NationStates Jolt Archive

The Arab satellite TV network al-Jazeera was banned from operating in Iraq for 30 days yesterday as Iyad Allawi's interim government sought to restore some stability after three days of fighting that US forces claim cost the lives of 300 Shia insurgents.

The renewable ban on the Qatar-based network was announced at a news conference at which Mr Allawi also unveiled details of a limited amnesty designed to win back the support of potential recruits to an insurgency joined once again by supporters of the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Police ordered al-Jazeera's employees out of their newsroom and locked the door.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=549077

And how is banning Al-Jazeera a good thing?> It is the most free news station in the middle east, not to mention less partial than some US news stations that come to mind...

Wow, so much for their new "freedom" huh. I'm not surprised.

The Iraqis still have the American TV station over there. Al-Jazerra is so anti-western I am suprised it hasnt been banned by the Saudis yet.

I am in favor of bombing all the Al-jezeera locations.

Wow, so much for their new "freedom" huh. I'm not surprised.
1. It's only 30 days, nothing permanent
2. It wasn't done by the U.S. government, big difference
3. The Iraqi government did this
4. Did I mention we didn't do this?

The Iraqis still have the American TV station over there. Al-Jazerra is so anti-western I am suprised it hasnt been banned by the Saudis yet.

American TV doesn't tell the story from the side of the Muslims, only from the side of the Americans, Do you really think some dude in Iraq cares about whether or not Martha Stewart is going to go to jail? NO! However, I'm sure they are interested in what is going on in their region, kind of like local news for them. It's this type of delusion that America is what every one wants to be like is what also makes America so disliked.

I am in favor of bombing all the Al-jezeera locations.
Why? Their reporting not pro-american slanted enough for your liking? Independant thought a bad idea? Honestly, I thought freedom of press actually meant jsut that, and not just when convenient.

Haha... did they ban Fox News, yet, too? Put them in the same category? ;)

American TV doesn't tell the story from the side of the Muslims, only from the side of the Americans, Do you really think some dude in Iraq cares about whether or not Martha Stewart is going to go to jail? NO! However, I'm sure they are interested in what is going on in their region, kind of like local news for them. It's this type of delusion that America is what every one wants to be like is what also makes America so disliked.
As a Muslim, I can safely say that "our side of the story" does not include airing videos of hostage videos. Our side of the story is that we're misunderstood by the West, hint hint perhaps?

As a Muslim, I can safely say that "our side of the story" does not include airing videos of hostage videos. Our side of the story is that we're misunderstood by the West, hint hint perhaps?

American news exploits those videos' too.. they just don't show all of it.

Here is Al-Jazeera's reaction (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9C888134-9481-485A-A675-DD3C50DA224D.htm) .

Here is Al-Jazeera's reaction (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9C888134-9481-485A-A675-DD3C50DA224D.htm) .
Who outside of radical muslim clerics and fundamentalist homicide bombers cares what Al-Jazeera's reaction is?

Who outside of radical muslim clerics and fundamentalist homicide bombers cares what Al-Jazeera's reaction is?

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
:)

Reactions

Muhammad Bashar al-Faidhi, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), criticised the closure, saying Iraqis are disappointed to learn they are not experiencing freedom of speech yet.

"It is a disappointing move. Aljazeera is the sincerest channel, although it does not report the whole truth.

"There are a lot of tragedies that have gone unreported. We used to wonder why Aljazeera had not been reporting those facts, and we were annoyed at it, but when we learned about the American pressure on this channel, we understood," said al-Faidhi.

Saaid al-Burini, a candidate for the US Congress, said the US did not want an Arab source of news.

"The US is not happy with the idea that an Arab media organisation is on the ground and reporting independently," he said.

Way to go D$A! Make Iraq a true American colony. Yay, thats exactly what we all need in the Middle East. And you wondered about 9/11... hahahaha

Way to go D$A! Make Iraq a true American colony. Yay, thats exactly what we all need in the Middle East. And you wondered about 9/11... hahahaha

It worked in Germany and Japan.

It worked in Germany and Japan.
Naw it didnt work in Germany. I am living proof as are many many Germans.

Naw it didnt work in Germany. I am living proof as are many many Germans.

How is that?

How is that?
What? Germany is not a US colony and never will be. Before our politicians do something against the people someone will assassinate them or otherwise get them out of their seats of power.

It worked in Germany and Japan.

Find it ironic how that the US wanna take controll over nations far away and rule them when they used to be that themself but didn't like that at all. ;)

What? Germany is not a US colony and never will be. Before our politicians do something against the people someone will assassinate them or otherwise get them out of their seats of power.

I never said it is a US colony, I said for all intents and purposes, it was, and a successful one at that, following the idea of paternal colonialism.

I never said it is a US colony, I said for all intents and purposes, it was, and a successful one at that, following the idea of paternal colonialism.
Germany was not a US colony neither did the US make Germany what it is. Before the nazis had the power here, Germany already was a "successful" democracy.

Germany was not a US colony neither did the US make Germany what it is. Before the nazis had the power here, Germany already was a "successful" democracy.

You mean Weimar, if so, that government was very unstable, it was even less liked and stable then the Third Republic, which at least managed to stumble between crises. And by all means, it was a US colony, the Occupation was in effect, a colonial expansion. The US (to be more precise, Western Allies), stationed troops to keep order, established the new government, gave it power, and De-Nazified the country. There is a radical difference in pre-Occupation Germany, and post-Occupation Germany. In 1914, Germany feared being swallowed up by Europe, so engaged in the First World War, in 1939, Germany was a nation gone mad with paranoia of a world against them, and increasingly less space. Since 1946, these ideas have yet to re-surface in Germany, and Germany's government today is influenced hugely by British-French-American ideas of government, how is this not paternalism?

You mean Weimar, if so, that government was very unstable, it was even less liked and stable then the Third Republic, which at least managed to stumble between crises. And by all means, it was a US colony, the Occupation was in effect, a colonial expansion. The US (to be more precise, Western Allies), stationed troops to keep order, established the new government, gave it power, and De-Nazified the country. There is a radical difference in pre-Occupation Germany, and post-Occupation Germany. In 1914, Germany feared being swallowed up by Europe, so engaged in the First World War, in 1939, Germany was a nation gone mad with paranoia of a world against them, and increasingly less space. Since 1946, these ideas have yet to re-surface in Germany, and Germany's government today is influenced hugely by British-French-American ideas of government, how is this not paternalism?
Well the government may be influenced by the US or the British. The people are not. In fact a lot of people here hate the U$. Germany as a nation never ceased to exist and the temporary "unconciousness" of our government doesnt mean Germany was or is a colony of a foreign nation. You'll never get the Germans to be "serfs" to another nation. Not the US, not the British and not the French. Eventually I am sure the EU will take the place of national governments so until then, Germany will be a sovereign nation.

To get back on topic, the U$ are continually failing - first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. Freedoms are being trampled when they are inconvenient. Shows just how much value this "First Amendment" has. Iraq is not "ruled" by its own government. Iraq is and will continue to be an American-occupied country with the people having no say in its own politics. The preliminary government is merely a US puppet instated to make sure Iraq stays in line while the US solidify their power there and make sure Iraq will be a loyal and profitable colony in the future.

When did a war warrant freedom of speech?
not only that but when you have a station who is inciting violence what do you do? leave them there? What would you do if you were iraqi prime minister right now? leave it on while it talks about american infidels, showing al sadr militants celebrating their power? blaspheming any help they get from non muslim countries? It doesnt sound like a very productive station. freedom of speech is strong, even al sadr's newpaper got put back on again.

Sometimes our freedoms become infringed when other people screw it up.
the classic school scenario, where one person messes it up for everyone else.
I have full faith that those freedoms will come back once again once the threat has gone away.

think of it this way.
we all love looking outside our windows, but when a hurricane comes what must we do? board up our windows until the threat passes.
Well right now in iraq there was 7 or 8 cities taking part in this uprising, while aljazeera wasnt telling people to stay calm, they were in effect showing people that the US military is powerless. So this window must be shut temporarily until the threat goes away.

Even here our freedom of speech and our rights get trampled on when things start occuring.. but i bet you once this is over and once iraq is ok, we will be as free as we were before.

To be free, and to be democratic people must make concessions for a bit, and thats what no one understands, they think a democracy is all about well i have the right to speak out loud. You do. but not to cause chaos, at that point your infringing on other peoples rights to be safe. you see? al jazeera is inciting chaos. Maybe if they toned it down a little theyd be fine. and then after the war, say whatever you want to say.

When did a war warrant freedom of speech?
not only that but when you have a station who is inciting violence what do you do? leave them there? What would you do if you were iraqi prime minister right now? leave it on while it talks about american infidels, showing al sadr militants celebrating their power? blaspheming any help they get from non muslim countries? It doesnt sound like a very productive station. freedom of speech is strong, even al sadr's newpaper got put back on again.

Sometimes our freedoms become infringed when other people screw it up.
the classic school scenario, where one person messes it up for everyone else.
I have full faith that those freedoms will come back once again once the threat has gone away.

think of it this way.
we all love looking outside our windows, but when a hurricane comes what must we do? board up our windows until the threat passes.
Well right now in iraq there was 7 or 8 cities taking part in this uprising, while aljazeera wasnt telling people to stay calm, they were in effect showing people that the US military is powerless. So this window must be shut temporarily until the threat goes away.
Keep people uninformed = easier to keep the herd in order. Removing "First Amendment" rights - just like that - would cause a civil uprising in the US. Are you surprised that the Iraqi people revolt against the US oppression and that Arab TV doesnt applaud the US for their war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq? Just admit that you are a hypocrit, who only allows rights when they are convenient. Whats good for the U$ people is not good for Iraqis. Because all Iraqis are easily influenced and incapable of making up their own mind. Because the US TV stations show the unbiased truth and are angelic compared to Arab TV stations.

Its disgusting, thats what it is. And nothing can justify this abuse of "power".

i cant blame them for uprising. but they cant expect to just be let free for no reason. you need the herd to be in order before you can expect something as organized as government to be succesful. Right now the power in that country is allawi's.

Another good example:

Imagine you got a kid and he's not listening to you, how do you correct him? by beating him? grounding him? talking to him? ( even tho he doesnt listen )

Iraq has been our problem and our child for years. after all hussain was there because of us. It is our responsibility to make sure those people arent under a constant fear of never being free.

I dont think right now is a good time to look at iraq and make judgements as to their welfare. We are at war with them, war is horrible and dirty. But lets say in ten years iraq is better off then they are today, and enjoy certain freedoms they never had...what would you say about the war then?

It worked in Germany and Japan.
You miss one point. Nothing brings people closer together than a common enemy. You needed the West Germans against the Russians (and the Russians needed the East Germans against the West). Though you allowed democracy and free elections and the Russians not who on the conterary conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing of Germans in Eastern Europe America was of course seen as the better occupying power.
There were common interests between Americans and Germans.
There were also common interests between Japanese and Americans. And the main one was the threat of communism.

So: how can the US establish common interests with Iraq?
Iraq in itself is a divided country, split apart between ethnic and religious groups. That is also a difference to Japan and Germany, who after all had a tradition of an united state which was not only hold together through force and repression (like in Iraq) but throgh the will of the people.
Such a common will to stay as one nation is especially not there between Kurds and Arabs and hardly there between sunni and shiites.

I think the restrictions on Al-Jazeera are justified. Iraq has a big security problem. The way Al-Jazeera is reporting is rather fueling the problems. Media has the right of freedom of speech, but this is not unlimmited. The media has a responsibility not to allow to be used and abuse by the terrorists.
And since Al-Jazeera has not shown enough sensitivity on this issue some restrictions are justified.

You miss one point. Nothing brings people closer together than a common enemy. You needed the West Germans against the Russians (and the Russians needed the East Germans against the West). Though you allowed democracy and free elections and the Russians not who on the conterary conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing of Germans in Eastern Europe America was of course seen as the better occupying power.
There were common interests between Americans and Germans.
There were also common interests between Japanese and Americans. And the main one was the threat of communism.

So: how can the US establish common interests with Iraq?
Iraq in itself is a divided country, split apart between ethnic and religious groups. That is also a difference to Japan and Germany, who after all had a tradition of an united state which was not only hold together through force and repression (like in Iraq) but throgh the will of the people.
Such a common will to stay as one nation is especially not there between Kurds and Arabs and hardly there between sunni and shiites.

If anythng the american enemy has been the unifying force in iraq..which is kind of good because atleast their unified about something, which atleast means they can agree...they just need to think about seperating their powers more from the US as a unifying factor instead of trying to kill their own people and americans and any other nation that tries to help.

If anythng the american enemy has been the unifying force in iraq..which is kind of good because atleast their unified about something, which atleast means they can agree...they just need to think about seperating their powers more from the US as a unifying factor instead oftrying to kill their own people and americans and any other nation that tries to help.
The problem is that the Iraqi people or rather the different factions in Iraq are so much divided that the question really is whether they can unify on something. Iraqisation is a good idea, but of course the question is who choses the leaders and how accepted are they? And are they able to work together?
There is a great risk for an Iraqi civil war. This factor was after all also the reason for not occupying Iraq in 1991.
Sunni and shiite were never able to agree to share power. Over centuries the sunnis dominated the country and they are not willing to give that up. And the shiite see the current situation as an opportunity to seize power and in election based on the principle on man one vote the shiite majority would be able to do so.

I think the restrictions on Al-Jazeera are justified. Iraq has a big security problem. The way Al-Jazeera is reporting is rather fueling the problems. Media has the right of freedom of speech, but this is not unlimmited. The media has a responsibility not to allow to be used and abuse by the terrorists.
And since Al-Jazeera has not shown enough sensitivity on this issue some restrictions are justified.
‘‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

‘‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
It is the Iraqi government which took the decision not the American one. And by the way: another president said that the constituition is not a treaty to commit suicide.

It is the Iraqi government which took the decision not the American one. And by the way: another president said that the constituition is not a treaty to commit suicide.
???
Iraqi government = American government. Allawi has no power whatsoever, the only power currently in Iraq is the military oppression by the US forces. And why would anyone need a treaty to commit suicide? If someone wants to kill himself, he/she has the right to do so. There's nothing anyone can do about it.

The problem is that the Iraqi people or rather the different factions in Iraq are so much divided that the question really is whether they can unify on something. Iraqisation is a good idea, but of course the question is who choses the leaders and how accepted are they? And are they able to work together?
There is a great risk for an Iraqi civil war. This factor was after all also the reason for not occupying Iraq in 1991.
Sunni and shiite were never able to agree to share power. Over centuries the sunnis dominated the country and they are not willing to give that up. And the shiite see the current situation as an opportunity to seize power and in election based on the principle on man one vote the shiite majority would be able to do so.


This is extremely true and definately is the problem. Makes me wonder if saddam ruled the way he did because he wanted to stop any possible uprisings from ever happening.

The media has a responsibility not to allow to be used and abuse by the terrorists.

Yes, I agree that a media has a responsibility to keep it from becoming a propaganda-spitter. But that includes staying as neutral as possible. And Al-Jazeera has again and again shown that the western media has given kind of onesided stories when about the middleeast, arabs or muslims. Atleast that is how I see it.

Giga,

I mean tolerance is good BUT NOT AGAINST THE INTOLERANT.
That is also the reason we in Germany ban nazi propaganda and hate music, internet pages, books, e.g.
And wouldn`t it have been better if the NSDAP had been banned in the 1920s?
The constituition is not a treaty to commit suicide (that democracy commits suicide). We are a state which is able to defend its free and democratic order against its enemies. And in order to so we shouldn´t show tolerance to the intolerant.

Giga,

I mean tolerance is good BUT NOT AGAINST THE INTOLERANT.
That is also the reason we in Germany ban nazi propaganda and hate music, internet pages, books, e.g.
And wouldn`t it have been better if the NSDAP had been banned in the 1920s?
The constituition is not a treaty to commit suicide (that democracy commits suicide). We are a state which is able to defend its free and democratic order against its enemies. And in order to so we shouldn´t show tolerance to the intolerant.
mmmh you just gave a perfect example why the US media should be banned from the world

Al Jazeera can hardly be compared to Nazi propaganda.

Al-Jazeera, for their own good, needs to learn that a free and independent press doesn't excuse them from responsible reporting. They are treading a very fine line. A ban is a bad move, though. Me? I'd fine them. Hit em where it hurts; in the checkbook.

This is extremely true and definately is the problem. Makes me wonder if saddam ruled the way he did because he wanted to stop any possible uprisings from ever happening.
Well, that is indeed a question. Why Saddam was a very, very cruel dictator and lead a very bloody dictatorship (not all dictatorships were and are that bloody) the question remains whether Iraq remains together as an united state without an authoritarian government. Just think about the Soviet Union or Jugoslavia. After the end of the communist dictatorship this states fall apart. In the case of the Soviet Union fortunately mainly peacefully (there was even the risk of a nuclear civil war) thanks to Boris Yeltsin. Though they were and are a few "small" wars (Chechenya, Georgia, Armenia-Azerbaidshan, civil war in Moldova, civil war in Tadzikistan)
But in Jugoslavia it ended up in a bloody war, especially in Bosnia.

Giga,

I mean tolerance is good BUT NOT AGAINST THE INTOLERANT.
That is also the reason we in Germany ban nazi propaganda and hate music, internet pages, books, e.g.
And wouldn`t it have been better if the NSDAP had been banned in the 1920s?
The constituition is not a treaty to commit suicide (that democracy commits suicide). We are a state which is able to defend its free and democratic order against its enemies. And in order to so we shouldn´t show tolerance to the intolerant.
Also while we are at comparing things to Nazis in 1930-1945:

"Over the past few months, a staggering array of truly alarming programs, policies, and legislative proposals has come to light: conducting searches without warrants; military tribunals for U.S. citizens; dispensing with habeas corpus; increased wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping; video surveillance; see-through-clothing x-ray machines; "data mining" of financial transactions and virtually all electronic databases; national identification cards; and biometric identification. Some of these schemes have been scuttled (temporarily) by exposure; others have been adopted or await legislative action.

