Good. Enjoy the view from the sidelines ...

"Germany to Work only with UN to Rebuild Iraq."

Good.

I think it is time to allow the Boche to work only with the UN to defend the "Fatherland."

The Boche need new friends to screw.

The sidelines? The trashheap of history, more like it...

So Germany would rather work with an organization made up of a majority of nations who can't even install a democratic government in their own countries rather than a coalition who is in the midst of creating one. Isn't that special.

We didn't hesitate to rebuild Germany after we defetead them. You'd think he could have learned a thing or two from his history.

Wow! I am sure he speaks for every salesman and manufacturer in germany! I just bet that they all put principles before profits every time.
Is Baghdad Bob his new scriptwriter?

Ah, Schroeder, what about the victims prior to the invasion? You're not concerned about them? Genocide in some cases?

I think you and Big Jack Shellac have your heads up your asses.

"But one mustn't forget that war always claims many victims and that this one claimed a lot of victims too."

Uh, yeah, Germany's claimed a few victims in her days. Only it was in the name of enslaving the world, instead of freeing a country.

France and Germany are both clinging to the UN for any relevance in this brand new, new world order.

Well it's to be expected since German firms will likely be excluded from getting contracts UNLESS the UN takes charge.

They dont care about dictator's victims. They care only when they are US's bombs victims (or supposedly US bombs 'cause the Palestine Hotel and many other incidents are not PROVEN to be US related).

Let's not forget that the Baathists are essentially the offspring of the German Nazi party, via Vichy France. No wonder Germany and France and so upset at the Baathists getting booted.

The Germans and the French deserve each other.

The Germans and the French deserve each other and america deserves SHIT

These guys are so dopey.

We won't help poor people in dire need of food, water, and medicine because the U.S. didn't play like we wanted it too.

I know eight-year olds who act more mature. Stay on your high horse, dopes - your only deepening our resolve.

You mock and sneer, but fail to recognize the wider threat; don't you see, they're making a run on the market! They're going to monopolize irrelevance!

Once they've cornered that market, they'll have the ultimate veto on the extraneous! Trends and items you thought were blissfully dead and gone will flood back into the markets; store shelves will clog with everything from pet rocks to DeLoreans, making it impossible get your shopping done in a reasonable amount of time!

I'm telling you...you think I'm crazy now; but the first time you buy a piece of software, and don't realize until after you've opened it that it's for an Amiga, you'll start to see the dark, malevolent power of their plan.

roflmao
Pretty good apotheosis.

Yes, warriors and civilians are dying taking Saddaam down, but we mustn't forget that many died during the years of UN inactivity and their unwillingness to do the right thing.

I wonder how German corporations would feel about his decision?

"Let's not forget that the Baathists are essentially the offspring of the German Nazi party"

Half true. To be accurate, both the German National Socialists, and the Ba'ath, were heavily influenced by the Turkish national Socialist movement headed by Ataturk. As was the Italian National Socialist movement.

The Ba'ath's anti-clerical "secular" aspect refelcted Ataturk's more closely because of the need to displace power of non-secular authorities.

Both Ba'ath founder Michel Aflak and Hitler are known to have been students and admirers of the theory and mechanisms used by Ataturk.

There are some differences. Hitler and Ataturk shared more closely ideas of forging the state through ethnic cleansing and pushing boundries out for "living space" while Mussolini was more of a traditional "empire" advocate. Aflak varied in this more considerably from the others, in modern terms less expansionist, but that is not to say any less brutal.

Jeez (or should it be al-Jeez), aha, where's all the bitterness coming from?

Maybe America does deserve shit, but can you tell us why?

Actually, don't tell us why you think anything "aha", take it to voxpux. I really don't think anyone gives a rat's ass what you have to say. But thanks for stopping by....

Tell Schroeder not to wait by the phone. We would be nuts to turn over Iraq to the UN. Look at it this way, if the uber-beaurocrats at the UN bungle the rebuilding, we get blamed for it. Anybody wanna take the chance that France wont shove the stick back in our spokes and intentionally undermine the rebuilding just so they can point the finger back at us and say, 'see, this is why we opposed this all along'. If we are going to be held accountable for Iraq, we must keep our hands on the controls.

