than can be modeled by any 2-variable formula. Unionization and health care really have no logical connection, here.
I tend to disagree, the unions for example were the ones who brought healthcare to the masses, something that most employers by default would probably never have given.
And I doubt very much that a lot of companies these days would if it wouldn't be already "standard".
Don't kid yourself, the oh so much hated unions (why do you hate them actually?) did a lot of good that even you benefit from as a non Union member.
Does she get 3.5 years off for each extra kid she has?
Yes.
Can't you see that those types of policies are totally irresponsible economically? How the hell is that German company supposed to compete with an American company or a Japanese company that doesn't have such ridiculous policies?
Well let's think here for a moment. The mother can afford to stay home, take care of the kids and make sure that they are stable, healthy etc. That in turn means that they will probably do better in school because mother isn't torn between working overtime just to make it and at the same time raise their kids.
Quite frankly I think it is a splendid idea and should be implemented in other places as well. Kids (as you americans like to say it so nicely) are the future and shouldn't you invest in the future? You seem to think that the only person who gains from this is the mother? Kids are a fulltime job, enough that *I* right now definetly don't want my own.
What happens when that company can no longer afford to stay in businessness? Who's going to pay for the mother then?
The company doesn't pay for it, the government pays for it. All the company has to do is to give her the job back when she is returning to work.
How is Germany going to keep its social programs funded when the tax revenue goes down the drain because no one can afford to employ anyone anymore?
There is something called "Generation Contract" the idea was pretty smart (in theory at least).
Because the state didn't had billions in the bank they decided that instead of everybody saving up for their own retirement they just hand out the money you pay into your pension fund right now to the person who goes into retirement. Not bad, the problem is though that the birth rate in germany is plummeting and as such there aren't as many young people coming into the work force as people are retiring and that results in the deficit.
A new system has to be found and people try to figure out how to rebuild the card house without having it all come down.
1. Occupiers generally don't pay the occupied country for the right to stay there. The US does.
Since when is the US paying for the bases they are using? They pay from time to time when they managed to throw some bombs on civilians (of course it's an accident) or a plane falls onto a house but besides that I am not aware of any payments from the US to the German Government.
2. Wait until you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Rumsfeld's force repositioning plan gets released. Occupied countries generally don't beg to keep their occupier when the occupier wants to leave.
Yeah, he already did, and the reaction in Germany was: "So what?"
The US has reduced forces ever since the end of the cold war. Stuttgart were I grew up had at leat eight bases in the vicinity (it was after all the HQ), there are now (if I am not mistaken) three active ones left, they even closed a army hospital down.
No, what the US WANTS to keep are airbases like Ramstein as they allow them to easily strike deep into eastern europe, russia and the far east. Without an airbase in Germany it gets more complicated, of course they could land in spain or Italy but the infrastructure isn't there, as such it is much more of a problem for the US right now than int is for Germany.
And just so you know: Germany was occupied until after the reunification, there was never a peace treaty signed nor was Germany in that sense autarc(sp?). The only reason Germany (both states) had something to say in the world was because of the cold war. They were both pawns for the super powers. A little fact Bush & Co. seem to have overlooked as well, considering their irritation with Germany.
From the FRG's viewpoint, they lose out on US money spent in their economy, whatever land payments they were getting for those bases, and their general staff will revolt over the prospect of having to say with a straight face that they can defend the FRG with the defense budget that is allocated by the FRG parliament.
The amount of people emplyed by US forces is pretty small. And I know what I am talking about I grew up in Stuttgart which is where the US forces had their main bases.
The US BTW, never paid the FRG a penny for their use of the land, in fact some of the bases they abandoned during the 90s were left in a rather toxic state and to the best of my knowledge the US never paid a cent for the cleanup either (that includes tons of buried life ammunition!).
Germany BTW was never able to defend itself after WWII, the defense plan by the US in case the Soviets attack was to delay any Russian advance at all costs (that means even the use of tactical nuclear weapons) for at least a week until more troops could be brought in and the Rhine was supossed to be where they planned to make their stance; in other words Germany was supposed to be used a buffer zone, nothing more. The Soviets btw, seem to know this they planned on using tactical nukes on German soil as well and be at the French atlantic coast within a month.
From that perspective: What has Germany to defend itself about? If there is any attack on German soil it will be an attack on the entire EU and as such a reply would be furnited. States like Poland and everybody else is in worse military shape and they won't attack Germany. Russia? They are closer to Germany these days (both politically and business wise) than they are to the US. Germany has nothing to fear military and in fact I don't think I know many people who are sad seeing the US troops go.
It will be an unpleasant set of long-term bills to pay for Schroeder winning his 2nd term.
What does he have to pay? There is no debt, the impact that the American troops have on the German economy by being stationed there is neglectable. You are daydreaming, and so is Rumsfeld if he thinks that moving his paws on the board is going to hurt the enemy (that in this case would be Germany).
M.
Most people I know in Germany didn't really had much of a problem finding work in the past.
The situation really is more to the extend that there is a huge capacity in the east (former eastern Germany) that simple was never put to good use.
The 10% figure is also not really true, as some people never reported, same I guess you can say is true in the US.
Also, if I am not mistaken the 10% for example include people who get ANY kind of social insurance money, be it because they are unemployed or because their job doesn't pay enough, there is a multi tier system in Germany, so not everbody gets full benefits.
M.
Just how big ARE your hands? I find the X-box controllers to be unwieldly and uncomfortable, even the smaller rerelease. On the other hand, I found the GC controller to be too small...
The first comfortable controller I had was the Dreamcast one, which in comparision to the XBox one is small though and too thin.
How big? No idea, let's just say I tend to cramp quite a bit with a PS/2 Style controller and never understood how people could use them for extended periods of time.
The XBox one (not the S version) lies comfortable in my hand and is exactly the right size.
M.
Of course, as a PS2 owner, I can get a headset too, provided I pay $60 for a copy of SOCOMM that comes with it.
Not to forget that you also need to buy a modem / Network adapter, something that comes standard on the XBox.
I was holding back for quite a while, couldn't decide if PS2, GCN or Xbox.... In the end I bougth an XBox and so far I am happy with it, more so than I think I would have been with a PS2 and if it is just for the larger, more comfortable controller.
M.