One of the most frightening proposals to be leaked to the public is a piece of draft legislation crafted by activists at the U.S. Justice Department. Officially entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), the legislation has been dubbed "Patriot Act II" by opponents, since it appears to be a follow-up punch to the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9-11. The Justice Department originally denied that the draft legislation existed, even though it had provided copies of the bill — marked "CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" and dated January 9th — to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney."

mmmh you just gave a perfect example why the US media should be banned from the world

Al Jazeera can hardly be compared to Nazi propaganda.
You statement against the US media is unacceptable and completly inbalanced.
I don´t compare Al Jazeera to the Nazis. But Al-Jazeera offers the terrorist a forum to spread their hate propaganda (without commenting against this). And that is unacceptable.

Giga,
in contrast to Europe America has more than two hundred years of history of a republican state (representative democracy). It has a system of cheques and balances which kept that stable for this period. I´m much more concerned about the stability in Europe than I´m concerned about the US. After all: Germany as a whole has only 50 years of democratic tradition and East Germany only 14 years.

You statement against the US media is unacceptable and completly inbalanced.
I don´t compare Al Jazeera to the Nazis. But Al-Jazeera offers the terrorist a forum to spread their hate propaganda (without commenting against this). And that is unacceptable.
Al Jazeera is not there to comment on things. They air them, because US media dont do it. There are 2 sides to the situation in Iraq, one US side where everything is fine and going according to the big "master plan" and the Arab side, where the US is occupying a sovereign Arab "brother nation". Al Jazeera has as much the right to show the Arab side of the conflict as the US media have the right to show the US side. Limiting press as blatantly as this and as biased as this, is very dangerous. It constitutes the first precendent to limitation of essential freedom without justification.

Giga,
in contrast to Europe America has more than two hundred years of history of a republican state (representative democracy). It has a system of cheques and balances which kept that stable for this period. I´m much more concerned about the stability in Europe than I´m concerned about the US. After all: Germany as a whole has only 50 years of democratic tradition and East Germany only 14 years.
You are wrong. Germany has had democracy before the US "gave" it to us. The US system is not the end-all-be-all infallible system you want to display it as.

I mean tolerance is good BUT NOT AGAINST THE INTOLERANT.
That is also the reason we in Germany ban nazi propaganda and hate music, internet pages, books, e.g.
And wouldn`t it have been better if the NSDAP had been banned in the 1920s?

Indirectly compares Al Jazeera to the Nazis. You fail.

People should word things better, as the US isn't really a democracy, rather it is a Democratic Republic.

And Iraq is controled by the Iraq Government as much as Bush is controlled by the far right conservative religious folk ;p

Giga,
in contrast to Europe America has more than two hundred years of history of a republican state (representative democracy). It has a system of cheques and balances which kept that stable for this period. I´m much more concerned about the stability in Europe than I´m concerned about the US. After all: Germany as a whole has only 50 years of democratic tradition and East Germany only 14 years.

The United Kingdom has been at least democratic since the Glorious Revolution, which predates the American Revolution by almost a century. Time span of Republican/Democratic (I'm talking systems here) means almost nothing, the Roman Republic survived from the fall of the Etruscans to Ceasar, but it still fell. The Athenian Democracy likewise, succumbed to inevitable collapse, and both of these civilizations have had enormous impacts on European civilization.

So while America can claim a longer republican form of government (spare Great Britain), Europe has a much longer history of democratic tradition.

You are wrong. Germany has had democracy before the US "gave" it to us. The US system is not the end-all-be-all infallible system you want to display it as.

It never worked until the US gave it to you.

EDIT: More correctly until the West gave it to you.

You are wrong. Germany has had democracy before the US "gave" it to us. The US system is not the end-all-be-all infallible system you want to display it as.

Indirectly compares Al Jazeera to the Nazis. You fail.
No, but I underline the fact Osama bin Laden and the taliban and their ideology is a TOTALITARIAN ideology. And thus it is simular to the Nazis, to Stalinism and to Pol Pot.
Just inform yourself about the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. That is the "islamic state" Osama wants. And that is totalitarianism in its purest form: Repression, mass-murder, repression even in the privat life of the people, islamic extremism, torture, beheading, stoning of anyone that does not completely comply or is assumed to not comply with this system.

It never worked until the US gave it to you.

EDIT: More correctly until the West gave it to you.
I wouldnt say our current system works. The people have as little say in politics as people in the US do. Its a totalitarian system, monarchy just with the head of state being called "President" or "Chancellor".

No, but I underline the fact Osama bin Laden and the taliban and their ideology is a TOTALITARIAN ideology. And thus it is simular to the Nazis, to Stalinism and to Pol Pot.
Just inform yourself about the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. That is the "islamic state" Osama wants. And that is totalitarianism in its purest form: Repression, mass-murder, repression even in the privat life of the people, islamic extremism, torture, beheading, stoning of anyone that does not completely comply or is assumed to not comply with this system.

ANd worst of all, no naked women. :eek:

It never worked until the US gave it to you.

EDIT: More correctly until the West gave it to you.
I disagree with you. Democracy is the only form of government you can not force on anybody. The success of German democracy after World War II was mainly due to the economic boom (in contrast to the Weimar Republic).
It can highly be doubted that it would be successful without that boom. And whether it is strong enough to go through a deep crisis remains to be seen.

ANd worst of all, no naked women. :eek:
Actually the burqa was compulsory. So woman where walking around like ghost in blue cotton. Nothing visible.

I disagree with you. Democracy is the only form of government you can not force on anybody. The success of German democracy after World War II was mainly due to the economic boom (in contrast to the Weimar Republic).
It can highly be doubted that it would be successful without that boom. And whether it is strong enough to go through a deep crisis remains to be seen.

The west choose the leaders, what powers they would hold (or at least guided that), enforced laws, and De-Nazified the country. It wasn't so much forced as it was, this is the only option left. I suppose you can view it as the West destroying fascism, and Germany then developing into democracy on it's own. But you are quite correct that it has yet to weather a serious storm, which was the downfall of several other post-war governments (The Fourth Republic, the various Eastern Bloc countries).

The United Kingdom has been at least democratic since the Glorious Revolution, which predates the American Revolution by almost a century. Time span of Republican/Democratic (I'm talking systems here) means almost nothing, the Roman Republic survived from the fall of the Etruscans to Ceasar, but it still fell. The Athenian Democracy likewise, succumbed to inevitable collapse, and both of these civilizations have had enormous impacts on European civilization.

So while America can claim a longer republican form of government (spare Great Britain), Europe has a much longer history of democratic tradition.
I highly respect the long tradition of parlamentarism in Britain. Britain has the longest unbroken history indeed. Generally anglo-saxon countries (with their culture and philosophy) are better in keeping a liberal democracy.
And by the way: Europe has a longer history than the US. But it not only has a history of great cultural archivements but also of genocide, hate crimes, repression and authoritarian rules. And that is the case for many countries on the continent. So, a bit of modesty is appropiate for us in Europe indeed.

The west choose the leaders, what powers they would hold (or at least guided that), enforced laws, and De-Nazified the country. It wasn't so much forced as it was, this is the only option left. I suppose you can view it as the West destroying fascism, and Germany then developing into democracy on it's own. But you are quite correct that it has yet to weather a serious storm, which was the downfall of several other post-war governments (The Fourth Republic, the various Eastern Bloc countries).
First of all the denazification ended very soon. The west needed Germany as an ally against the Soviets. The same was the case for Japan.
And the leaders were actually elected already in 1946. There was a democracy before 1933 and the parties refounded themselves after the war.
So: it was not a begining with 0 (in contrast to Iraq).
What is correct is that that the allied powers had indeed veto powers up until the 1950s. And of course the German politicians new that the geopolitical situation didn´t leave much room to manoveur. On the other hand there were heavy disputes in the 1950s between the conservative government and opposition about foreign policy. The conservatives clearly chose that Germany should become part of the west itself and with a policy of strength should work on conditions under which communism ends and the reunification can be achieved. (the so called roll back theory)
Well: at the end that worked although that was 40 years later.

First of all the denazification ended very soon. The west needed Germany as an ally against the Soviets. The same was the case for Japan.
And the leaders were actually elected already in 1946. There was a democracy before 1933 and the parties refounded themselves after the war.
So: it was not a begining with 0 (in contrast to Iraq).
What is correct is that that the allied powers had indeed veto powers up until the 1950s. And of course the German politicians new that the geopolitical situation didn´t leave much room to manoveur. On the other hand there were heavy disputes in the 1950s between the conservative government and opposition about foreign policy. The conservatives clearly chose that Germany should become part of the west itself and with a policy of strength should work on conditions under which communism ends and the reunification can be achieved. (the so called roll back theory)
Well: at the end that worked although that was 40 years later.

Alright, we are agreed, the West did not give democracy to Germany, influenced it perhaps, to which extent I'm sure our views conflict, but your understanding of German politics is far better than mine, as I understand it, you live there.

The west choose the leaders, what powers they would hold (or at least guided that), enforced laws, and De-Nazified the country. It wasn't so much forced as it was, this is the only option left. I suppose you can view it as the West destroying fascism, and Germany then developing into democracy on it's own. But you are quite correct that it has yet to weather a serious storm, which was the downfall of several other post-war governments (The Fourth Republic, the various Eastern Bloc countries).
There is one serious storm building up: And that is the financial crisis and the structural crisis of the social security system. It is simply not financable any more due to many reasons: one is also the demograhic development. Today there are still more 2 workers financing the pension for one pensioners. In 2030 that is going to change to 1 for 1 (if the retirement age remains the same of course). What that means for the burden on the working population regarding financing the pensions and the health sector is clear. It can´t be financed in that way any more and the services can´t be so far reaching like now.
Even the current left-wing government sees that and has especiall last year pushed for many cuts in social spending (retirement, health sector, unemployment support) which are implemented now. And more reforms are under discussion. Though they are not popular indeed. The conservatives would go further with the reforms and follow more the example of Maggie Thatcher.
Probably the situation of Germany of today can be compared to that of Britain in the late 70s. At that time Britain was "the sick man of Europe". Today Germany is "the sick man of Europe." Whether we come out of it remains to be seen. But that is a serious storm which is there and which is going to get stronger (it builded up for about the last 14 years at least)

There is one serious storm building up: And that is the financial crisis and the structural crisis of the social security system. It is simply not financable any more due to many reasons: one is also the demograhic development. Today there are still more 2 workers financing the pension for one pensioners. In 2030 that is going to change to 1 for 1 (if the retirement age remains the same of course). What that means for the burden on the working population regarding financing the pensions and the health sector is clear. It can´t be financed in that way any more and the services can´t be so far reaching like now.
Even the current left-wing government sees that and has especiall last year pushed for many cuts in social spending (retirement, health sector, unemployment support) which are implemented now. And more reforms are under discussion. Though they are not popular indeed. The conservatives would go further with the reforms and follow more the example of Maggie Thatcher.
Probably the situation of Germany of today can be compared to that of Britain in the late 70s. At that time Britain was "the sick man of Europe". Today Germany is "the sick man of Europe." Whether we come out of it remains to be seen. But that is a serious storm which is there and which is going to get stronger (it builded up for about the last 14 years at least)
There are already "monday demonstrations" being done and organized in many cities in Germany. The government is shortly before a collapse and the people overhtrowing the government because of the grim outlook and no change to the better since many years. This is exactly the situation which allowed Adolf Hitler to seize power in Germany and dont think that the conservatives are an alternative to the social democrats. Neither can do it and the conservatives got us into this trouble by doing nothing during the reign of the "Oppenheimer Rumkugel".

Alright, we are agreed, the West did not give democracy to Germany, influenced it perhaps, to which extent I'm sure our views conflict, but your understanding of German politics is far better than mine, as I understand it, you live there.
Well, I´m German. So you can of course say I´m biased. But I would say that the Western powers created the conditions under which democracy could be established. And they took care about it. But it was also the German politicans (of the Weimar republic) who wanted to build a democratic state and who avoided the many mistakes they did in the Weimar constituition and at the time of the Weimar republic (Article 48, fragmentation of the political system (against that we have the 5% barrier), no strong president and a representative democracy, possiblity to ban radical parties (so happened in 1952 against a neo-nazi party by a ruling of the Supreme Court and in 1956 against the Communist party).
And the economic success after all lead to the development that the democracy was accepted as the best form of government among the people (such as the end of democracy in 1933 was linked to the great depression which after was the biggest economic crisis in modern history), aside from other factors. After all: the begining of democracy in 1918 was overshadowed by the defeat in world war I and the Versailles treaty. It was overshadowed by unrest and communists and right-extreme uprisings. And it was overshadowed by the stab-in-the back legend.
So: it probably was necessary that World war II was fought till the bitter end and till the total defeat to avoid that this happening again. The total defeat of totalitarianism was necessary. Whether Germany would have been able to break with its the authoritarian tradition without it can at least be disputed.

The banning of al-Jazeera will only serve to increase its credibility.

Dissent is disippiated only by being shown to be wrong, not by banning it.

More "freedom" for the Iraqis. Lets hope that they are properly grateful for the gifts of democracy and freedom of speech that have been granted to them.

The Arab satellite TV network al-Jazeera was banned from operating in Iraq for 30 days yesterday as Iyad Allawi's interim government sought to restore some stability after three days of fighting that US forces claim cost the lives of 300 Shia insurgents.

The renewable ban on the Qatar-based network was announced at a news conference at which Mr Allawi also unveiled details of a limited amnesty designed to win back the support of potential recruits to an insurgency joined once again by supporters of the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Police ordered al-Jazeera's employees out of their newsroom and locked the door.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=549077

Interim Government = Rich American Iraqi 'Exiles'.

Well, I´m German. So you can of course say I´m biased. But I would say that the Western powers created the conditions under which democracy could be established. And they took care about it. But it was also the German politicans (of the Weimar republic) who wanted to build a democratic state and who avoided the many mistakes they did in the Weimar constituition and at the time of the Weimar republic (Article 48, fragmentation of the political system (against that we have the 5% barrier), no strong president and a representative democracy, possiblity to ban radical parties (so happened in 1952 against a neo-nazi party by a ruling of the Supreme Court and in 1956 against the Communist party).
And the economic success after all lead to the development that the democracy was accepted as the best form of government among the people (such as the end of democracy in 1933 was linked to the great depression which after was the biggest economic crisis in modern history), aside from other factors. After all: the begining of democracy in 1918 was overshadowed by the defeat in world war I and the Versailles treaty. It was overshadowed by unrest and communists and right-extreme uprisings. And it was overshadowed by the stab-in-the back legend.
So: it probably was necessary that World war II was fought till the bitter end and till the total defeat to avoid that this happening again. The total defeat of totalitarianism was necessary. Whether Germany would have been able to break with its the authoritarian tradition without it can at least be disputed.
Haha, I love it when the Americans talk about the 'liberation' of Germany.
Yep, sure, you liberate a country by bombing it into non-existance for the simple reason of blood revenge.

Haha, I love it when the Americans talk about the 'liberation' of Germany.
Yep, sure, you liberate a country by bombing it into non-existance for the simple reason of blood revenge.

Thank you for the total lack of understanding of the Strategic Bombing Campaign.

Thank you for the total lack of understanding of the Strategic Bombing Campaign.
There was nothing strategic about the ruthless destruction of entire cities filled with war refugees and civilians. Would the US do that today, you could be sure that the world would be in arms about it. Germany didnt deserve that, neither did UK or France deserve what the nazis did to their nations. I "understand" very well that literally exterminating my home city (Dresden) from the face of earth was "strategic" and "justified".

There are already "monday demonstrations" being done and organized in many cities in Germany. The government is shortly before a collapse and the people overhtrowing the government because of the grim outlook and no change to the better since many years. This is exactly the situation which allowed Adolf Hitler to seize power in Germany and dont think that the conservatives are an alternative to the social democrats. Neither can do it and the conservatives got us into this trouble by doing nothing during the reign of the "Oppenheimer Rumkugel".
In contrast to the past the people are free demonstrate. That is a contrast to the communists past in East Germany. But the government has a responsibilty for the country. And that is for example to reduce the exploding defecit and to reform the social security system (which can´t be financed any more due to the social changes (demographic development, e.g.).
You and the other protestors forget an important thing. In the long-run nobody can spent more than he earns. That is also true for the state otherwise it is going to see a financial break-down in the long-run (like you could see in Argentina).

You are free to demonstrate. But that is not going to overthrow the government. I think our current government stays in power till 2006 regardless of what happens - even if they loose in NRW and get a two-third majoriy in the Bundesrat against them. They can still go for a so-called Vorläufige Haushaltswirtschaft (which authorises the government to spent as much money as the year before even if parliament doesn´t approve of a budget).
And 2006 there are elections: and either this government is reelected (which I don´t believe and which I don´t hope either) or conservative and liberals win (which I hope for) and continue the reform policy even stronger in the direction of free-market reforms (Merz tax concept, health premium model, e.g.). There is no other option.
If the unions want to demonstrate they are free to do so. As a matter of fact the unions loose many members every year in tens of thousands. The unions are loosing relevance anyway. Their radical rhetoric doesn´t change the fact that they are loosing relevance.

Thank you for the total lack of understanding of the Strategic Bombing Campaign.

'Strategic'?

Oh right by strategic I assume you mean:
"Attempting to subdue a population by saturation - resulting in millions of civilian dead."

And also by your logic 9/11 was a 'strategic' bombing campaign? If this is your logic then 9/11 was totally justified.

Thank you for your ignorance 'The sword and the shield' (your name insinuates warmongering).

There was nothing strategic about the ruthless destruction of entire cities filled with war refugees and civilians. .
But that was the consequence of the German policy. That should not be forgotten.
And of course: revenge is natural.
The success of western Europe was to put this behind and to establish cooperation instead of rivalry, hatred and revenge. But that is only possible between democracies. And it is only possible if the leaders are ready to do so and set an example for the people like it happened after world war II, for example between France and Germany.