We only helped rebuild Germany so we could steal their oil.

Wait, they don't have any oil.

I think it was wiener schnitzel Phil. We did it for the wiener schnitzel.

Glad to see we've made it through to this point without labelling "the Germans" "Krauts" or "Nazis".

Capitan:
Schredder would argue that in taking this position he *has* drawn the lessons of German history.

T. Hartin:
I defy you to provide one iota of evidence that ANY be it so miniscule action of Germany foreign policy since 1949 has evinced a desire to carry forth those policies of the Third Reich that are specifically fascist and not German per se. There are non,e and no matter how much you are upset at Germany's unwillingness to follow the US lead, to impute this is no less insulting than to equate President Bush with Hitler.

The Germans are in a tough spot. Regardless of how one feels about how they got themselves into that situation, their current policy decisions are tough.
On the one hand, their policy has since 55 years shown an exceptionally high degree of commitment to humanitarian relief and reconstruction (viz. the Second Gulf War), so their reflex certainly is to help the Iraqi people in this case. Whatever you make think of the Germans, since 1949 they have established an excellent track record of helping those who need it, albeit not militarily (a lesson of history).
On the other hand, if they now help out without a UN mandate, they will lose a lot of face and end up underscoring US claims that the UN is not needed, where multilateralism has been the main tenet of their foreign policy for 55 years.
The same logic goes for supporting or not supporting the war. They wanted to see a free Iraq--there's no doubt about this among those who have actually been listening to what is coming out of Berlin--but not in a way that weakens an already fragile world order.
The Germans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they go in militarily without the UN, they are--ironically--going against the one main lesson the Americans and British wanted them to learn from WWII. Ironic because it is the very one the US and Britain are not adhering to now. If they don't join, they are vilified by Rumsfeld and on comment boards like this one.

What would you do?

My hope--as one who sees both sides of this equation--is that the Germans will get over it and put humanity before politics and help out the Iraqi people, UN or no. The same, however, goes for the United States in terms of showing understanding for the fact that the German position--and here again I cannot distance it strongly enough from the French--is based not on obstructionism but on a dilemma brought about by a painful history.

I cannot distance it strongly enough from the French-

But that's part of the screw-up brought upon by Schroders lack of vision.

He's aligned himself to tightly with France, that to be quite honest, it's very difficult to not associate their motives with Chirac's.

I have no problem with a pacifist Germany. Pacifist Germany == GOOD, considering it's history.

However, they alligned themselves with the wrong team, and will now suffer the consequences. They could have being a bit against the war and still be OK, but because they got suckered by France, now they're in a bad position.

Schroder does not show Germany cares about Iraq, because he's being a fundamentalist about the situation. He wants to be "pure" all the way, and if given the choice of doing the perfect thing (for him, helping Iraq via UN) or the greater good (helping Iraq in any way), he makes the wrong choice again.

You think people in Iraq really care what bureocracy gives them the aid they need? Right now, the want water, electricity, jobs and Freedom, Whiskey and Sexy.

Germany ain't given them that now.

O Capitán mi Capitán,

actually there are increasing numbers of Iraqis--exiles, organised external opposition, interviewees in the streets of Baghdad, who are saying they want the UN on board.

I do NOT want to see the US paid back for its "blood and treasure" by the Iraqis with "thanks, now fuck off home". Which is what I get the feeling will happen if they are viewed as another in a string of occupation forces and if the UN isn't involved. It is in America's interest to internationalise this as quickly as possible.

Then again, I get my information largely from the European media, so what do I know?

BTW, my last name is German altough I'm Hispanic, so I'm not really anti-German.

I'm sure many Iraqis would like the "UN" on board.

But I think most Iraqis right now want aid and help from anybody that provides it. To withhold aid for what I think is a technicality, is cruel and extremely stupid.

I lived in the 3rd world, unlike Mr. Schroder, when people are starving they need help, not lessons in burocracy.

Then again, I get my information largely from the European media, so what do I know?

