Fuchur,

Sarcasm? Would I use this in a debate about serious topics with serious people? Just look at some of the comments. The thought processes behind these are brilliant.

Besides I am not sure what Kathy is all fired up about. I just took the salient points that have been made by many Europeans, UN’ers, and the Left in the US as well as experts and consolidated them into a single post. Many of those who post here take these same positions and made the same points.

The only differences in my post was the use of the word “surrender” and letting the french be the lead nation. Of course, the french always think they are the lead nation. This is one time they can be. Based on how Germany’s foreign policy has mirrored theirs I see no franco-Germany conflict on this.

I probably could have used a more historical quote such as “Peace in our time” instead of surrender. I did not because I really was unsure how many people might actually remember it. Let’s face it, our collective reading of history does not seem to be very good. We surely seem to learn little from it. It is possible we fail to learn from history because it is in a continued state of revision. An example is it now appears everyone in france in WWII really was part of the resistance. But some have established the hidden and real problem in all of this. It is those Jews again.


Kathy,

I am so disappointed in your post. You did little to further the debate. In fact, your comments appear to be very stereotypical of the Bush Administration and their supporters. They lack a sense of reality. At the same time in all your ranting you fail to acknowledge the shared values we have with the Europeans. Silly woman, that is why we support each other so much.

I am equally disappointed in you lack of knowledge about experts. Experts are everywhere but they seem to be more predominate in academia, M$M and of course non-elected government positions. In Europe they are called elites and can be found in the same places but also in elected positions. They get elected using a system you are unfamiliar with, proportionality. It results in the strong governments you see in Berlin, paris and Rome. It is much more representative than the US because there are lots of political parties. And if as a citizen in Germany or france and you disagree with the policies of the government you have elected you can take to the streets and change those policies.

I can also see you really do not follow the current discussion in the M$M very much. If you were you would be able to quickly identify some of these experts such as Madeline Albright, former SecState who brought the US the “grand bargain” with NPK. That is working so well she feels it would work just as well with Iran. There are editorial staffs of the NYT and the WashPo, the only creditable source of news and information about the US. They are a true collection of experts. You will find there an expert on almost any policy issue. Think of Tom Friedman. He has a foreign policy solution for every issue.

You can find them among the retired military too. For example Zinni, who has been a media star of late calling for the SECDEF to resign. He knows a little bit about this topic. He was the commander in Somalia. He sent his forces into combat without the proper support resulting in the deaths of 18 Americans. There was such an outcry within the military about the denial of support it resulted in the resignation of the then SECDEF. This is the same Zinni who did not pass on threat warnings to the USS Cole when it docked in Aden, Yemen for refueling, where al-Qaida terrorists blew up the ship. The resulting deaths there were 17 sailors. It is also the same Zinni who may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.

So yes Zinni knows about incompetence He also know about resignations. He can spot incompetence in others a mile away and as for resignations, an honorable thing for others to do.

Kathy there is just so much in your post to address I do not think I can. I only can say you need to stop living in a Hobbesian world. My other suggestion is you also need to stop seeing the world as good or evil. This is just too judgmental. Besides who gave you the right to judge, anyway?

David asked if you have ever lived overseas. I missed your answer. I would suggest you do. You will become more enlightened. I suggest either france or Germany. There the citizens will explain to how not only is America a threat to world peace, but how evil it is and how there are all those stupid people there who voted for GWB. I promise it will make you a better person. It did wonders for me.

Harry,

Think you are on to something. Let us hope at least with the value of the dollar and the euro these trends continue. A weak dollar will close the trade deficit, will make US good cheaper, make imports more expensive, and probably decrease unemployment below the current rate of 4.7%. As the euro continues to increase in value, exports will decline, euro zone goods will become more expensive and unemployment will increase.

I am not sure about future generations being slaves however, the US could just default and print new money and the party could just continue.

And of course, we all know consumption is bad. Consumption by individuals is incongruous with the principles of the social welfare state. Equally we all also know the social welfare state is government of choice and why so many nations are choosing it.

But you do point out a need for the ESDP. A weaken America with enslaved citizens will no longer be a player in the world. I would have to assume the EU is prepared to take over the role the US has played in the world. With role for Europe will come many new responsibilities which I know the citizens of Europe wait eagerly to assume.

On this I wish you greater success than the Americans have had. Just remember the 21st Century belongs to Europe.

.

Finally something America can be first in. Realize it is really an American only problem, if it is a problem or more of a symptom of over consumption.

The problem of obesity is immense on both sides of the Atlantic. Azar said 130 million U.S. citizens are overweight and 60 million are obese. In the E.U., with a larger population, 204 million are overweight and 61.4 million obese. The danger, both leaders agreed, was particularly bad for children. E.U. Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said that obesity accounts for up to 7% of direct health care costs.

Let us hope Germany’s ally, the french do not take this as something else America leads the world in and feels they must come up with a french challenge just as they have to Goggle, CNN, Boeing, university education and the internet. If they do, it is possible Europe could actually overtake the US given its population size.

With a bunch of fat euros who is going to protect the world in the 21ST Century?

Martin,

You assume I am using sarcasm. All I have done is to summarize the points, which have been made numerous times on both sides of the Atlantic and many of those who post comments here. So other than this summation, you are correct in that I have added little of my personal viewpoint to the overall debate.

I probably should not have used the term “surrender” as some might take this to be too provocative. Maybe a better word would have been diplomatic solution. However if one looks at results, then surrender very well could be the correct word choice.

Martin, how serious should one take most of the comments being made here? How serious should one even consider the articles selected for comment? Given the level of critical thinking displayed by most of the comments, I find it difficult for me personally to do so.