Wow - looks like some people are basing their opinions of Aljazeera on FoxNews. :rolleyes: Aljazeera is an independent voice in the Middle East - and its coverage of events in the region is far more fair and balanced than any US news coverage.

I guess Iraq is turning out to be a "democratic nation", after all. Sadly, they seem to be using the "democracy" of the Bush administraiton as their model...

There was nothing strategic about the ruthless destruction of entire cities filled with war refugees and civilians. Would the US do that today, you could be sure that the world would be in arms about it. Germany didnt deserve that, neither did UK or France deserve what the nazis did to their nations. I "understand" very well that literally exterminating my home city (Dresden) from the face of earth was "strategic" and "justified".

The Strategic Bombing campaign entailed the destruction of enemy supply and war production in it's homeland. Combined with this was the Terror Bombing Campaign, which was largely negated by 1944, when it became obvious by studying the reaction to the Blitz that civilians could not be scared into submission, and bombers were needed for more vital targets.

On paper, this looks like a sound theory, you know where a factory is, so if you can hit it with large explosives you can destroy it, and stop enemy production of war material, thus cuasing him to lose the war. This was the theory put forth by the first Air Force to develop Strategic Bombing, Italy. It was quickly adopted by the airmen who had become leaders after WWI, the thought that the Air Force could be the dominant weapon in war, and could end wars by bombing enemy cities.

Problem is, in practice, aiming is not precise enough to always take out a factory, even with a saturation bombing. Furthermore, factories can be built underground, or hidden away, or out of range of bombers. They can also be hastily rebuilt since they usually never sustained direct hits. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the Strategic Bombing campaign was useless militarily until late 1944, before then it was largely a propoganda tool, since it did little to destroy Germany's economy.

Contrary to popular belief, Terror Bombing had been abandoned by the Allies as a viable option since at least 1943. Dresden was not targeted for it's refugee population, it was targeted at Yalta becuase it was the only transportation nerve center that could be used by the Germans to transfer troops from Bavaria and Czechoslovakia to Berlin to halt the Soviet Advance. The Americans and British agreed to destroy the city before or during the Soviet offensive to ensure no German reinforcements would come up from Czechoslovakia. Thus, Dresden was not chosen becuase of it's refugee population, but becuase of it's viability as the only way German rienforcements could be sent to Berlin.

This is not defending Strategic Bombing, as the war showed, and the USSBS report showed, it was mostly ineffective and resulted in horrible civilian casualties. It's just proving that the Strategic Bombing Campaign was not undertaken with glee by Americans sitting in their planes miles above the Earth laughing as they dropped death on civilians.

'Strategic'?

Oh right by strategic I assume you mean:
"Attempting to subdue a population by saturation - resulting in millions of civilian dead."

No, that is Terror Bombing, read my post to understand the difference, and I'm not saying the West did not use Terror Bombing, they did, and it was despicable, I'm saying the entire campaign was not undertaken with full understanding of it's effects.

And also by your logic 9/11 was a 'strategic' bombing campaign? If this is your logic then 9/11 was totally justified.

I suppose in some perverted light, you can view 9/11 as Strategic Bombing, but since it has already been proven useless, it is different.

Thank you for your ignorance 'The sword and the shield' (your name insinuates warmongering).

Does it really?, well considering it comes from my original name in a forum for gamers of a wargame, it probably should. That is where the mis-spelling comes from, I couldn't get Sword and Shield, therefore I used Sword and Sheild, and I've kept the name ever since, but thanks for the opinion on my name.

The Strategic Bombing campaign entailed the destruction of enemy supply and war production in it's homeland. Combined with this was the Terror Bombing Campaign, which was largely negated by 1944, when it became obvious by studying the reaction to the Blitz that civilians could not be scared into submission, and bombers were needed for more vital targets.

On paper, this looks like a sound theory, you know where a factory is, so if you can hit it with large explosives you can destroy it, and stop enemy production of war material, thus cuasing him to lose the war. This was the theory put forth by the first Air Force to develop Strategic Bombing, Italy. It was quickly adopted by the airmen who had become leaders after WWI, the thought that the Air Force could be the dominant weapon in war, and could end wars by bombing enemy cities.

Problem is, in practice, aiming is not precise enough to always take out a factory, even with a saturation bombing. Furthermore, factories can be built underground, or hidden away, or out of range of bombers. They can also be hastily rebuilt since they usually never sustained direct hits. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the Strategic Bombing campaign was useless militarily until late 1944, before then it was largely a propoganda tool, since it did little to destroy Germany's economy.

Contrary to popular belief, Terror Bombing had been abandoned by the Allies as a viable option since at least 1943. Dresden was not targeted for it's refugee population, it was targeted at Yalta becuase it was the only transportation nerve center that could be used by the Germans to transfer troops from Bavaria and Czechoslovakia to Berlin to halt the Soviet Advance. The Americans and British agreed to destroy the city before or during the Soviet offensive to ensure no German reinforcements would come up from Czechoslovakia. Thus, Dresden was not chosen becuase of it's refugee population, but becuase of it's viability as the only way German rienforcements could be sent to Berlin.

This is not defending Strategic Bombing, as the war showed, and the USSBS report showed, it was mostly ineffective and resulted in horrible civilian casualties. It's just proving that the Strategic Bombing Campaign was not undertaken with glee by Americans sitting in their planes miles above the Earth laughing as they dropped death on civilians.
That is right. The Americans and British were so shortsighted and blind with power and revenge that they committed horrible crimes against humanity. You pride yourself with freeing the world of the nazis, but you fail to see that you used just as horrible techniques to do so causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead civilians. There will never be a valid justification for these bombings. Not militarily and not morally. And I and others here will never forgive the US and UK for that. As long as my grandparents are alive to tell me their tales of their childhood when Germany was bombed back to the stone age, I will not forget it.

'Strategic'?

Oh right by strategic I assume you mean:
"Attempting to subdue a population by saturation - resulting in millions of civilian dead."

And also by your logic 9/11 was a 'strategic' bombing campaign? If this is your logic then 9/11 was totally justified.

Thank you for your ignorance 'The sword and the shield' (your name insinuates warmongering).

You both raise interesting points, and a valid line of discussion, which probably deserves a thread to itself. may I suggest that as a suitable course of action.

This thread would perhaps be best left as a discussion of the banning of al-jazeera in Iraq.

That is right. The Americans and British were so shortsighted and blind with power and revenge that they committed horrible crimes against humanity.

I suppose this is true, a close look at the effects of the Terror Bombing campaign of 1943, with the Infrastructure centered campaign of 1944 should have showed easily that the latter was far better at doing what Strategic Bombing was aiming for, with less civilian casualties, but that meant relegating the huge bomber fleets to a support role to the Army, something the RAF and USAAF leaders for the most part did not want. So yes, these men refused to listen or review evidence so their arm could continue in some vain hope of ending the war, they were bling with power.

You pride yourself with freeing the world of the nazis, but you fail to see that you used just as horrible techniques to do so causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead civilians.

Given the alternative, I'll stick with this turn out of events.

There will never be a valid justification for these bombings. Not militarily and not morally. And I and others here will never forgive the US and UK for that. As long as my grandparents are alive to tell me their tales of their childhood when Germany was bombed back to the stone age, I will not forget it.

As well you shouldn't, becuase it should never be repeated again in the history of man. But that does not mean it lacks any idea of justification.

You both raise interesting points, and a valid line of discussion, which probably deserves a thread to itself. may I suggest that as a suitable course of action.

This thread would perhaps be best left as a discussion of the banning of al-jazeera in Iraq.
We came to this in the course of discussion since it was determined that artifically installing a democracy does not work. Germany is not a valid example to compare Iraq to since Germany had a democracy before WW2 and Western Europe has had strong democratic influence since the ancient greeks or the French revolution.

The banning of Al Jazeera in Iraq sets a dangerous precedent for denying basic freedoms of a democracy in an installed government which is supposed to grow to a true democracy. In the long run, I am sure this will hinder the development of an Iraqi democracy, especially in the light of Iraq starting from 0 and the current occupation forces being unwelcome by a large majority of the people.

That is right. The Americans and British were so shortsighted and blind with power and revenge that they committed horrible crimes against humanity. You pride yourself with freeing the world of the nazis, but you fail to see that you used just as horrible techniques to do so causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead civilians. There will never be a valid justification for these bombings. Not militarily and not morally. And I and others here will never forgive the US and UK for that. As long as my grandparents are alive to tell me their tales of their childhood when Germany was bombed back to the stone age, I will not forget it.
And what is about the Soviets??? They conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. More than 14 million Germans were forced to leave their homes in terretories who today belong to Poland and the Czech Republic and where Germans have lived for centuries.
You fail the cruelty of the Soviets which was much, much bigger than of any of the other allied powers.
And they did that after the war, while the Americans were already forming an alliance with Germany.

And you of course fail to mention the history which lead to thid desaster. And that was the policy of Hitler-Germany.

If al jazeera didnt play so much anti american sentiment, and anti establishment sentiment, it would still be on the air today. When your bringing order to a country, you cant let unorderly things go on, lest you dont really want order in the first place.

The truth is showing soldiers getting their heads chopped off incites rebels in iraq, and is kind of a pat on their back, showing them that hey! they are doing ok! keep it up!
Does al jazeera REALLY need to show that? thats just one example.. im not going to go off on their fair and balanced things, because im sure they do have plenty of things that arent anti-establishment.

Someone else had a good suggestion, to fine them everytime they mess up. Right now they want to go public and trade stock, so if they keep getting fined, then they wont be able to get enough support together for a public opening.

Theres a great documentary called " Control Room" which documents al jazeera, where they even state, that they are indeed bias to what is going on.

And what is about the Soviets??? They conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. More than 14 million Germans were forced to leave their homes in terretories who today belong to Poland and the Czech Republic and where Germans have lived for centuries.
You fail the cruelty of the Soviets which was much, much bigger than of any of the other allied powers.
And they did that after the war, while the Americans were already forming an alliance with Germany.

And you of course fail to mention the history which lead to thid desaster. And that was the policy of Hitler-Germany.
No,not the policy of Hitler-Germany. The policy of Hitler and his minions. Just like Americans beg to differ between Bush doctrine and the American people, I beg to differ between Hitler and the German civilian population.

I don't care whether or not you like what Al Jazeera shows. Banning a political channel is an infringement of their rights, which America claims to stand for - it's like having different rules for yourself than for everyone else. You can't just censor the media so that it only shows things that benefits you.

Sure, Al Jazeera can be 'abused' by terrorists and war-mongerers. But at least we get the terrorists' side of the story directly from them, and not filtered through channels that are biased in the other direction. That way we can make up our own opinions freely, instead of being essentially controlled by the state.

It was Iraq's government that did this, but Iraq's government essentially is controlled by the occupying forces anyway. It is no secret that the American government has always seen Al-Jazeera as a political threat.

No,not the policy of Hitler-Germany. The policy of Hitler and his minions. Just like Americans beg to differ between Bush doctrine and the American people, I beg to differ between Hitler and the German civilian population.
I reject any comparison of the legitimate president of the United States with one (it not the) most evil dictator.
Secondly it is you who have in other threads spread your anti-americanism in which you showed no differentiation between government and people (like with such statements that Americans should be sent to the moon, they are evil, stupid, e.g.). That are the typical generalisations of anti-americanism. If you reject such stereotyping you shouldn´t practise it yourself. That is going to fire back on yourself and your an our nationality after all.

I don't care whether or not you like what Al Jazeera shows. Banning a political channel is an infringement of their rights, which America claims to stand for - it's like having different rules for yourself than for everyone else. You can't just censor the media so that it only shows things that benefits you.
Sure, Al Jazeera can be 'abused' by terrorists and war-mongerers. But at least we get the terrorists' side of the story directly from them, and not filtered through channels that are biased in the other direction. That way we can make up our own opinions freely, instead of being essentially controlled by the state.
It was Iraq's government that did this, but Iraq's government essentially is controlled by the occupying forces anyway. It is no secret that the American government has always seen Al-Jazeera as a political threat.
I disagree with you. It can not be tolerated that terrorists spread their hate propaganda. The fact that Arab states allowed that caused the rise of terrorism and islamism. There shouldn´t be tolerance for the intolerant.
Al Jazeera has to distance itself from terrorism otherwise it should not be allowed to reopen in Iraq.

Godwin's Law

That is all ;)

I don't care whether or not you like what Al Jazeera shows. Banning a political channel is an infringement of their rights, which America claims to stand for - it's like having different rules for yourself than for everyone else. You can't just censor the media so that it only shows things that benefits you.

Sure, Al Jazeera can be 'abused' by terrorists and war-mongerers. But at least we get the terrorists' side of the story directly from them, and not filtered through channels that are biased in the other direction. That way we can make up our own opinions freely, instead of being essentially controlled by the state.

It was Iraq's government that did this, but Iraq's government essentially is controlled by the occupying forces anyway. It is no secret that the American government has always seen Al-Jazeera as a political threat.

If the interim government believes Al Jazeera is contributing to the instability in Iraq through their broadcasts then it makes perfect sense to close them down.

If the interim government believes Al Jazeera is contributing to the instability in Iraq through their broadcasts then it makes perfect sense to close them down.
Replace "Interim Government" with "American Government" and we'll have a correct sentence. Besides this, I cant see how showing the things the US ommit, helps the terrorists. Al Jazeera shows as much the truth as the US media do. As has been said many times already, you cant make 2 standards for media, not even if the media is "inconvenient". Al Jazeera is a much viewed and influential TV station in arab countries and worldwide for Arabs. The backlash of this ban will be much more dangerous for Iraq than anything Al Jazeera could have shown. Instead of controlling what people are alloewed to see on TV, the US should have defended the basic right of Al Jazeera to broadcast. In the US even televangelists are allowed to broadcast their religious hate - so dont even start with "terrorism" or "religious hate" or "threats to democracy"... alas Al Jazeera is a nusiance, which doesnt need to operate... who cares anyway that there is a counterbalance to the US propaganda.

Replace "Interim Government" with "American Government" and we'll have a correct sentence.

Your anti-American ramblings are getting old Gigtron. Learn to play another tune.

Replace "Interim Government" with "American Government" and we'll have a correct sentence.
The interim government is an Iraqi government. They are not puppets. For example the president was appointed against the will of the Americans.
They are no puppets. It is a combination of different policitical factions of Iraq. And you should not repeat the propaganda of the terrorists in Iraq.

The interim government is an Iraqi government. They are not puppets. For example the president was appointed against the will of the Americans.
They are on puppets. It is a combination of different policitical factions of Iraq. And you should not repeat the propaganda of the terrorists in Iraq.
Shut yer trap. I'll say whatever I want and believe is the truth.

Shut yer trap. I'll say whatever I want and believe is the truth.

Then don't tell others to shut their trap for saying what they believe is true. :p

Then don't tell others to shut their trap for saying what they believe is true. :p
If they tell me what I should or should not say then I will tell them to shut their own traps first :)

Shut yer trap. I'll say whatever I want and believe is the truth.
You can say what you want. But I can and I will say that when you say wrong things that they are wrong and untrue.
This Iraqi government was formed by the UN (Brahimi), the governing council of Iraq and also the CPA (Coaltion Provisional Authority). They are no puppets. They are Iraqis who want a better Iraq and they should get support for that.

You can say what you want. But I can and I will say that when you say wrong things that they are wrong and untrue.
This Iraqi government was formed by the UN (Brahimi), the governing council of Iraq and also the CPA (Coaltion Provisional Authority). They are no puppets. They are Iraqis who want a better Iraq and they should get support for that.
Support them then. I'll not support a U$ puppet government that exists to ensure that Iraq will become a loyal U$ colony.

I reject any comparison of the legitimate president of the United States with one (it not the) most evil dictator.
Secondly it is you who have in other threads spread your anti-americanism in which you showed no differentiation between government and people (like with such statements that Americans should be sent to the moon, they are evil, stupid, e.g.). That are the typical generalisations of anti-americanism. If you reject such stereotyping you shouldn´t practise it yourself. That is going to fire back on yourself and your an our nationality after all.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Is it about now that I point out that hitler was elected as chancellor by a majority of the populace, where as Bush was elected as president only by a majority of the supreme court?

Support them then. I'll not support a U$ puppet government that exists to ensure that Iraq will become a loyal U$ colony.

Then what is your solution for Iraq, Gigatron? Taking the situation as it is now, what would you do? You are full of criticism, I want to know whether you have any thoughts on a solution.
And an answer along the lines of "the war should not have started in the first place" does not answer the question.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Is it about now that I point out that hitler was elected as chancellor by a majority of the populace, where as Bush was elected as president only by a majority of the supreme court?
Hitler was elected as Chancellor, however he removed the democracy as soon as he had secured his position of power and instated himself as dictator,with his most powerful nazi cronies in positions supporting his own. There were some events like the burning of the Reichstag which made it very easy for Hitler to enact special laws, granting him total power. Watch out because the U$ president is about to do the same.

Support them then. I'll not support a U$ puppet government that exists to ensure that Iraq will become a loyal U$ colony.
Iraq is never becoming an US colony just as West Germany or Japan didn´t. In contrast to East Germany and the east European countries who became de facto colonies or satellite states of the USSR.
And who do you support then??? The shiite islamists (who are puppets of Iran) or the old Baath party (which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) or the sunni extremists (led by the jordanian extremists Al-Zarqawi who has links to Al-Quaida and Osama bin Laden)????
There is no alternative to the interim government.

Then what is your solution for Iraq, Gigatron? Taking the situation as it is now, what would you do? You are full of criticism, I want to know whether you have any thoughts on a solution.
And an answer along the lines of "the war should not have started in the first place" dies not answer the question.
My solution is, the US withdrawing completely from Iraq, including all other foreign troops and let Iraq sort it out on their own. If they cant sort it out "peacefully", let the UN sort it out with international support. Also revert all the contracts giving US firms sole rebuilding rights for Iraq while other nations have to pay for it - thats again blatant colonialisation of a nation that was once sovereign.

