Sometimes a bit sarcastic, but I really like them.
"Certainly Schröder is keen for fences to be quickly mended, which is one reason why he came to talk tactics with Tony Blair over dinner at Downing Street last night. But can one be quite so sure these days that the wounds will heal quickly? Maybe this is to underestimate the capacity of Washington's ideologically driven triumphalist Republican rulers to take offence from those - like Europeans and US Democrats - whom they regard as the failures of history."
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
First article-typical narrowminded "left wing" spam; Al Gore is a non entity since he LOST the election here and any negative comments he makes are simply "sour grapes" (the same goes for Alec Baldwin, Barabra Streisand and the whole leftwing political/Hollywood machine). Secondly, this is no "spat", it is the ruination of a longstanding political relationship based common goals of peace and prosperity. One of the most important nations in the world decides to use "cheap" and "noxious" rhetoric against another making an accusation that is so base and repugnant. Shroeder's "shreiking and screeching" (and those by his minions) are not words of dissention meant to spark a genuine debate on a serious issue, but rather just exactly what the article myopically accuses the US republican party of--to yield "desired" results for an election, period. The commentary by the Schroeder government is indicitive of it's intentions in dealing with the US and furthermore, the German populace has also made it's feelings known by electing Shroeder. That is something that cannot be ignored either. Quite frankly, this kind of vascilation on the part of Germany is very distressing because it throws it's relations with the US into dissarray and not only damaging relations for the short term, but sullying it for the long term. What exactly are the motives of Germany and her government under Schroeder and what are we in the US to think--especially since platitudes like "we like the people of the US but hate ytheir government" are just that? Dissent is a component of a healthy relationship, "Nazi" baiting is reflectinve of something more deeply rooted and troubling espcially since "off the cuff" remarks are made without the veneer of "diplomacy and etiquette".
The second article actually is more of an indictment than anything else. This quote is the most noteowrthy "At least the general election has thrown up one answer. Goodness here means turning Berlin into a rock on the Bushite path to Baghdad. Gerhard Schröder's victory re-states the German question as a common and positive European one. His opposition to the American imperial adventurism has brought into focus a strong German identity - one which serves peace not war. " Not only do the tiresome and worn out "Bushite/Imperialist" quotes appear for the millionth time but the term "adventurism" is almost laughable. Adventurism?--there is no "negotiation" with a rouge state like Iraq who has had many attempts at "ceaseless negotiations" which have bourne no fruit. Yes, and the German identity has certainly been re identified-as one who is not "peace maker" but of "status quo". No one wants a "war" but those of us, especially ones like my self who have acutally lived through 9/11 want to loose any more sleep than we have already with a country like Iraq around who will arm any radical group or assist in the export of terror to other free countries. But then again the planes didn't crash in Frankfurt (not that I would want that to happen anywhere) and anyone can point a finger or say something indelicate with the "luxury" of distance....
The two articles are telling in other ways; not only of Germany, but of the general European negative view of the UK and it's alliance with the US. Most disturbingly it seems to indicate Europe's complete and utter disdain for the US and it's citizens. However, it is quite hypocritical-especially in Germany's case since they seem to feel our government is horrible, our people are illiterate children, yet they find it a rich environment for German companies to do business (without ethics, such as German chemical companies damaging our environment (and then the UN/EU calling us polluters) and certain media companies in financial dissarray and several German owned banks involvement in some of the financial scandals making news here. But then again this is to be expected since it was French AND German technology that built Osirac (for instance) and continues to flow into Iraq... guess the economic miracles the article speaks of have a bit of a dark side as well...) I can just see it now, just by making a retort against these ridiculous articles will yeild cries of "isolationalist" or "unilateralist"...blah blah blah....
(PS-Sarcasm is typical of the "lefty" immoderate press, so I think we are kind of used to it...and I actually decided to use the same kind of "scalding" language here...it's fun to "slum")
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1061 times:
Globemaster, the article is intersting, but the link is broken in the article. No Id on't think the realtionship is damaged beyond repair, especially since there is way too much at stake. Perhaps it is like dealing with Canada, where even though we have to deal with a "stiffling ethnocentrist French" Chretain, we are still able to work together both on friendship as wellas common interests in peace, politics, culture and economics.
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4851 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
Thanks for the hint, Capt.Picard. I'll try to get an issue at the railway-station today. Too bad the articles on their internet-page costs a fee, but I fear we'll have to live with that in the future - the times of a free internet are over.
It's always interesting to read a neutral opinion on issues
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1017 times:
Racko, just a small tip:
The economist is 100% for free trade, and is usually a supporter of American interests....but where it differs from 'blind supporters' is that it makes very decent, sensible reasons why we should, for example, support America against Iraq......its journalists seem to genuinely believe that American action will ultimately benefit the world community-including of course, the innocent people who happen to live in Iraq.
On the other hand, it doesn't hesitate to criticise America and Europe when both employ protectionist, trade-distorting measures, or China in its curbing of the people of Hong Kong's freedoms by stealth........thus, I don't agree with all the Economist's views, but I respect the way in which it makes its arguments. Sense, not sensationalism!