Yeah, European media is much more accurate, like the French media rejoicing at coallition setbacks. Suuuure.

dualcitizen-

While Germany may be using (relatively) high-minded rhetoric now about "helping" Iraqis only via the UN, rumor (as yet not publically confirmed) has it that Germany traded with Iraq in less than humanitarian products over the past couple decades (including during the time of, and in conflict with, UN sanctions).

The rumors _may_ turn out to be fully false (which I strongly doubt), but Germany's current "principled stand" certainly looks tarnished when they were willing to trade with Sadam, but not with a freer (though US controlled) Iraq.

Germany's leap into bed with France (who is demonstratively _not_ a US ally) does not add to their credibility on their stand.

As to news, since you have internet access, you have availability to sources ranging from the very anti-American (e.g. Arab press) through the spectrum to relatively pro-American (e.g. Fox). Adding comments from various blogs, you get nor only the Left-Right, but some that are strongly orthogonal (i.e. not just "out in left field," but clearly not even in the same park) to that spectrum.

Dual,
I like a good debate, and have spent way too much time sitting in my American suburb watching news of Iraq on my big screen.
I thought your comments represented a good alternative perspective, and thank you for them.
Germany as an US ally is important to both sides of the Atlantic. Schreoder wont be getting many returned phone calls from Bush however.
Sooner rather than later we will need to get into some diplomatic counseling country to country, outside of the highly charged pissing contest we are both going through at the UN. We need to find a way to agree to disagree, but then move on...

Only time will tell.
Unfortunately what happens in 2 years will be based on actions taken now.

As for European press, to an extent I agree. Altogether too much Schadenfreude in the German media. Interesting to note, though, the difference between the field reporters and the anchors, esp. on French TV (am monitoring national media of about 5-6 European countries). Reporters are very biased, anchors largely tone this down when it comes through. French media last night (well, the main national evening news on TF1, was very balanced.
One thing though: the US media (amd no, this is not some rant about Fox cheerleading) are not doing the American public a favour by filtering out images of Baghdadis pelting the tanks with stones and hurling abuse at the Marines. Or by not showing the full extent of Iraqi casualties or coalition losses. By sanitising the picture the public gets the idea that the human costs of this war are small, and the link to antipathy in the Arab world with its own biased media is not made. This is crucial. The European media painted a picture that made the quick fall of Baghdad look surprising. The American media make it look like 9/11 happened in a vacuum.

Somewhere in between the BBC and Fox, the truth lies.

Roy,
comment was facetious. Am also monitoring a range of US sources--TV and blogs.

The most interesting source, if you ask me, which is unfortunately not up at the moment, is Salam Pax.

I leave you all with a reminder of something that I feel has been a bit too quickly forgotten:

http://www.bouwman.com/911/Operation/Lutjens.html

Schreoder used Hitler's old tactic of gaining power by legitimizing hatred.

Hitler: Support me and I will reassure you that your hatred of the Jews is a good thing.

Schreoder: Support me and I will reassure you that your hatred of the Americans is a good thing.

"Support me and the shameful evil that rots your soul will be magically transformed into a virtue, which you will be able to boast about openly in the streets."

So you will have a hard time convincing me that Schreoder represents a principled departure from Germany's sordid past. On the contrary, it seems that here for the first time in 55 years that Germany's foreign policy was outside the NATO umbrella - they were just as wrong as they were 60 years ago.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is also outside the NATO umbrella... Is it a departure from America's history of democracy and altruism?

Rightness and wrongness in international relations is decided by a lot of things beyond whether you side with America or not. America is on the right side the vast majority of the time, but the two are not tautologically identical.

When you compare Schröder to Hitler, you lose your right to get upset if Bush is compared to Hitler. I'm not doing that; I'm just saying it's a rather ridiculous and quite insulting claim either way.

As to the person who said Germany was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, that is totally true.

But they are in that situation because of their own actions. If Germany, France and Russia had stuck with the US at the UN, there wouldn't be a "relevance" problem.

They chose not to. Their call, their problem.

hello???
damned if they do ("stick with the US at the UN), damned if they don't... what part of the message was too complicated for you?