My solution is, the US withdrawing completely from Iraq, including all other foreign troops and let Iraq sort it out on their own. If they cant sort it out "peacefully", let the UN sort it out with international support. Also revert all the contracts giving US firms sole rebuilding rights for Iraq while other nations have to pay for it - thats again blatant colonialisation of a nation that was once sovereign.

So letting Iraq descend into civil war is your answer?

So letting Iraq descend into civil war is your answer?
Yep. If they want a democracy, they can make it. Right now, with the presence of the US and other occupation forces, we'll never see security in Iraq which could enable democracy. The continued illegal killings of resisters by the US troops show just how much Iraq belongs the Iraqis. The Shiites have as much a right to their land as the Kurds or the Sunites.

My solution is, the US withdrawing completely from Iraq, including all other foreign troops and let Iraq sort it out on their own. If they cant sort it out "peacefully", let the UN sort it out with international support. Also revert all the contracts giving US firms sole rebuilding rights for Iraq while other nations have to pay for it - thats again blatant colonialisation of a nation that was once sovereign.

I'm going to disagree with that one.

It's like a kid who walks up and knocks over another kid's sand castle, saying "I wanna make it better."

Then after a few minutes, he says "Know what? Screw this" and runs off.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Is it about now that I point out that hitler was elected as chancellor by a majority of the populace, where as Bush was elected as president only by a majority of the supreme court?
He was actually not elected either. The Weimar constituition actually said that the president appoints the chancellor. No government post 1930 had however the backing of the parliament (which it actually requires to govern - parliament was able to vote out the government). They ruled via emergency law. Parliament didn´t pass anything however they usually didn´t (what the could) voted on overturning emergency law. When they did (1930, 1932 (two times) it the president actually called for early new election and restated the emergency bill according to article 48 (with disbandoned parliament without ability to overvote it).
He actually never received a majority though. Hitler failed at the 1932 presidential elections.
None the less the president appointed him to chancellor in 1933 because he considered him the last option. The election of 1933 wasn´t free and fair. But even at this election the NSDAP didn´t get an absolute majority.
So: he was actually never directly elected.

And by the way: Europe has a longer history than the US. But it not only has a history of great cultural archivements but also of genocide, hate crimes, repression and authoritarian rules. And that is the case for many countries on the continent. So, a bit of modesty is appropiate for us in Europe indeed.
And the US doesn't have that? (North American Indians, KKK, the Irish, Negroes)
On the subject of Terror bombings, I find it remarkebal that the German bombings of Warsaw (+-1200 dead) and Rotterdam (811 dead) are considerd warcrimes yet the Allied bombings of cities like Hamburg(35,000 dead), Swinemünde(60,000 in one hour dead), Dresden (75,000+ dead in one night), and others, are considerd acts of liberation and not warcrimes. At least thats what some people try to convince us of.

Yep. If they want a democracy, they can make it. Right now, with the presence of the US and other occupation forces, we'll never see security in Iraq which could enable democracy. The continued illegal killings of resisters by the US troops show just how much Iraq belongs the Iraqis. The Shiites have as much a right to their land as the Kurds or the Sunites.

So the removal of the troops that are currently maintaining a level of security would therefore create enough security for democracy to emerge in Iraq?
Now, I don't know about you, but I have a problem with letting the factions "fight amongst themselves" for control of Iraq. The interim government has representatives from these factions in the hope they can create a nation where they can all live together. I think there is more chance of peace that way than there is by letting Iraq descend into a war between factions for control of the country.
You are entitled to your opinion but I think your plan would be a humanitarian disaster of massive proportions.

So the removal of the troops that are currently maintaining a level of security would therefore create enough security for democracy to emerge in Iraq?
Now, I don't know about you, but I have a problem with letting the factions "fight amongst themselves" for control of Iraq. The interim government has representatives from these factions in the hope they can create a nation where they can all live together. I think there is more chance of peace that way than there is by letting Iraq descend into a war between factions for control of the country.
You are entitled to your opinion but I think your plan would be a humanitarian disaster of massive proportions.

Aye.

They won't end up with a democracy, they'll just got stuck with a despotism. Which of course will make the US look like absolute shit. And they'll probebly hate us too, because the universe is never satisfied :p

Who cares if they banned them for 30 days....they were pro saddam before the war and the Iraqi's ran them out of Basra at one time...so it is no big deal. In 30 days they will be back to their old disinformation campaign.

So the removal of the troops that are currently maintaining a level of security would therefore create enough security for democracy to emerge in Iraq?
Now, I don't know about you, but I have a problem with letting the factions "fight amongst themselves" for control of Iraq. The interim government has representatives from these factions in the hope they can create a nation where they can all live together. I think there is more chance of peace that way than there is by letting Iraq descend into a war between factions for control of the country.
You are entitled to your opinion but I think your plan would be a humanitarian disaster of massive proportions.
You cant say that since you cant say what would happen, if the US and other occupating forces withdrew from Iraq. It doesnt neccessarily have to become a civil war. Even if the Iraqis were allowed to elect their own government right now, they'd very likely elect one of their extremist islam leaders, who have always been leaders in arab countries. The US have done too much bad and lost their credibility to serve as example. The banning of Al Jazeera further supporting the claim that democracy in Iraq is not the goal.

Who cares if they banned them for 30 days....they were pro saddam before the war and the Iraqi's ran them out of Basra at one time...so it is no big deal. In 30 days they will be back to their old disinformation campaign.
And Iraq was a threat to the world and had tons of WMD... yes, Mr. Powell. And Saddam was a threat to the US people, yes Mr. Bush. Talk about disinformation while being bombarded with propaganda yourself...

I'm going to disagree with that one.

It's like a kid who walks up and knocks over another kid's sand castle, saying "I wanna make it better."

Then after a few minutes, he says "Know what? Screw this" and runs off.
One time we agree on something. That´s the worst thing the US could do. The result would be an Iraqi civil war. How that turns out is not entirely clear but the most likely outcome is that the shiites take over (with the support of Iran) and an iranian puppet government rules over Iraq. Together with their allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hizbullah) Iran would then controll the area between Hidukusch and the mediteranean. The result would be the dominance of Iran and their shiite-islamic state of the entire region. And they wouldn´t stop with that. Iran is already supporting terrorism. And the support Hizbullah who commits acts of terror mainly against Israel. That would rise tremendously and could led to an Israeli-Iranian war.
So: the US walking out now would be desasterously. Or to say it in other words: There is just one thing that is more bad than the US presence in the region and that is the US walking out of it.

And Iraq was a threat to the world and had tons of WMD... yes, Mr. Powell. And Saddam was a threat to the US people, yes Mr. Bush. Talk about disinformation while being bombarded with propaganda yourself...

And here we were, actually having a nice debate without resorting to childish insults or bringing up moot and irrelevent points.

You cant say that since you cant say what would happen, if the US and other occupating forces withdrew from Iraq. It doesnt neccessarily have to become a civil war. Even if the Iraqis were allowed to elect their own government right now, they'd very likely elect one of their extremist islam leaders, who have always been leaders in arab countries. The US have done too much bad and lost their credibility to serve as example. The banning of Al Jazeera further supporting the claim that democracy in Iraq is not the goal.

Lets just say that civil war is probably the most likely result of an immediate withdrawal of coalition troops.

One time we agree on something. That´s the worst thing the US could do. The result would be an Iraqi civil war. How that turns out is not entirely clear but the most likely outcome is that the shiites take over (with the support of Iran) and an iranian puppet government rules over Iraq. Together with their allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hizbullah) Iran would then controll the area between Hidukusch and the mediteranean. The result would be the dominance of Iran and their shiite-islamic state of the entire region. And they wouldn´t stop with that. Iran is already supporting terrorism. And the support Hizbullah who commits acts of terror mainly against Israel. That would rise tremendously and could led to an Israeli-Iranian war.
So: the US walking out now would be desasterously. Or to say it in other words: There is just one thing that is more bad than the US presence in the region and that is the US walking out of it.

Lol yeah


We're here. For whatever reason, good or bad, WE'RE HERE. Now we stay and TRY to make up for, you know, destroying their government and leaving them in chaos and whatnot.

Lets just say that civil war is probably the most likely result of an immediate withdrawal of coalition troops.
It's also a possibility even if the US occupation forces withdraw years from now. Arabs tend to be able of holding grudges for generations to come.

And here we were, actually having a nice debate without resorting to childish insults or bringing up moot and irrelevent points.

Yes, we were.

Lets just say that civil war is probably the most likely result of an immediate withdrawal of coalition troops.
Which of course makes it credible for the occupation forces to continue occupying Iraq. Interestingly enough it is only the US who are able to secure Iraq. The UN is incapable of doing so. Simply being there fuels terrorism and leaving supposedly starts a civil war... great way to make sure nothing can be done.

You cant say that since you cant say what would happen, if the US and other occupating forces withdrew from Iraq. It doesnt neccessarily have to become a civil war. Even if the Iraqis were allowed to elect their own government right now, they'd very likely elect one of their extremist islam leaders, who have always been leaders in arab countries.
You forget one point: Iraq is in itself a divided country. The sunni used to dominate it. But now the shiites may try to take over. And this struggle is very likely result to a civil war if there is no third-party involvement.

It's also a possibility even if the US occupation forces withdraw years from now. Arabs tend to be able of holding grudges for generations to come.

That is also true. But, if the nation is stabilised and a democratic government is elected then Iraqis have the platform for a free nation. What they choose to do with that platform is inevitably up to them.
At this point in time there is no platform. If the troops leave tomorrow then the vacuum of power (from the fact the interim government has insufficient security personnel to control insurgents) is a prime opportunity for factions to make their grab for power...civil war. If, as was mentioned earlier, Iran gets involved then it becomes extremely messy and many thousands will die.

You forget one point: Iraq is in itself a divided country. The sunni used to dominate it. But now the shiites may try to take over. And this struggle is very likely result to a civil war if there is no third-party involvement.
And got a solution how to make Iraq a democracy without constant US control for years to come?

Which of course makes it credible for the occupation forces to continue occupying Iraq. Interestingly enough it is only the US who are able to secure Iraq. The UN is incapable of doing so. Simply being there fuels terrorism and leaving supposedly starts a civil war... great way to make sure nothing can be done.

The UN was asked to be involved in the beginning...France, Russia and China ring any bells?
The way I see it there were only a few options. Leave Saddam in charge while he got rich rorting the Food for Oil program and continued terrorising Iraqis, oust Saddam and work with Iraqis to build a free nation, or invade then desert the Iraqis and let them descend into civil war.
I know which option makes more sense to me. I am sure that if the troops withdrew you would then accuse the US of deserting the Iraqi people.

Lol yeah
We're here. For whatever reason, good or bad, WE'RE HERE. Now we stay and TRY to make up for, you know, destroying their government and leaving them in chaos and whatnot.
If you leaved now then you would leave them in chaos.
But the question really is: Can Iraq remain together as one country or do the Kurds for example try so seperate. And the neighbours of Iraq of course also have their interests involved.
The Iranians would like to see an shiite regime (closely linked to them), and the Saudis sunni dominance (after all a shiite takeover could lead to a rebellion in the north-east border province of Saudi Arabia where the otherwise shiite minority is a majority group.

So: is it possible to keep Iraq together without installing an authoritarian regime (which may not be as bad as Saddam) or not.

The UN was asked to be involved in the beginning...France, Russia and China ring any bells?
The way I see it there were only a few options. Leave Saddam in charge while he got rich rorting the Food for Oil program and continued terrorising Iraqis, oust Saddam and work with Iraqis to build a free nation, or invade then desert the Iraqis and let them descend into civil war.
I know which option makes more sense to me. I am sure that if the troops withdrew you would then accuse the US of deserting the Iraqi people.
No. I would not accuse the US of deserting the Iraqi people. Though, right now you are responsible for sorting out what you caused - which however might not be to the benefit of the Iraqi people. This does not mean that you need to do it alone. As always, its a question of how you ask other nations and what you are willing to give up in return. That the US want to keep total control over the country, no matter what, alienates other countries from spending their money and personnel to rebuild Iraq.

And got a solution how to make Iraq a democracy without constant US control for years to come?
No, I don´t. There is no other solution then the US and the coalition remaining in Iraq. There is only one thing which more bad than the US presence and that is when the US would leave it now.
One option would however be an internationalisation of the stabilisation efforts. France may be ready for that but Schröder isn´t. But he might not be in office so long anymore anyway. Another one (which is additional to the first) is the iraqisation of the situation. And that is to train a new Iraqi police and security force which is able to defend their country (and which is not baathist and reestablishes that dictatorship). But that needs time. And that is at least till the end of this decade.

The UN was asked to be involved in the beginning...France, Russia and China ring any bells?
The way I see it there were only a few options. Leave Saddam in charge while he got rich rorting the Food for Oil program and continued terrorising Iraqis, oust Saddam and work with Iraqis to build a free nation, or invade then desert the Iraqis and let them descend into civil war.
I know which option makes more sense to me. I am sure that if the troops withdrew you would then accuse the US of deserting the Iraqi people.
However the main argument in the discussion in Europe was the WMD issue. And that didn´t turn out as claimed.
I think that it was necessary to controll Iraq and to go for regime change in the long-run. However whether it was the right thing to do it at that time is another question. It would certainly have been preferable if there would be an successful uprising (for example within the Iraqi military) against Saddam and not to go for an invasion. Unfortunately all those attempts failed.
Now we have the present situation and have the risk of civil war. It is now a responsibilty of the coalition to prevent it.
Iraq is freed from a dictator however the state structure was destroyed, the security serviced disbandoned and crime, terrorism and destability has risen in that coutry. And some regions are still out of control and the country is at the risk of falling apart.

However the main argument in the discussion in Europe was the WMD issue. And that didn´t turn out as claimed.
I think that it was necessary to controll Iraq and to go for regime change in the long-run. However whether it was the right thing to do it at that time is another question. It would certainly have been preferable if there would be an successful uprising (for example within the Iraqi military) against Saddam and not to go for an invasion. Unfortunately all those attempts failed.
Now we have the present situation and have the risk of civil war. It is now a responsibilty of the coalition to prevent it.
Iraq is freed from a dictator however the state structure was destroyed, the security serviced disbandoned and crime, terrorism and destability has risen in that coutry. And some regions are still out of control and the country is at the risk of falling apart.

I agree with you but you are wrong on the uprising bit. Bush sr. convinced many Iraqis into rising against Saddam but did nothing to support them. If he had of chances are they would have succeeded.

Replace "Interim Government" with "American Government" and we'll have a correct sentence.

The interim government is an Iraqi government. They are not puppets. For example the president was appointed against the will of the Americans.
They are no puppets. It is a combination of different policitical factions of Iraq. And you should not repeat the propaganda of the terrorists in Iraq.
On this one, I would have to totally agree with Gigatron. The current leader of the "interim government", HAD to be endorsed by Bremer. Also the rule of the day in Iraq is following "Bremer's Orders". Iraq is not a sovereign entity, and probably won't be for many years to come.

The banning of al-Jazeera is not that much different than the banning of Al-Sadir's newspaper and many will recall that that action resulted in a massive uprising in several areas of Iraq. The suppression of the news is perhaps far more dangerous than allowing the propaganda in the current news to exist?

The "puppet regime" is following orders from US commanders, which could ironically lead to undermining the "new regime"?

Who outside of radical muslim clerics and fundamentalist homicide bombers cares what Al-Jazeera's reaction is?I do.

The interim government is an Iraqi government. They are not puppets.Riiiiite....and Pamela Andersons Boobs are Natural...and America is Safer.... <sarcasm>

I agree with you but you are wrong on the uprising bit. Bush sr. convinced many Iraqis into rising against Saddam but did nothing to support them. If he had of chances are they would have succeeded.
It was after all a shiite uprising. The problems and instabilities which are occuring today would have happend then as well as this shiite uprising challenged the traditional power structure of Iraq which existed for centuries (and that is the dominance of sunni arabs - that was the case under the Ottoman Empire, under the sunni monarchy which was installed by Britain, and latter as well under the "republic" which soon was controlled by the Baath party). So there was a reason not to support it.
The only "uprising" which would not have lead to chaos and instability would be an uprising within the regime: a take over by a sunni general. There were attempts for that as well. But all those attempts failed.

On this one, I would have to totally agree with Gigatron. The current leader of the "interim government", HAD to be endorsed by Bremer. Also the rule of the day in Iraq is following "Bremer's Orders". Iraq is not a sovereign entity, and probably won't be for many years to come.

President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer for example was not the American candidate.
It is true that Iraq is going to remain dependent on an international security presence for many years. But if we really are talking about sovereignity it is a fact that sovereignity it de facto always limmited.
Membership in international organisations limits sovereignity for example. Also the neighbours and their interests restrict the sovereignity a government de facto has got. That of course is not so much the case for the US. The strongest country is always the most sovereign one.


And by the way. Next year there are going to be elections in Iraq. And the elected parliament is going to elect the leadership. Would you accept the legitimacy of this leadership or denounce them as puppets as well?????

I don't think people understand the geo-political situation in Iraq when they try to compare what happened in Germany and Japan to Iraq. The middle east is not Germany or Japan, in the middle east you're dealing with fundamental religious extremists, this was not the case in Germany nor Japan. Also if we all take out our history books we will quickly learn that no middle eastern country has allowed it's self to be occupied by a foreign power for very long. I don't think you can really compare the three.

President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer for example was not the American candidate.
It is true that Iraq is going to remain dependent on an international security presence for many years. But if we really are talking about sovereignity it is a fact that sovereignity it de facto always limmited.
Membership in international organisations limits sovereignity for example. Also the neighbours and their interests restrict the sovereignity a government de facto has got. That of course is not so much the case for the US. The strongest country is always the most sovereign one.


And by the way. Next year there are going to be elections in Iraq. And the elected parliament is going to elect the leadership. Would you accept the legitimacy of this leadership or denounce them as puppets as well?????
I wonder if you already got a brown nose from all the US brown-nosing you are doing. You sound much like Angie Merkel, the ugliest woman of Germany, queen of the CDU (outdated and corrupt conservative party in Germany). I wonder why you arent in the US yet, since you seem to endorse their every move like a parrot saying "Yes!" to everything the US are doing, no matter how fucked up it is.