And let me define the term “critical thinking” so there will be no misunderstanding of what I mean. Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

But critical thinking is not what this blog is about or at least it is not what its stated purpose is.

Jorg states the purpose of this blog is “We strive for a critical, but fair and multifaceted coverage of US policies. The first definition I find of the word “critical” is inclined to judge severely and find fault. Another definition, which seems to apply, is marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws.

So in fact most of the comments are in keeping with the purpose of this blog. They are critical but reflect little else.Then it gets a bit confusing because Jorg also states as a goal “We hope to contribute to mutual understanding . . .”

To critical thinking, I would add the need for some form of analysis. Analysis to be effective must result in some conclusion and it should be comparison of a set of alternatives.

If you want to reach a level of mutual understanding, not to be confused with mutual agreement, then you really do have to do these two things, critical thinking and analysis when you construct a comment.

Just as the Jorg frames the topic with comments as “charm offensive”, it establish a tone of where this discussion will go. I would be interested if the Frau Fuehrer’s visit to the US was also considered a “charm offensive” and if so what purpose did it serve.

I would request you review the comments made on this topic.

Bush interview with German TV about Merkel's soul, transatlantic cooperation on Iran, Guantanamo, climate change.

They do meet the purpose of the blog in that they are critical.
Are there any that really warrant a comment? Did you read any which addressed anything the POTUS said? Of course, I would like to think most of this has to do with the messenger and not with the message. At least, I would hope so because if they do not then the rift in trans-Atlantic relations is much greater than anyone will ever publicly state.

Then I might suggest you read the interview the POTUS did with Bild. You can find a transcript here.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060507-2.html

It was much more informative. One comment, which the POTUS made during the interview, is worth noting here. It was.

“And when Ahmadinejad speaks, we need to take it seriously, and when he says he wants to destroy Israel, the world needs to take that very seriously. It's a serious threat. It's a threat to an ally of the United States and Germany. But what he's also saying is, if he's willing to destroy one country, he'd be willing to destroy other countries. And, therefore, this is a threat that has got to be dealt with in a way that -- where the world -- this is an important moment for the world to come together and deal with this in a way that's diplomatic, so that the next person who thinks, or the next country that thinks they can threaten, will understand that there is an effective response. “

In fact, the next exchange between Bild and the POTUS is equally as interesting. I view these as serious statements made by a serious person on a very serious subject.

That particular part of the interview might be worth discussion or comment about if someone really said something that was not fantastical, naïve or pensive.

I find Dr Dean’s comment to fall into that category most of the time. Still I enjoy his comments because they reflect a lot about his values, thought process and his ability to arrive at a point of what he believes. He did say one thing, which I thought was quite thought provoking. He made a comment about when evil is identified it should be addressed. He really did not expand that very much beyond that point but it was from my perspective a very excellent comment.

So Martin, it seems more appropriate to post “drive by comments” such as those posted by David or Thomas.

Oh, and my use of sarcasm is usually saved to point out demonstrated hypocrisy.

Fuchur

Actually, I did not say this blog is silly. I said some comments posted did not warrant a comment or even serious consideration. I have to assume you take all these comments seriously. And yes from time to time, you probably did notice I made some erudite comments, which were usually challenged by someone with an emotional outburst because it challenged there self-perception, their beliefs, values and their view of reality.

I said the discussion is framed by both the topic and the introductory comments. I make no such claims that you attribute to me about Jorg or the webmasters. I accept what they have stated as their purpose. I said I found it to be confusing between the method used and the goal.

I have always had a degree of difficulty with trying to understand what was meant by “critical”. Critical in relationship to what? It becomes an open-ended statement. One can criticize anything and everything. Most people find that to be very easy. It is also very lazy.

Equally I do not find it insulting that the POTUS would want good relations with Germany. I think it is the desire of both the POTUS as well as the American people to have good relationships with all nations. I am not sure how you made the leap from my comments to idea that having good relationships with Germany is some how insulting. The logic behind your statement baffles me.

Jorg commented about part of the POTUS “charm offensive” was a desire to close Gtimo. This is not really a new position by POTUS if one has actually been following this issue since the question of what to do with those captured. It has always been a difficult policy question. Just because it was presented in a different way so the M$M could understand does not make it new. I would suggest you recall the briefing the US Army gave about Abu Ghraib months before it became a media issue. At the time it was a media non-event. By the time it did become a media event, an investigation was near completion and a course of action in accordance with the code of uniformed military justice had already been put into motion. This was not as many believe some great press discovery.

The debate about Gitmo within the Administration has been on going since the time it was first established. It will continue until such time as it is closed. Actually it will probably continued even after then.

But the question about Gitmo is really about what are the realistic alternatives. If the alternative is to declare these individuals EPOW’s, I have no problem with that. They can remain at Gitmo or some other location till the end of the war. Your Chancellor prior to her first visit to WDC called for the closure of Gitmo, a reasonable position for her. I might have missed this as it was not reported in the M$M in the US but what was her alternative? And did you consider her alternative to be realistic?

So if I am to understand your position, the Chancellor of Germany comes to the US for frank diplomatic discussions and the POTUS engagement with Europe is a “charm offensive”.

If this is how you view this, and it is apparently how this blog does, then I think we both might agree that the POTUS should stop wasting his time. I am sure many here would agree with this also.

But at the risk of being considered provocative, I shall reform my comments to conform to the greater collective harmony. I would request if you see that I am straying from this that you will immediately point out the errors of my ways.

Thank you.