President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer for example was not the American candidate.
It is true that Iraq is going to remain dependent on an international security presence for many years. But if we really are talking about sovereignity it is a fact that sovereignity it de facto always limmited.
Membership in international organisations limits sovereignity for example. Also the neighbours and their interests restrict the sovereignity a government de facto has got. That of course is not so much the case for the US. The strongest country is always the most sovereign one.


And by the way. Next year there are going to be elections in Iraq. And the elected parliament is going to elect the leadership. Would you accept the legitimacy of this leadership or denounce them as puppets as well?????
What kind of sovereignity is there, as long as, there are US troops controlling the political will? The other part of the equation relates to foreign control of the Iraqi economy under Bremer's Orders:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Bremer Order #39: Foreign Investment

The order on foreign investment five key elements:

(1) Privatization of state-owned enterprises;
(2) 100% foreign ownership of businesses in all sectors except oil and mineral extraction, banks and insurance companies (the latter two are addressed in a separate order);
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms;
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all funds associated with the investment, including, but not limited to, profits; and
(5) 40 year ownership licenses which have the option of being renewed.

This article offers good reading regarding the true circumstances in Iraq, even after a new government is elected. An country that is dominated by foreign interests is not truly sovereign.

I don't think people understand the geo-political situation in Iraq when they try to compare what happened in Germany and Japan to Iraq. The middle east is not Germany or Japan, in the middle east you're dealing with fundamental religious extremists, this was not the case in Germany nor Japan. Also if we all take out our history books we will quickly learn that no middle eastern country has allowed it's self to be occupied by a foreign power for very long. I don't think you can really compare the three.
I entirely agree with you. That is also why I believe that the US made a huge mistake by invading Iraq.

I wonder if you already got a brown nose from all the US brown-nosing you are doing. You sound much like Angie Merkel, the ugliest woman of Germany, queen of the CDU (outdated and corrupt conservative party in Germany). I wonder why you arent in the US yet, since you seem to endorse their every move like a parrot saying "Yes!" to everything the US are doing, no matter how fucked up it is.
What has Schröder achieved with his anti-american election campaign and policy? He has damaged the US-German relationship tremendously and has not prevented the war. His policy is likely to cause German companies to be permanently excluded from business with Iraq. It would have been better for him just to shut up and let the US do what is did without angering it with his public statements, which were in the end irrelevant anyway.
There is one main difference between the policy of the current german and the french leadership. The French president acted that way at least because he really and sincerely believed in that, because it was in the tradition of the French policy to do that. Elections didn´t play a role (they were before this even became an issue). The German government took that position as an election calculation to assure its reelection at the end of 2002 which would not have happend otherwise. And they smached the tradition of German foreign policy of the last 50 years for that. And that was irresponsible and ought to be corrected if we have regime change in 2006

I entirely agree with you. That is also why I believe that the US made a huge mistake by invading Iraq.

Also a few other points people maybe over looking, Germany was use to being a democracy, they had lived under one before Hitler put it aside and decided to become a dictator, they also shared very similar values with the rest of Europe. Another point, Germany and Japan were the aggressors in WWII and got bitch slapped and lost. There is a profound difference in drive when you are the attacked and not the attackers.

CanuckHeaven,

as the US is really that "evil" as you pretend they would have taken over the oil sector first. And of course: Iraq needs foreign investment to update its infrastructure and also its oil industry.
So any responsible Iraqi government is going to negotiate partnerships with international companies (for technology and investment).
It shows the responsiblity of the US that it didn´t prejudice this negotiations and leaves that issue to the future Iraqi government. And the government which is going to be elected next year by a democraticly elected parliament has every legitimacy to make such contracts.

What has Schröder achieved with his anti-american election campaign and policy? He has damaged the US-German relationship tremendously and has not prevented the war.

I would argue that it was Bush who damaged the relationship, I suppose it depends on which angle you take it from. I would believe this because Bush has basically alienated most of the free world with the exception of the UK. So, it's not just Germany, I mean it was Bush who said the rest of the world and what they thought were "irrelevant" .. so I suggest if you wish to point a finger it would have to be at Bush, not Schroder.

What kind of sovereignity is there, as long as, there are US troops controlling the political will? The other part of the equation relates to foreign control of the Iraqi economy under Bremer's Orders:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Bremer Order #39: Foreign Investment

The order on foreign investment five key elements:

(1) Privatization of state-owned enterprises;
(2) 100% foreign ownership of businesses in all sectors except oil and mineral extraction, banks and insurance companies (the latter two are addressed in a separate order);
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms;
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all funds associated with the investment, including, but not limited to, profits; and
(5) 40 year ownership licenses which have the option of being renewed.

This article offers good reading regarding the true circumstances in Iraq, even after a new government is elected. An country that is dominated by foreign interests is not truly sovereign.
"Bechtel's track record does not bode well for the Iraqi people-in fact, the citizens of Bolivia have written a letter to the people of Iraq warning them of what to expect from Bechtel. A subsidiary of Bechtel privatized the water systems of Cochabamba, Bolivia and immediately sent prices sky-rocketing. Families earning a minimum wage of $60 per month faced water bills of $20 per month. The citizens rose in protest and at least one seventeen year-old boy lost his life to Bolivian troops sent into the streets to defend Bechtel's right to privatize with deadly force. Ultimately, the government relented and cancelled the contract. Bechtel has responded with a $25 million lawsuit against Bolivia for lost profits."

eading this article is like reading a corporate police state nightmare story... "Capitalizt" is an understatement. If Iraq faces these consequences after the ILLEGAL WAR BY THE US, then I can fully understand why they attack the US troops every day. The Iraqis are right in defending their country from being raped and pillaged by the US and looted by the US corporations (Halliburton + Bechtel). This is horrible :(

Also a few other points people maybe over looking, Germany was use to being a democracy, they had lived under one before Hitler put it aside and decided to become a dictator, they also shared very similar values with the rest of Europe. Another point, Germany and Japan were the aggressors in WWII and got bitch slapped and lost. There is a profound difference in drive when you are the attacked and not the attackers.
And you forget even another thing: There was a common enemy afterwards: Soviet Russia.
The Soviet Union took away the Kuril Islands from Japan and in Europe they pushed for the decision of Potsdam in 1945 under which 1/3 of the German territory (under the borders of Versailles) was put under Polish or Soviet administration and that Poland was "moved" westward. A few million poles where moved from the eastern areas (which today belong to the Ukraine and Belarus) and 12 million Germans were "moved" and had to flee westward. This policy of "transfer" (in fact the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing at least in european history) was executed mainly by the Soviets (in Czechoslovakia the at that time non-communists government conducted a simular policy (Benes-decrets) which led to the "transfer" of about 2 million people.
Given that fact it is more than understandable that an alliance with the US was seen as much better than one with the Soviets. So: there were common interests.
That was especially shown in 1948 when the communists tried to take over West Berlin through an embargo and the US didn´t gave up the free part of the city on them. There is after all nothing which bounds people or nations closer together than a common enemy.

You mean American undue influence has refused to show Al-Jazeera, and therefore their puppet government has refused to air it. Sheesh. The Muslim world is so uncomprehendingly misunderstood. The prez has demonized Al-Jazeera but they are really quite a liberal network. *shrugs* Sure, they put on the bin laden tapes because they get ratings.

And you forget even another thing: There was a common enemy afterwards: Soviet Russia.
The Soviet Union took away the Kuril Islands from Japan and in Europe they pushed for the decision of Potsdam in 1945 under which 1/3 of the German territory (under the borders of Versailles) was put under Polish or Soviet administration and that Poland was "moved" westward. A few million poles where moved from the eastern areas (which today belong to the Ukraine and Belarus) and 12 million Germans were "moved" and had to flee westward. This policy of "transfer" (in fact the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing at least in european history) was executed mainly by the Soviets (in Czechoslovakia the at that time non-communists government conducted a simular policy (Benes-decrets) which led to the "transfer" of about 2 million people.
Given that fact it is more than understandable that an alliance with the US was seen as much better than one with the Soviets. So: there were common interests.
That was especially shown in 1948 when the communists tried to take over West Berlin through an embargo and the US didn´t gave up the free part of the city on them. There is after all nothing which bounds people or nations closer together than a common enemy.

For sure, I totally agree and with Japan, China was also a major factor. I totally agree with you.

I would argue that it was Bush who damaged the relationship, I suppose it depends on which angle you take it from. I would believe this because Bush has basically alienated most of the free world with the exception of the UK. So, it's not just Germany, I mean it was Bush who said the rest of the world and what they thought were "irrelevant" .. so I suggest if you wish to point a finger it would have to be at Bush, not Schroder.
Sorry, you are wrong. Currently 18 of the 25 Nato members have troops in Iraq, 18 european countries have supported the decision of President Bush. After all 13 of the 25 EU members did.
And it was Schröder who said in the election campaign in 2002 that regardless of what the UN said he is not going to support a war in Iraq. So he especially played with the card of national sovereignity and rejected the UN (at least the same way as Bush did). It is hypocritical to criticise the US for ignoring the UN while stating that oneself would ignore the UN if it decides in another way than you want it to decide.
And by the way. Germany participated in the war against Jugoslavia in 1999. That didn´t have UN backing either. So this UN issue is not so important. The UN has not taken any important decision since it exists. The veto powers are always blocking themselfs with their vetos. One reason why the UN CAN NOT BE an efficent organisation.

"(1) The military occupation of Iraq must end.

(2) Iraq's foreign debts, accrued by Hussein in the suppression of the people of Iraq, must be forgiven.

(3) Only with the end of the U.S.-UK occupation should the United Nations, including an UN-commanded multilateral peacekeeping force, return to Iraq. Their mandate should be for a very short and defined period, with the goal of assisting Iraq in reconstruction and overseeing election of a governing authority.

(4) As belligerent powers who initiated the war, and as occupying powers, the U.S. and the UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to pay the continuing costs of Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments. Washington should reverse the spending priorities of its $87 billion request from Congress, and turn over to full UN authority (on behalf of the Iraqi people as a whole, not simply given to the U.S.-appointed Council) a starting grant of at least $75 billion (the initial amount Washington spent on waging the war) for reconstruction in Iraq.

(5) The $15 billion (out of the $87 billion) requested by the Bush administration for Iraqi reconstruction is insufficient to meet Washington's obligations under international law. The $65 billion scheduled for the Pentagon to continue the occupation of Iraq should be challenged. The additional reconstruction funds should not come from ordinary taxpayers. They should be raised from (a) an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq; and (b) the Pentagon budget lines currently directed at continuing war in Iraq.

(6) Reconstruction of Iraq should be based on rebuilding the economy to maximize fulfilling the needs of the Iraqi people. All contract processes should be completely transparent and accessible to Iraqis. Contracts should privilege local companies, towards the goal of strengthening and diversifying local production. Labor laws should ensure protection for local workers.

(7) Iraq should be allowed to join the worldwide movement for local sustainability by moving away from export oriented economics that make trade and multinational corporations the basis of economic development. Government spending, taxes, subsidies, tariff structures, etc. should be reoriented to support local environmentally sustainable production that meets local needs (these ideas are expanded upon in the IFG publication, Alternatives to Economic Globalization). "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

What has Schröder achieved with his anti-american election campaign and policy? He has damaged the US-German relationship tremendously and has not prevented the war. His policy is likely to cause German companies to be permanently excluded from business with Iraq. It would have been better for him just to shut up and let the US do what is did without angering it with his public statements, which were in the end irrelevant anyway.
There is one main difference between the policy of the current german and the french leadership. The French president acted that way at least because he really and sincerely believed in that, because it was in the tradition of the French policy to do that. Elections didn´t play a role (they were before this even became an issue). The German government took that position as an election calculation to assure its reelection at the end of 2002 which would not have happend otherwise. And they smached the tradition of German foreign policy of the last 50 years for that. And that was irresponsible and ought to be corrected if we have regime change in 2006
This was the first and only time I agreed with Schröder. Election stunt or not. And what German foreign policy of the past 50 years are you speaking of? Drawing their check book and help finance the war?

For sure, I totally agree and with Japan, China was also a major factor. I totally agree with you.
Right: after all China became communists in 1949 after the communists won the civil war against the Guomintang (who fled to Taiwan). On October 1, 1949 the People´s Republic of China was founded and was at that time still an ally of the USSR (this alliance fell apart much later). So, the thread of communism was there and it was really and people where very afraid of it. 1948 the Berlin blockade, 1950 the North Korean attack on South Korea - that was the background under which the US-Japanese-alliance and the US-(West-)German alliance were formend (US-Japanese pact, 1955 German membership of Nato).

Sorry, you are wrong. Currently 18 of the 25 Nato members have troops in Iraq, 18 european countries have supported the decision of President Bush. After all 13 of the 25 EU members did.
And it was Schröder who said in the election campaign in 2002 that regardless of what the UN said he is not going to support a war in Iraq. So he especially played with the card of national sovereignity and rejected the UN (at least the same way as Bush did). It is hypocritical to criticise the US for ignoring the UN while stating that oneself would ignore the UN if it decides in another way than you want it to decide.
And by the way. Germany participated in the war against Jugoslavia in 1999. That didn´t have UN backing either. So this UN issue is not so important. The UN has not taken any important decision since it exists. The veto powers are always blocking themselfs with their vetos. One reason why the UN CAN NOT BE an efficent organisation.
I suggest you back your propaganda up before you spout lies here. Schroeder did exactly what the German people wnated, he refused to join the US in the illegal war of the US and the following illegal looting of the country by US corporations. Schroeder has at least in this aspect, the overwhelming support of the German people. Had he acted against the German will and joined the war, even if the UN had given a resolution (which was highly unlikely and didnt happen) then he would have lost the election for sure. The war was such an important part of this election campaign that saying "No!" to it was the only way to not lose power immediately. All other conservative propaganda can be ignored, it is irrelevant because Schroeder did exactly what he was supposed to do. He - unlike the leaders of the 18 european nations you mentioned - did what the population, the electorate, wanted. He refused to succumb to US dictatorship and stood with France opposing an illegal war based on lies and deception. He has my utmost respect for that and Angie Merkel has lost all credibility by sucking up to Bush, against the will of the German people.

Sorry, you are wrong. Currently 18 of the 25 Nato members have troops in Iraq, 18 european countries have supported the decision of President Bush.

Perhaps, but look who those countries are.. and look at the troop commitment. Not to mention I believe at least two if not three of the named countries have already pulled out. It's not exactly a very impressive list to say the least. Note the "In Theater" numbers, those indicate how many troops are actually fighting, while the rest are there helping re-build, peacekeeping etc, so you have a total of two countries fighting with the Americans.

Countries in Support of Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)

http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=21735
Currently there are still 16 out of 25 Nato members. And that even after the Spanish withdrawl. And you have to take into account that only 24 countries even have a military (Iceland doesn´t have one). So: in fact 16 out of 24. Only the praline summit states (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg), Canada, and newly Spain, Greece and Turkey (which would be ready to sent troops but due to the nationalistic Turkish interest in Iraq (Kurd question) it is - rightly - not seen as a wise thing to sent Turkish troops to Iraq now.

http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=21735
Currently there are still 16 out of 25 Nato members. And that even after the Spanish withdrawl. And you have to take into account that only 24 countries even have a military (Iceland doesn´t have one). So: in fact 16 out of 24. Only the praline summit states (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg), Canada, and newly Spain, Greece and Turkey (which would be ready to sent troops but due to the nationalistic Turkish interest in Iraq (Kurd question) it is - rightly - not seen as a wise thing to sent Turkish troops to Iraq now.
You seem to think that not being part of the "Coalition of the Willing" or "Coalition of the Intimidated or Corrupt" is a bad thing. Quite at the contrary. Would you have been chancellor at the time and joined the US, you'd be in front of the German Supreme Court now to answer for crimes against our "constitution" which clearly forbids aiding in the preparation or conduct of a war of aggression. Schroeder did the right thing and if being in the NATO means being a vassall of the U$, then I am all for leaving NATO and let the U$ do their thing without being "forced" to join them due to some alliance.

He refused to succumb to US dictatorship and stood with France opposing an illegal war based on lies and deception. He has my utmost respect for that and Angie Merkel has lost all credibility by sucking up to Bush, against the will of the German people.
Firstly the US is a repbulic not a dictatorship. Secondly Schröder supported the war against Jugoslavia in 1999 with troops. And this war had legally even less legitimacy than the one against Iraq in 2003.
And thirdly history is going on. The question which is now the main question is the question of Turkish membership in the EU. And in this question Schröder is ignoring the will of the majority of the people in Germany by pushing for it. And the CDU/CSU is pointing out the opinion of the majority of German people by refusing full membership for Turkey and offering it a "privileged partnership". I call that a responsible policy of chair woman Angela Merkel, why Schröder in his attempt to please the US supports Turkish membership although it is completly against German national interests. That is what I really call an irresponsible policy.

You seem to think that not being part of the "Coalition of the Willing" or "Coalition of the Intimidated or Corrupt" is a bad thing. Quite at the contrary. Would you have been chancellor at the time and joined the US, you'd be in front of the German Supreme Court now to answer for crimes against our "constitution" which clearly forbids aiding in the preparation or conduct of a war of aggression.
Simular charges were brought against Blair, Bush and Schröder (for allowing the US to use the national air space and German airports). In all countries the national judical departement rejected that as nonsense.

http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=21735
Currently there are still 16 out of 25 Nato members. And that even after the Spanish withdrawl. And you have to take into account that only 24 countries even have a military (Iceland doesn´t have one). So: in fact 16 out of 24. Only the praline summit states (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg), Canada, and newly Spain, Greece and Turkey (which would be ready to sent troops but due to the nationalistic Turkish interest in Iraq (Kurd question) it is - rightly - not seen as a wise thing to sent Turkish troops to Iraq now.

I gave you a list of countries in theater, only two. While other countries are in Iraq, they are not in theater, meaning they are not fighting. Americans make up over 90% of the force. Btw, Canada has offered to help train Iraqi police/army and to help re-build, however Canada deemed the war in Iraq illegal under international law, that's why were are in Afghanistan and not Iraq.

Firstly the US is a repbulic not a dictatorship. Secondly Schröder supported the war against Jugoslavia in 1999 with troops. And this war had legally even less legitimacy than the one against Iraq in 2003.
And thirdly history is going on. The question which is now the main question is the question of Turkish membership in the EU. And in this question Schröder is ignoring the will of the majority of the people in Germany by pushing for it. And the CDU/CSU is pointing out the opinion of the majority of German people by refusing full membership for Turkey and offering it a "privileged partnership". I call that a responsible policy of chair woman Angela Merkel, why Schröder in his attempt to please the US supports Turkish membership although it is completly against German national interests. That is what I really call an irresponsible policy.
You are distracting from the topic, which was the Iraq war, not what Schroeder does today. I am against Turkey joining the EU anytime soon and if Schroeder pushes for it now, he will pay for it. Still Angie Merkel, the flip flopping bitch of the corrupt conservative party, may swing her fat ass over to the US and rot there for all eternity. I am sure not many in Germany will miss her butt-ugly face. To say it in German: Nimm deine fette Schlampe und steck sie dir in den Arsch!!! Die braucht hier kein Mensch!!!!

You are distracting from the topic, which was the Iraq war, not what Schroeder does today. I am against Turkey joining the EU anytime soon and if Schroeder pushes for it now, he will pay for it. Still Angie Merkel, the flip flopping bitch of the corrupt conservative party, may swing her fat ass over to the US and rot there for all eternity. I am sure not many in Germany will miss her butt-ugly face. To say it in German: Nimm deine fette Schlampe und steck sie dir in den Arsch!!! Die braucht hier kein Mensch!!!!
Politicians will never be called liars again. From this day forth, the universal politician insult is "flip-flopper." At least we can finally distuinghish them from the attorneys...

Simular charges were brought against Blair, Bush and Schröder (for allowing the US to use the national air space and German airports). In all countries the national judical departement rejected that as nonsense.
Because we are allied with them. But allowing them to use their bases here is a responsibility as allied nation, which does not mean that we actively have to participate in the war.

You are distracting from the topic, which was the Iraq war, not what Schroeder does today. I am against Turkey joining the EU anytime soon and if Schroeder pushes for it now, he will pay for it. Still Angie Merkel, the flip flopping bitch of the corrupt conservative party, may swing her fat ass over to the US and rot there for all eternity. I am sure not many in Germany will miss her butt-ugly face.
Could you present arguments instead of childish insults of politicans???
The fact is Schröder is pushing for Turkish membership and for starting negotiatians this year. And I hope he is going to pay a price for that in 2006.
Furthernmore I´m amused by the way you are attacking the most succesful East German in German politics which is after all Dr. Angela Merkel.
Maggie Thatcher was very controversial as well. However she was British prime minister for 11 years. Probably Dr. Merkel becomes the Maggie Thatcher of Germany.

Could you present arguments instead of childish insults of politicans???
The fact is Schröder is pushing for Turkish membership and for starting negotiatians this year. And I hope he is going to pay a price for that in 2006.
Furthernmore I´m amused by the way you are attacking the most succesful East German in German politics which is after all Dr. Angela Merkel.
Maggie Thatcher was very controversial as well. However she was British prime minister for 11 years. Probably Dr. Merkel becomes the Maggie Thatcher of Germany.
Marry her and move to the US with her. Save Germany from the embarrassment and the corrupt conservative turds you are dropping in copious amounts lately. I dont care and before Merkel becomes anything of importance in Germany, I'll become Emperor of China.

CanuckHeaven,

as the US is really that "evil" as you pretend they would have taken over the oil sector first. And of course: Iraq needs foreign investment to update its infrastructure and also its oil industry.
So any responsible Iraqi government is going to negotiate partnerships with international companies (for technology and investment).
It shows the responsiblity of the US that it didn´t prejudice this negotiations and leaves that issue to the future Iraqi government. And the government which is going to be elected next year by a democraticly elected parliament has every legitimacy to make such contracts.
The first thing the US mandated BEFORE it dropped a single bomb was that Iraqis should not destroy the oil production or pipelines.

Even BEFORE the capture of Saddam, BEFORE any bombs were dropped, the US had contracted out the repair of Iraqi oil producing machinery:

WASHINGTON -- A company tied to Vice President Dick Cheney has won a Pentagon contract for advice on rebuilding Iraq's oil fields after a possible war.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-05.htm

Do you call 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses a "partnership"?

The Iraqi "interim government" and even the newly elected government (whenever that happens), will have their hands tied by 40 year foreign business "leases" on their economy.

This is practical? More like absurd!!

On another note and in keeping with the thread, I just came across this:

US forces arrest leading Iraqi editor:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/25B2BED2-620D-4C37-ADD1-BF36D5654C6A.htm

So it is just not al-jazeera that has been targeted.

Because we are allied with them. But allowing them to use their bases here is a responsibility as allied nation, which does not mean that we actively have to participate in the war.
It is a support. And if the war in Iraq is considered a war of agression even that would be unconstituitional according 26 of the German constituition (just take a look at it if you have one!!!!). But it isn´t. Legally it is very simple. International law condems wars of agression. But there is no definition what that actually is. And the only one which has the authority to define it is the UN security council - where after all Britain and the US are permanent members with veto right. So: it is legally not a war of agression.
Your statements are just political statements and opinions without any legal impact.

And the only one which has the authority to define it is the UN security council - where after all Britain and the US are permanent members with veto right. So: it is legally not a war of agression.
Your statements are just political statements and opinions without any legal impact.
Usually the countries involved in a war aren't allowed to vote in the Security Council if there is a vote concerning the war.

Another item of extreme interest:

Baghdad - Iraq's government reluctantly reinstated the death penalty for crimes including murder, kidnapping and drug running on Sunday, saying the move was a necessity and would last until stability was restored.

Minister of State Adnan al-Janabi said the measure was effective immediately, but there was confusion about whether it could be applied retroactively, casting doubt on whether Saddam Hussein could be put to death if found guilty of crimes.

"This is the most difficult day of my life," Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq's human rights minister, told reporters as he and Janabi unveiled the law. Amin, exiled under Saddam, has been an ardent campaigner against the death penalty for several decades.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1091976122311B262

Marry her and move to the US with her. Save Germany from the embarrassment and the corrupt conservative turds you are dropping in copious amounts lately. I dont care and before Merkel becomes anything of importance in Germany, I'll become Emperor of China.
We´ll see 2006. And by the way: Angela Merkel is already a very important political figure: She is chair woman of the CDU and leader of the CDU/CSU fraction in our parliament. And she has a good chance of becoming chancellor in 2006, as you know very well of course.

Usually the countries involved in a war aren't allowed to vote in the Security Council if there is a vote concerning the war.
No you are wrong. For example the UN Security mandate about Korea (the only one which was of real importance except the one against Iraq in 1990) was only possible because the USSR boycotted the UN. If they hadn´t done so they could have vetod it.
But Stalin didn´t care about the UN anyway and he didn´t like a public debate at the UN Security council in which the USSR would have been heavily criticised. That´s why he boycotted it.
There was for example NEVER an UN resolution regarding Vietnam or Afghanistan. In the one the US in the other case the USSR made shure that no resolution against them was passed.

Could you present arguments instead of childish insults of politicans???
The fact is Schröder is pushing for Turkish membership and for starting negotiatians this year. And I hope he is going to pay a price for that in 2006.
Furthernmore I´m amused by the way you are attacking the most succesful East German in German politics which is after all Dr. Angela Merkel.
Maggie Thatcher was very controversial as well. However she was British prime minister for 11 years. Probably Dr. Merkel becomes the Maggie Thatcher of Germany.
While Merkel is way to pro American for my taste, I agree with her on the Turkey issue. I just hope she won't change her mind on that. Both of you seem to be against a Turkish EU membership. So I kinda fail to see what you two are arguing about exactly.
Sure, Merkel is butt ugly. And if the supporters of the Union have anything to say about it Merkel won't be the Union's candidate. They seem to favor Eddie Stoiber as a candidate. 46% for Stoiber and 42% for Merkel among the CDU supporters. 72% for Stoiber and only 19% for Merkel among CSU supporters.
http://www.welt.de/data/2004/04/19/266624.html

"Bechtel's track record does not bode well for the Iraqi people-in fact, the citizens of Bolivia have written a letter to the people of Iraq warning them of what to expect from Bechtel. A subsidiary of Bechtel privatized the water systems of Cochabamba, Bolivia and immediately sent prices sky-rocketing. Families earning a minimum wage of $60 per month faced water bills of $20 per month. The citizens rose in protest and at least one seventeen year-old boy lost his life to Bolivian troops sent into the streets to defend Bechtel's right to privatize with deadly force. Ultimately, the government relented and cancelled the contract. Bechtel has responded with a $25 million lawsuit against Bolivia for lost profits."

eading this article is like reading a corporate police state nightmare story... "Capitalizt" is an understatement. If Iraq faces these consequences after the ILLEGAL WAR BY THE US, then I can fully understand why they attack the US troops every day. The Iraqis are right in defending their country from being raped and pillaged by the US and looted by the US corporations (Halliburton + Bechtel). This is horrible :(
Ahhh the price of "democracy"? So much for Iraqi "freedom". How can people even suggest that Iraq is somehow blessed by this new regime?

I call it war profiteering, and it is a dark stain on the US.

We´ll see 2006. And by the way: Angela Merkel is already a very important political figure: She is chair woman of the CDU and leader of the CDU/CSU fraction in our parliament. And she has a good chance of becoming chancellor in 2006, as you know very well of course.
Don't be so gleefully secure of that outcome. Its not 2006 yet and as it looks, the CDU/CSU are about to split apart anyway. Merkel, the fat and dumb cow of the CDU is the secretary of Stoiber anyway, so her "position" means nothing. She's the wandering joke of Germany - much too arrogant and self-important. If she becomes chancellor, I'll personally buy a gun and assassinate her.

The first thing the US mandated BEFORE it dropped a single bomb was that Iraqis should not destroy the oil production or pipelines.
Even BEFORE the capture of Saddam, BEFORE any bombs were dropped, the US had contracted out the repair of Iraqi oil producing machinery:
WASHINGTON -- A company tied to Vice President Dick Cheney has won a Pentagon contract for advice on rebuilding Iraq's oil fields after a possible war.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-05.htm
Do you call 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses a "partnership"?
The Iraqi "interim government" and even the newly elected government (whenever that happens), will have their hands tied by 40 year foreign business "leases" on their economy.
This is practical? More like absurd!!
On another note and in keeping with the thread, I just came across this:
.
And what??? Do you think it is in the Iraqi interests to keep the oil under the sand?? They need the money from the oil to rebuild the country.
The oil is not only important for the rest of the world, it is of the utmost importance for Iraq itself. It is the highest potential the country has to modernize its economy, to achieve growth and to improve the living standard of its population. Protecting it is a responsibilty of the international security presence. It are the terrorists which try to disrupt the oil industry in order to prevent Iraq to stabilize, to rebuild its economy and to reach political stability.

"(1) The military occupation of Iraq must end.

(2) Iraq's foreign debts, accrued by Hussein in the suppression of the people of Iraq, must be forgiven.

(3) Only with the end of the U.S.-UK occupation should the United Nations, including an UN-commanded multilateral peacekeeping force, return to Iraq. Their mandate should be for a very short and defined period, with the goal of assisting Iraq in reconstruction and overseeing election of a governing authority.

(4) As belligerent powers who initiated the war, and as occupying powers, the U.S. and the UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to pay the continuing costs of Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments. Washington should reverse the spending priorities of its $87 billion request from Congress, and turn over to full UN authority (on behalf of the Iraqi people as a whole, not simply given to the U.S.-appointed Council) a starting grant of at least $75 billion (the initial amount Washington spent on waging the war) for reconstruction in Iraq.

(5) The $15 billion (out of the $87 billion) requested by the Bush administration for Iraqi reconstruction is insufficient to meet Washington's obligations under international law. The $65 billion scheduled for the Pentagon to continue the occupation of Iraq should be challenged. The additional reconstruction funds should not come from ordinary taxpayers. They should be raised from (a) an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq; and (b) the Pentagon budget lines currently directed at continuing war in Iraq.

(6) Reconstruction of Iraq should be based on rebuilding the economy to maximize fulfilling the needs of the Iraqi people. All contract processes should be completely transparent and accessible to Iraqis. Contracts should privilege local companies, towards the goal of strengthening and diversifying local production. Labor laws should ensure protection for local workers.

(7) Iraq should be allowed to join the worldwide movement for local sustainability by moving away from export oriented economics that make trade and multinational corporations the basis of economic development. Government spending, taxes, subsidies, tariff structures, etc. should be reoriented to support local environmentally sustainable production that meets local needs (these ideas are expanded upon in the IFG publication, Alternatives to Economic Globalization). "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm
This is called "The BearingPoint Plan ", and makes far more sense for the true "liberation" of Iraq.

And what??? Do you think it is in the Iraqi interests to keep the oil under the sand?? They need the money from the oil to rebuild the country.
The oil is not only important for the rest of the world, it is of the utmost importance for Iraq itself. It is the highest potential the country has to modernize its economy, to achieve growth and to improve the living standard of its population. Protecting it is a responsibilty of the international security presence. It are the terrorists which try to disrupt the oil industry in order to prevent Iraq to stabilize, to rebuild its economy and to reach political stability.
If you had at all read documents and plans of the US for Iraq, you'd know that their only goal is to make Iraq a 100% foreign owned economy which can be looted at will by the US corporations. There is NO INTEREST AT ALL to help the Iraqis. You are too pro-american though to see the truth. In your eyes the US are angels totally incapable of wrongdoing. With the current liar Bush II. on the throne of the US empire, I am sure Iraq wasnt even the last affront against the international community and sovereign nations, we have seen so far.

While Merkel is way to pro American for my taste, I agree with her on the Turkey issue. I just hope she won't change her mind on that. Both of you seem to be against a Turkish EU membership. So I kinda fail to see what you two are arguing about exactly.
Sure, Merkel is butt ugly. And if the supporters of the Union have anything to say about it Merkel won't be the Union's candidate. They seem to favor Eddie Stoiber as a candidate. 46% for Stoiber and 42% for Merkel among the CDU supporters. 72% for Stoiber and only 19% for Merkel among CSU supporters.
http://www.welt.de/data/2004/04/19/266624.html
You forget that Stoiber lost in 2002 against Schröder. He doesn´t get a second try. Secondly the CDU is the larger party and it can simply not afford to allow the CSU the candidacy for two consecutive times. And the only one in the CDU who can run in 2006 is Angela Merkel.
Regarding Turkey: I argue that Giga accuses Merkel not to follow the majority of the people in the Iraq question while at the historically more important Turkish question it is she who represents the will of the people which is flagrantly ignored by Schröder due to partisan interests.

And what??? Do you think it is in the Iraqi interests to keep the oil under the sand?? They need the money from the oil to rebuild the country.
The oil is not only important for the rest of the world, it is of the utmost importance for Iraq itself. It is the highest potential the country has to modernize its economy, to achieve growth and to improve the living standard of its population. Protecting it is a responsibilty of the international security presence. It are the terrorists which try to disrupt the oil industry in order to prevent Iraq to stabilize, to rebuild its economy and to reach political stability.
Right now, there is not even a true accounting, as to how much oil is being produced, who it is being sold to and at what price. It certainly is not in the control of the Iraqi "interim government", even though it is supposed to be. WHO is benefitting from the oil that is being produced?

Even if the Iraqis end up with revenue from the oil production, what good is that if their businesses are 100% foreign owned and controlled, and with 100% of profits from these businesses being allowed to leave Iraq?

How does this help the Iraqis to grow their economy?

If you had at all read documents and plans of the US for Iraq, you'd know that their only goal is to make Iraq a 100% foreign owned economy which can be looted at will by the US corporations. There is NO INTEREST AT ALL to help the Iraqis. You are too pro-american though to see the truth. In your eyes the US are angels totally incapable of wrongdoing. .
No, I don´t see the US as angles. But you seem to see them as devils which they aren´t. Of course the US is pushing for its own interests JUST AS EVERY COUNTRY DOES. They are only the most powerful and therefore more able to so than anyone else. But you seem to assume that this interests are bad for all others. And I don´t agree with that.
And by the way: I don´t like Schröder but I wouldn´t assassinate him. Your comments about Merkel are not funny, rather childish and stupid. Is that what you call democracy if you resort to violence when you don´t like the result?????

Right now, there is not even a true accounting, as to how much oil is being produced, who it is being sold to and at what price. It certainly is not in the control of the Iraqi "interim government", even though it is supposed to be. WHO is benefitting from the oil that is being produced?
Even if the Iraqis end up with revenue from the oil production, what good is that if their businesses are 100% foreign owned and controlled, and with 100% of profits from these businesses being allowed to leave Iraq?
How does this help the Iraqis to grow their economy?
The Iraqi government can tax the profits. And by the way: the oil industry has not been privatised yet. That is an issue for a future government to decide. And you forget the enormous amounts the US spents for the stabilisation and reconstruction of Iraq. Economically this enterprise is very, very costly. Just look at the very high deficits of the US.

No, I don´t see the US as angles. But you seem to see them as devils which they aren´t. Of course the US is pushing for its own interests JUST AS EVERY COUNTRY DOES. They are only the most powerful and therefore more able to so than anyone else. But you seem to assume that this interests are bad for all others. And I don´t agree with that.
And by the way: I don´t like Schröder but I wouldn´t assassinate him. Your comments about Merkel are not funny, rather childish and stupid. Is that what you call democracy if you resort to violence when you don´t like the result?????
Since you are apprently too chickenshit to safe Germany of Angie Merkel, the fatass idiotic leader of the CDU (a fat-ass corrupt conservative party, even worse than what we currently have in power in Germany) then I will have to do it.

Since you are apprently too chickenshit to safe Germany of Angie Merkel, the fatass idiotic leader of the CDU (a fat-ass corrupt conservative party, even worse than what we currently have in power in Germany) then I will have to do it.
Germany needs to be saved from Schröder and especially from the political left and their socialism (which is still there although of the reforms). And for that it needs Angela Merkel.
You can´t do anything more than everybody else: you can vote.
And it are the voters who are going to decide in 2006. That is democracy.

Germany needs to be saved from Schröder and especially from the political left and their socialism (which is still there although of the reforms). And for that it needs Angela Merkel.
You can´t do anything more than everybody else: you can vote.
And it are the voters who are going to decide in 2006. That is democracy.
I am a voter and I will not vote for SPD nor for CDU, as I have done since 1998. I dont like either party. They are both lazy, power-loving, corrupt, idiotic, incapable, lieing, betraying "parties" which are self-serving and never have the interest of the people at heart. The only thing either of the mainstream parties cares for is to keep power and to grab as much money as possible. I despise the established parties because they suck so hard at what they are doing, that our country will eventually collapse. Not because of SPD alone, but because CDU/CSU is just as inept at running Germany as SPD is.

Politicians will never be called liars again. From this day forth, the universal politician insult is "flip-flopper." At least we can finally distuinghish them from the attorneys...

LOL!!! I'm sure that Flip-Flopper will be placed in the Dictionary if it isn't already! LOL

I am a voter and I will not vote for SPD nor for CDU, as I have done since 1998. I dont like either party. They are both lazy, power-loving, corrupt, idiotic, incapable, lieing, betraying "parties" which are self-serving and never have the interest of the people at heart. The only thing either of the mainstream parties cares for is to keep power and to grab as much money as possible. I despise the established parties because they suck so hard at what they are doing, that our country will eventually collapse. Not because of SPD alone, but because CDU/CSU is just as inept at running Germany as SPD is.
Well, yeah. But who will you vote for then? The PDS? Republicans? NPD? KPD? FDP? DVU?
Or why not start your own party?

Well, yeah. But who will you vote for then? The PDS? Republicans? NPD? KPD? FDP? DVU?
Or why not start your own party?
Right now I hope that theleft party forming out of SPD can establish itselfas a fresh alternative. If not, I'll vote for some noname or perhaps for the nationalists.

I am a voter and I will not vote for SPD nor for CDU, as I have done since 1998. I dont like either party.
All parties want power: what else. But in contrast of you I think the reforms are trying to prevent the collapse of the social system (which would be happening otherwise).
It is not possible to finance the social state any more. There need to be cuts. Otherwise the taxes would need to be increased even more. So: there is no alternative and non of the critics has presented anything except of polemic remarks and propaganda.
There is just one alternative in 2006: Red-Green versus Black-yellow.
And every government has to do reforms and to do some cuts. I think the conservatives and liberals would make a more consistent policy and with their majority in the Bundesrat they could more easily push for the reforms.

I hate american news because of things like a dog getting lost in alabama comes further up the news than 10,000 elderly dying in France last summer. and this is true (cnn).

Right now I hope that theleft party forming out of SPD can establish itselfas a fresh alternative. If not, I'll vote for some noname or perhaps for the nationalists.

*Here's the trumpets playing taps if this ever occurs*

All parties want power: what else. But in contrast of you I think the reforms are trying to prevent the collapse of the social system (which would be happening otherwise).
It is not possible to finance the social state any more. There need to be cuts. Otherwise the taxes would need to be increased even more. So: there is no alternative and non of the critics has presented anything except of polemic remarks and propaganda.
There is just one alternative in 2006: Red-Green versus Black-yellow.
And every government has to do reforms and to do some cuts. I think the conservatives and liberals would make a more consistent policy and with their majority in the Bundesrat they could more easily push for the reforms.
Keep on dreaming. CDU/CSU + FDP.. what a joke. You dont seem to remember that Germany is in the current state because Kohl did nothing during his reign of corruption. Instead he, like just about any other politician in power anywhere, gladly accepted money from donors and granted his "royal" agreement to various projects in exchange.

CDU/CSU are worse than SPD actually since the CSU/CSU want to "punish" the unemployed who dont have anything even more than SPD already does. The CDU/CSU reform plans are scary at best and will cause civil uprisings, if they ever get to power to implement them. While SPD is already the "party of social destruction", CDU/CSU would be the party of "government endorsed slavery". No thanks. Vote for CDU/CSU if you like, you're propaganda blinded by the conservatists. I want nothing of either party.

Keep on dreaming. CDU/CSU + FDP.. what a joke. You dont seem to remember that Germany is in the current state because Kohl did nothing during his reign of corruption. Instead he, like just about any other politician in power anywhere, gladly accepted money from donors and granted his "royal" agreement to various projects in exchange.

CDU/CSU are worse than SPD actually since the CSU/CSU want to "punish" the unemployed who dont have anything even more than SPD already does. The CDU/CSU reform plans are scary at best and will cause civil uprisings, if they ever get to power to implement them. While SPD is already the "party of social destruction", CDU/CSU would be the party of "government endorsed slavery". No thanks. Vote for CDU/CSU if you like, you're propaganda blinded by the conservatists. I want nothing of either party.

Thinks that Gigatron needs to be placed inside a German psych Ward!

Shroder is trying to play bothsides against the middle. Opposed the Iraq war but yet says he'll help train them as long as they come to Germany. Instead, NATO team members are going down to Iraq to assist in training the forces.

France opposed the war from the start. Frankly, that isn't what pissed us americans off. Its fine to oppose something but its how you do it. They supported 1441 but when a second one came up to vote, they blocked. That is what had us pissed off.

Now back on topic!

Al-Jazera brought this on themselves. To bad other nations support this terror-supporting station. I applaud Iraq for doing this and I hope that this teaches al-Jazera a lesson but I doubt it will.

Thinks that Gigatron needs to be placed inside a German psych Ward!

Shroder is trying to play bothsides against the middle. Opposed the Iraq war but yet says he'll help train them as long as they come to Germany. Instead, NATO team members are going down to Iraq to assist in training the forces.

France opposed the war from the start. Frankly, that isn't what pissed us americans off. Its fine to oppose something but its how you do it. They supported 1441 but when a second one came up to vote, they blocked. That is what had us pissed off.

Now back on topic!

Al-Jazera brought this on themselves. To bad other nations support this terror-supporting station. I applaud Iraq for doing this and I hope that this teaches al-Jazera a lesson but I doubt it will.
I'm not defending Schroeder. He's a loser when it comes to national issues. I dunno why you start making up strawmen to argue against. Does that help your shizophrenic ego perhaps?

Thinks that Gigatron needs to be placed inside a German psych Ward!

Thinks Corneliu should attack the argument not the poster.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I'm not defending Schroeder. He's a loser when it comes to national issues. I dunno why you start making up strawmen to argue against. Does that help your shizophrenic ego perhaps?

No need to insult. You show your intellect when you do. Come to think of it, you remind me of a school yard bully that I took out. Got in trouble but he didn't bother anyone else for the rest of the year.

I agree with you that Schroeder is a loser. He is. LOL and I hope he's taken out in '06!

Thinks Corneliu should attack the argument not the poster.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

And why haven't I seen this warning aiming at gigatron who has insulted a few people on here?

Keep on dreaming. CDU/CSU + FDP.. what a joke. You dont seem to remember that Germany is in the current state because Kohl did nothing during his reign .
You forget the devastating results of 40 years of communism in East Germany. Germany after all spents 4% of its GDP as development aid for the east. A very heavy burden no other country has to bear.
And that is the result of 40 years of socialism in the east.
Schröder now rules 6 years. It isn´t possible to blame today everything on some mistakes Kohl did between 1990-98.
Thirdly you have presented no alternative. It isn´t possible in the long-run to spent more than the state has as tax revenues. And it is not responsibilty to increase the already high taxation because it would harm the economy. So: there is no alternative.
Regarding Iraq: you are always forgetting that with the invasion the US overthrew the worst dictator of the region who after all killed hundreds of thousands of his country men.
But you seem to favour Saddam Hussein over George Bush. I don´t because it is crazy to do that and to compare an legitimate president with one of the worst dictators.

No need to insult. You show your intellect when you do. Come to think of it, you remind me of a school yard bully that I took out. Got in trouble but he didn't bother anyone else for the rest of the year.

I agree with you that Schroeder is a loser. He is. LOL and I hope he's taken out in '06!
And still you make up strawmen.. quite clearly signs of shizophreny. Mayhaps, it is you who needs to be put into a "German Psych Ward"?

And why haven't I seen this warning aiming at gigatron who has insulted a few people on here?

Point me in the direction of it and I will warn them too. I only warn what I catch. If you see some thing that is flaming or flamebait, please report it to me or the other mods and we will deal with it.

You forget the devastating results of 40 years of communism in East Germany. Germany after all spents 4% of its GDP as development aid for the east. A very heavy burden no other country has to bear.
And that is the result of 40 years of socialism in the east.
Schröder now rules 6 years. It isn´t possible to blame today everything on some mistakes Kohl did between 1990-98.
Thirdly you have presented no alternative. It isn´t possible in the long-run to spent more than the state has as tax revenues. And it is not responsibilty to increase the already high taxation because it would harm the economy. So: there is no alternative.
Regarding Iraq: you are always forgetting that with the invasion the US overthrew the worst dictator of the region who after all killed hundreds of thousands of his country men.
But you seem to favour Saddam Hussein over George Bush. I don´t because it is crazy to do that and to compare an legitimate president with one of the worst dictators.
Overthrowing Hussein was not why the US did the war. It is illegal to do that and yet another blatant violation of UN charter to do that. He may have been a dictator, but by far not as horrible as the US and other propaganda wanted to make him look like. You seem to forget also that it was the US who brought him to power (and several other dictator regimes in the world.. lets not forget these either). Iraq was a sovereign nation and history is well known to say that the US had no right to attack Iraq, whatsoever. I will not listen to "justification attempts" of this war in hindsight. The US should have been honest from the beginning and said that they want oil and a "colony" in the middle east to better spread their empire. Its nothing new and nothing hidden.

And still you make up strawmen.. quite clearly signs of shizophreny. Mayhaps, it is you who needs to be put into a "German Psych Ward"?

Snickers. I live in the US buddy and a Bush Supporter :P

I supported Iraq, I supported Afghanistan, I supported Bosnia, I supported Yugoslavia. The UN did not. LOL!

You have such staunch hatred for the US but I want you to think of something. If the US did not get involved in Europe, it is very likely that ALL of GERMANY, your nation, would've been under Soviet Control as well as western Europe. Do you think Britian and the US could've won the Cold War if that occured? I dont think we could've and that is coming from this American who believes in Peace through Strength. Show the world your ready for a fight and they won't touch ya.

And still you make up strawmen.. quite clearly signs of shizophreny. Mayhaps, it is you who needs to be put into a "German Psych Ward"?

Lets knock off the insults shall we?

Thank You
Stephanie
Game Moderator

Shroder is trying to play bothsides against the middle. Opposed the Iraq war but yet says he'll help train them as long as they come to Germany. Instead, NATO team members are going down to Iraq to assist in training the forces.
France opposed the war from the start. Frankly, that isn't what pissed us americans off. Its fine to oppose something but its how you do it. They supported 1441 but when a second one came up to vote, they blocked. That is what had us pissed off.

Schröder was rather playing the junior partner of France. That is not the position Germany belongs. Germany is after all economically still stronger as France and has got more people. So: this can only be an equal partnership but not under French leadership.
I especially agree with your second paragraph. But this was not this was all about. The French traditionally like to play on an anti-US stance. Their opposition was sincere. Schröders was motivated to enshure his reelection. He is a machiavellist politican. I actually have to respect that. It was an excellent strategy to stay in power however at the expense of a deep crisis of US-German relations and on the expense of damaging the national interests of the country. But he doesn´t care about that as long as he can stay in power.

Point me in the direction of it and I will warn them too. I only warn what I catch. If you see some thing that is flaming or flamebait, please report it to me or the other mods and we will deal with it.

Good point steph and I apologize! *nods his head in acknowledgement*

To the point, I have to search this thread for them.

Maybe al-Jazeera has been banned by Iraq, but Robert Fisk hasn't been YET. To see what he says about what is going in Iraq today:

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6112

Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.......

.......The stage management of this catastrophe in Iraq was all too evident at Saddam Hussein's "trial". Not only did the US military censor the tapes of the event. Not only did they effectively delete all sound of the 11 other defendants. But the Americans led Saddam Hussein to believe - until he reached the courtroom - that he was on his way to his execution......

...... The American-appointed "government" controls only parts of Baghdad - and even there its ministers and civil servants are car-bombed and assassinated. Baquba, Samara, Kut, Mahmoudiya, Hilla, Fallujah, Ramadi, all are outside government authority. Iyad Allawi, the "Prime Minister", is little more than mayor of Baghdad. "Some journalists," Blair announces, "almost want there to be a disaster in Iraq." He doesn't get it. The disaster exists now........

......Oil pipeline explosions are now as regular as power cuts. In parts of Baghdad now, they have only four hours of electricity a day; the streets swarm with foreign mercenaries, guns poking from windows, shouting abusively at Iraqis who don't clear the way for them. This is the "safer" Iraq which Mr Blair was boasting of the other day. What world does the British Government exist in?

AND the beat goes on and on....

Schröder was rather playing the junior partner of France. That is not the position Germany belongs. Germany is after all economically still stronger as France and has got more people. So: this can only be an equal partnership but not under French leadership.
I especially agree with your second paragraph. But this was not this was all about. The French traditionally like to play on an anti-US stance. Their opposition was sincere. Schröders was motivated to enshure his reelection. He is a machiavellist politican. I actually have to respect that. It was an excellent strategy to stay in power however at the expense of a deep crisis of US-German relations and on the expense of damaging the national interests of the country. But he doesn´t care about that as long as he can stay in power.

Good point Kybernetia. I was rather disappointed when Schroder won the election and how he won it. His former Attorney General didn't do him any favors and that started the chill in relations. Schoder did try damage control with us and succeeded to a point but has suffered some fall out from this.

Snickers. I live in the US buddy and a Bush Supporter :P

I supported Iraq, I supported Afghanistan, I supported Bosnia, I supported Yugoslavia. The UN did not. LOL!

You have such staunch hatred for the US but I want you to think of something. If the US did not get involved in Europe, it is very likely that ALL of GERMANY, your nation, would've been under Soviet Control as well as western Europe. Do you think Britian and the US could've won the Cold War if that occured? I dont think we could've and that is coming from this American who believes in Peace through Strength. Show the world your ready for a fight and they won't touch ya.
Naw I disagree. If the US had not involved themselves in Europe, the Soviet Union would now be under *German* control. Not the other way around. Serving your own interest always was easy to "justify" since the US are always "the good guys". Frankly, USSR or US, in the long run it doesnt make much difference. Both are totalitarian regimes which violate human rights and where the poor man has no say.

Good point Kybernetia. I was rather disappointed when Schroder won the election and how he won it. His former Attorney General didn't do him any favors and that started the chill in relations. Schoder did try damage control with us and succeeded to a point but has suffered some fall out from this.
*laughs*Schroeder and the SPD didn't win the elections. The Greens did.

Naw I disagree. If the US had not involved themselves in Europe, the Soviet Union would now be under *German* control. Not the other way around. Serving your own interest always was easy to "justify" since the US are always "the good guys". Frankly, USSR or US, in the long run it doesnt make much difference. Both are totalitarian regimes which violate human rights and where the poor man has no say.

HAHAHA!!! Dude you really have no idea how badly Germany was hammered do you? You were thrown back from Moscow and was getting driven out of the USSR even before the US set one foot on European ground. If the US didn't get involved, Germany still would've been defeated if not because of tech but because of Manpower.

Frankly, most historians agree that the US entrance into WWII was the turning point in History. Study WWII sometime Gigatron and see for yourself.

I guess this has turned into a German political debate?

Yeah, umm folks, can we try to get back on topic please.

Thank You.

Ok back to topic. Iraq sucks by violating democratic base rights and the US suck for everything :)
Happy?

Good point Kybernetia. I was rather disappointed when Schroder won the election and how he won it. His former Attorney General didn't do him any favors and that started the chill in relations. Schoder did try damage control with us and succeeded to a point but has suffered some fall out from this.
Sorry, I don´t know to whom you are referring to. You probably meant the minister for justice which made some outrageous remarks about President Bush three days before the elections (and later was not reappointed to office, however he didn´t dismiss her three days before the election). That actually was as Condy Rice put it "poisoning the relationship".
He only began to do some repair work after the war but up until it he tried still to use it (for example as a topic in the state elections in Hesse and lower Saxony in February 2003. However that failed. After all state elections have nothing to do with foreign policy. Since that he partly tries to negotiate between the US and France. That is actualy the position Germany traditionally holds and should return to.
Regarding the Cold War, e.g.: that was discussed several pages ago. You may take a look there to see what has already been discussed.

Ok back to topic. Iraq sucks by violating democratic base rights and the US suck for everything :)
Happy?

Iraq has the right to do what it needs to do to quell an uprising. Lincoln jailed newspaper reporters during the Civil War. In war, you do what is necessary to keep the peace.

Sorry, I don´t know to whom you are referring to. You probably meant the minister for justice which made some outrageous remarks about President Bush three days before the elections (and later was not reappointed to office, however he didn´t dismiss her three days before the election). That actually was as Condy Rice put it "poisoning the relationship".
He only began to do some repair work after the war but up until it he tried still to use it (for example as a topic in the state elections in Hesse and lower Saxony in February 2003. However that failed. After all state elections have nothing to do with foreign policy. Since that he partly tries to negotiate between the US and France. That is actualy the position Germany traditionally holds and should return to.
Regarding the Cold War, e.g.: that was discussed several pages ago. You may take a look there to see what has already been discussed.

Yea I ment the minister of Justice, the Attorney General here. Sorry for the confusion.

HAHAHA!!! Dude you really have no idea how badly Germany was hammered do you? You were thrown back from Moscow and was getting driven out of the USSR even before the US set one foot on European ground. If the US didn't get involved, Germany still would've been defeated if not because of tech but because of Manpower.

Frankly, most historians agree that the US entrance into WWII was the turning point in History. Study WWII sometime Gigatron and see for yourself.
That goes highly off topic now, but you forget that the US was supporting the USSR and Britain of course and that in 1943 you won in North Africa and entered to Italy. Germany was fighting at two fronts after all even before the D-Day: the east and the south. And the soviet main push westward was much latter - when you had already landed at Normandy. Up till the end of 1943 Germany still was short before Moscow and still surrounded Leningrad and Stalingrad.
So, you shouldn´t underestimate the importance of your country in this war.

That goes highly off topic now, but you forget that the US was supporting the USSR and Britain of course and that in 1943 you won in North Africa and entered to Italy. Germany was fighting at two fronts after all even before the D-Day: the east and the south. And the soviet main push westward was much latter - when you had already landed at Normandy. Up till the end of 1943 Germany still was short before Moscow and still surrounded Leningrad and Stalingrad.
So, you shouldn´t underestimate the importance of your country in this war.

Never have, never will but people just don't seem to understand how important we were in WWII! That was why I supported this war. We told Iraq, you violated the Cease-fire, hasta La Vista Hussein. Now Iraq has told Al-Jazera, Hasta La Vista baby, for the next 30 days. To bad they won't learn from this.

Iraq has the right to do what it needs to do to quell an uprising. Lincoln jailed newspaper reporters during the Civil War. In war, you do what is necessary to keep the peace.
Afaik the war ended a while ago with "Mission Accomplished" being proudly displayed behind a Bush II. in air force uniform, proudly congratulating the gathered U$ troops on an aircraft carrier, docked somewhere close to the U$ mainland. The "uprisings" are the Iraqis trying to safe their country from the U$ occupation, from being looted and sucked dry by the U$ corporations which have been invited to the country by Bremer and cohorts. Uprisings are the last resort of an oppressed people to defend their nation.

Never have, never will but people just don't seem to understand how important we were in WWII! That was why I supported this war. We told Iraq, you violated the Cease-fire, hasta La Vista Hussein. Now Iraq has told Al-Jazera, Hasta La Vista baby, for the next 30 days. To bad they won't learn from this.
Al Qaida said "Hasta La Vista" to 3000 U$ civilians and steered 2 planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. Sadly, the U$ didnt learn from this. Whatever else hits you now, may be worse than 9/11, but you had it coming.

Afaik the war ended a while ago with "Mission Accomplished" being proudly displayed behind a Bush II. in air force uniform, proudly congratulating the gathered U$ troops on an aircraft carrier, docked somewhere close to the U$ mainland. The "uprisings" are the Iraqis trying to safe their country from the U$ occupation, from being looted and sucked dry of the U$ corporations which have been invited to the country by Bremer and cohorts. Uprisings are the last resort of an oppressed people to defend their nation.

The main war yes. Now stability is the other question. We won militarily so yes mission was accomplished. That was ousting hussien. Iraq is now in the process of being stablized. Allawi has to do what is necessary to make sure that it does get stabilized. As for the Uniform, it was a Flight Suit. ALL PILOTS: Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, and Army, wear them. You should've learned that by now. As for occupation, you need to get with the news. Iraq has been soveriegn since June 28, 2004! The uprisings are from a very small minority that do not WANT a successful democracy in Iraq. Your anti-american sentiment clouds this from you.

Al Qaida said "Hasta La Vista" to 3000 U$ civilians and steered 2 planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. Sadly, the U$ didnt learn from this. Whatever else hits you now, may be worse than 9/11, but you had it coming.

What did you expect? For us to roll over. How little you know. Pearl was bombed by surprised on December 7, 1941 that destroyed the US Pacific Fleet. Did we quit then? NO we did not and we wound up defeating Japan. Did we quit when the WTC was attack as well as the pentagon? NO we did not and now 2/3 of al Qaeda leadership is either dead or captured. I guess your not getting that through ya either.

We know that the next attack on us could be worse. We are preparing for that now. Hopefully, it won't come but odds are it will and we will be able to recover as we have recovered from Pearl and from 9/11!

The main war yes. Now stability is the other question. We won militarily so yes mission was accomplished. That was ousting hussien. Iraq is now in the process of being stablized. Allawi has to do what is necessary to make sure that it does get stabilized. As for the Uniform, it was a Flight Suit. ALL PILOTS: Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, and Army, wear them. You should've learned that by now. As for occupation, you need to get with the news. Iraq has been soveriegn since June 28, 2004! The uprisings are from a very small minority that do not WANT a successful democracy in Iraq. Your anti-american sentiment clouds this from you.
I see.. thus why so much outside of Baghdad is under U$/Iraqi-puppet-government control. You are apparently blinded by the U$ propaganda machine called "media". Watch Al Jazeera for a bit to see the other side of the "war".

I see.. thus why so much outside of Baghdad is under U$/Iraqi-puppet-government control. You are apparently blinded by the U$ propaganda machine called "media". Watch Al Jazeera for a bit to see the other side of the "war".

We are not controling Iraq. The Iraqis are controling Iraq. Get that straight. As for Al-Jazera, I would rather watch CNN than that terror supporting station. I have seen the other side of the war and I have seen what we are doing there and who is basically behind all the troubles in the country.

The main war yes. Now stability is the other question. We won militarily so yes mission was accomplished. That was ousting hussien. Iraq is now in the process of being stablized. Allawi has to do what is necessary to make sure that it does get stabilized. As for the Uniform, it was a Flight Suit. ALL PILOTS: Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, and Army, wear them. You should've learned that by now. As for occupation, you need to get with the news. Iraq has been soveriegn since June 28, 2004! The uprisings are from a very small minority that do not WANT a successful democracy in Iraq. Your anti-american sentiment clouds this from you.

Well to be fair, the Americans really didn't plan for after the war. They didn't plan for the peace, because members of this administration one after the other kept saying the Iraqi's would welcome them with open arms, they didn't plan on the Iraqi freedom fighters, nor the foreign fighters flocking to Iraq, nor any insurgency, which is a word I don't personally like to use as I don't believe there will be a legitimate government until elections are held, thus you can't really have insurgents. These people were not picked by the Iraqi people, thus lack legitimacy.

What did you expect? For us to roll over. How little you know. Pearl was bombed by surprised on December 7, 1941 that destroyed the US Pacific Fleet. Did we quit then? NO we did not and we wound up defeating Japan. Did we quit when the WTC was attack as well as the pentagon? NO we did not and now 2/3 of al Qaeda leadership is either dead or captured. I guess your not getting that through ya either.

We know that the next attack on us could be worse. We are preparing for that now. Hopefully, it won't come but odds are it will and we will be able to recover as we have recovered from Pearl and from 9/11!
In the process you are losing your civil freedoms. Embrace the Patriot Act II. Its the perfect leash for sheep like you. Welcome to the "New American Century" where your freedoms have been traded for a corporate police state. Yay!!

The 2/3 of Al Qaeda mean zilch. You still dont have the main guy. The big boss. The major player. Ya know.. Osama. The CIA Top Agent ;)

Even if you get him, you will never defeat terrorism. If Osama is gone, he will be replaced. If you get "2/3" of Al Qaeda, they will be replaced. If it requires 100 dead to bomb the U$ into terror, then 100 will die for that cause. There is nothing you can do against terorrism except total isolation and control of your country, which is the path your government is currently taking.

We are not controling Iraq. The Iraqis are controling Iraq. Get that straight. As for Al-Jazera, I would rather watch CNN than that terror supporting station. I have seen the other side of the war and I have seen what we are doing there and who is basically behind all the troubles in the country.
Well: currently I´m watching NTV, the german partner of CNN which has a domestic topic (the cuts of the unemployment support which was passed in a consensus between government and opposition and is going to be implemented in 2005). That is one of the deepest reforms in the German welfare state with heavy cuts in the supports which are reduced to a minimum of less than 400 Euro per month (plus support for housing) for people who are unemployed for more then one year.
Back to the topic: Legally the war isn´t over. President Bush has only declared the end of "major combat in Iraq" but not the end of combat itself. Legally an important difference.
It is however true that the Iraqi government has not a sufficent own security force in place. That needs to be built up. So currently the US and the coaliton are playing a major role. However neither the coaltion nor the Iraqi government together control Iraq complettly as there is the de facto out of control area in Faludscha (of the sunnis there) and the rebellion of shiite clerik al-Sadr and his militia.

In the process you are losing your civil freedoms. Embrace the Patriot Act II. Its the perfect leash for sheep like you. Welcome to the "New American Century" where your freedoms have been traded for a corporate police state. Yay!!

Patriot Act II? When was Patriot Act I? I don't see it. As for the Patriot Act, you still need a warrent for everything from taps to arrest and there has to be evidence for the warrent to be issued.

The 2/3 of Al Qaeda mean zilch. You still dont have the main guy. The big boss. The major player. Ya know.. Osama. The CIA Top Agent ;)

It means alot actually. It means that they have to bring up people that were probably not yet ready for such a role. This is becoming more evident. From the ones that we have captured, we have gain much terror information to stop attacks or to put them off all together. Osama will be caught in time but he is in probably the most rigerous country that he knows quite well. I'm sure that if we were hunting you in your backyard, you would know all the places to hide. This is what we're facing. A guy that knows the terrain quite well and all the places to hide. He is however, starting to run out of places to hide.

Even if you get him, you will never defeat terrorism. If Osama is gone, he will be replaced. If you get "2/3" of Al Qaeda, they will be replaced. If it requires 100 dead to bomb the U$ into terror, then 100 will die for that cause. There is nothing you can do against terorrism except total isolation and control of your country, which is the path your government is currently taking.

We are doing all we can to limit international Terrorism and world wide terror network like al Qaeda. We know that terror will never be 100% irradicated. Everyone knows that, even Bush. But you can limit the scope of terrorism. The people that are dead or captured have been replaced and some of those have been taken out or captured too, thus more have to be brought up. We maybe shaken up as we were on 9/11 but our resolve is strong enough to counter this and to Strike Back. Something that al Qaeda didn't think we would do. They got a rude awakening and have been back pedaling ever since.

Well: currently I´m watching NTV, the german partner of CNN which has a domestic topic (the cuts of the unemployment support which was passed in a consensus between government and opposition and is going to be implemented in 2005). That is one of the deepest reforms in the German welfare state with heavy cuts in the supports which are reduced to a minimum of less than 400 Euro per month (plus support for housing) for people who are unemployed for more then one year.
Back to the topic: Legally the war isn´t over. President Bush has only declared the end of "major combat in Iraq" but not the end of combat itself. Legally an important difference.
It is however true that the Iraqi government has not a sufficent own security force in place. That needs to be built up. So currently the US and the coaliton are playing a major role. However neither the coaltion nor the Iraqi government together control Iraq complettly as there is the de facto out of control area in Faludscha (of the sunnis there) and the rebellion of shiite clerik al-Sadr and his militia.

You do bring up a point there and I acknowledge it.

If you think that Al Qaeda and terrorism in general are "back pedaling" then you are apparently one of the few who manage to type while being asleep and dreaming.

If you think that Al Qaeda and terrorism in general are "back pedaling" then you are apparently one of the few who manage to type while being asleep and dreaming.

Sorry Gigatron, but really. Al Qaeda is in disarray which is why they've been to busy to attack us. They are trying to get leadership re-establish but Pakistan, US, AND other nations aren't letting that happen. SO yes they are back-pedaling.

But that has no bearing on this thread so I suggest we go back to what this thread is all about Al-Jazera getting the boot for 30 Days. It does serve them right for airing those disqusting videos.

If you think that Al Qaeda and terrorism in general are "back pedaling" then you are apparently one of the few who manage to type while being asleep and dreaming.

Al Qaeda is stronger now then it's ever been, for every one they kill 5 new ones pop up. Bush has successfully turned it from a group into a world movement. For Bush's actions in Iraq, a whole new generation of Al Qaeda members have joined. Bush has turned Iraq into the poster child of recruitment for Al Qaeda.

Sorry Gigatron, but really. Al Qaeda is in disarray which is why they've been to busy to attack us. They are trying to get leadership re-establish but Pakistan, US, AND other nations aren't letting that happen. SO yes they are back-pedaling.

But that has no bearing on this thread so I suggest we go back to what this thread is all about Al-Jazera getting the boot for 30 Days. It does serve them right for airing those disqusting videos.
You are amusing at least, while also lacking intelligence and insight into world politics and progress of terrorism. Keep dreaming in your lil U$ dreamworld.

Al Qaeda is stronger now then it's ever been, for every one they kill 5 new ones pop up. Bush has successfully turned it from a group into a world movement. For Bush's actions in Iraq, a whole new generation of Al Qaeda members have joined. Bush has turned Iraq into the poster child of recruitment for Al Qaeda.

Its been a world movement long before this Bush took office. If you read the 9/11 report you would've seen that.

Its been a world movement long before this Bush took office. If you read the 9/11 report you would've seen that.

Yes, but they followed a chain of command, they no longer do, they have splintered into so many different groups the USA will never track them all down. If you look at the stats, terrorism has increased, not decreased since Bush took office.

You are amusing at least, while also lacking intelligence and insight into world politics and progress of terrorism. Keep dreaming in your lil U$ dreamworld.

Thanks for the insult! Steph, this is a personal attack on me.

I have more insight into how things work then you do. I've lived in your country and frankly, I'm glad I don't know. I've been to other nations and saw different culters, have you?

I know how Politics works and how diplomacy works too. Lacking Intelligence? I don't insult people because I can. I only toss an insult when its deserved. Frankly, I should hurl one now but that is actually below me. I already apologized for the one leveled out. It isn't very nice to hurl insults at anyone.

Its been a world movement long before this Bush took office. If you read the 9/11 report you would've seen that.
You mean the one that read like a mystery novell? It's well written. :D

Yes, but they followed a chain of command, they no longer do, they have splintered into so many different groups the USA will never track them all down. If you look at the stats, terrorism has increased, not decreased since Bush took office.

That's because the US took out their command and Control. The groups have to work independently because they have no other choice. I'm not happy about it because it makes it harder to knock out but then, the same would've happened either way if Gore was in office so I won't condemn Bush for this. As for the increase in terror, welcome to war Steph. In war, things will always increase. You being a poli-sci person should've realized this. I was expecting an increase and it happened. I am prepared for a long struggle and I will always remember why we are fighting till the day I die. To bad most americans have a short term memory.

Ok, for every one...

NS rules:

No Flaming
No Flamebait
No Trolling
No Spamming..

Every one got it?

Thank you
Stephanie
Game Moderator

You mean the one that read like a mystery novell? It's well written. :D

LOL! no denying that. I need to get back to reading that too. Got a government class to prepare for this semester.

http://www.aedd.privat.t-online.de/

Here's "your" Iraq.

We are not controling Iraq. The Iraqis are controling Iraq. Get that straight. As for Al-Jazera, I would rather watch CNN than that terror supporting station. I have seen the other side of the war and I have seen what we are doing there and who is basically behind all the troubles in the country.
You mean the "mayor of Baghdad" is controlling Iraq?

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6112

For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.

If you watch CNN, then you will probably not have to worry about what is really going on Iraq. Ahhhh 'tis bliss to be ignorant?

That's because the US took out their command and Control. The groups have to work independently because they have no other choice. I'm not happy about it because it makes it harder to knock out but then, the same would've happened either way if Gore was in office so I won't condemn Bush for this. As for the increase in terror, welcome to war Steph. In war, things will always increase. You being a poli-sci person should've realized this. I was expecting an increase and it happened. I am prepared for a long struggle and I will always remember why we are fighting till the day I die. To bad most americans have a short term memory.

Listen you have your opinion I have mine, so they don't meet. I don't think you can invoke my field until you take it yourself, then you'll know what they teach and what they don't. I will at this point agree to disagree, mostly because all of these topics have been beaten to death. You won't change my mind. I won't change yours..But make no mistake, I do disagree with you analysis. C'est la vie!

Listen you have your opinion I have mine, so they don't meet. I don't think you can invoke my field until you take it yourself, then you'll know what they teach and what they don't. I will at this point agree to disagree, mostly because all of these topics have been beaten to death. You won't change my mind. I won't change yours..But make no mistake, I do disagree with you analysis. C'est la vie!

Actually I can Steph. Everyone knows that if you attack people, your going to get them riled up in support of it. The terrorists struck the US and that riled us up against them. We attack them and they get riled up against us. For every action, there is an equal and Opposite reaction. That is the way things work. I'm surprised you didn't know this Steph, I'm surprised.

As for agreeing to disagree, I agree totally. It has been beaten to death. I aggree that our minds won't be changed but at least when I do debate you, it is a civil debate between two adults and that I like. :)

Actually I can Steph. Everyone knows that if you attack people, your going to get them riled up in support of it. The terrorists struck the US and that riled us up against them. We attack them and they get riled up against us. For every action, there is an equal and Opposite reaction. That is the way things work. I'm surprised you didn't know this Steph, I'm surprised.

As for agreeing to disagree, I agree totally. It has been beaten to death. I aggree that our minds won't be changed but at least when I do debate you, it is a civil debate between two adults and that I like. :)
Naw you didnt attack "them". You attacked 2 sovereign nations in a frenzy of bloodlust and revenge furthering the agenda of international terrorism and making the world a more dangerous place than it was before 9/11. I would like to profoundly thank the U$ for being so focussed on the task at hand while making sure that terrorism has no more reason to spread.

1. It's only 30 days, nothing permanent
2. It wasn't done by the U.S. government, big difference
3. The Iraqi government did this
4. Did I mention we didn't do this?

By the way, the Iraqi government is US controlled, apointed, and governed in all but name. :rolleyes:

Actually I can Steph. Everyone knows that if you attack people, your going to get them riled up in support of it. The terrorists struck the US and that riled us up against them. We attack them and they get riled up against us. For every action, there is an equal and Opposite reaction. That is the way things work. I'm surprised you didn't know this Steph, I'm surprised

I didn't realize "every one" knew this.. silly me. I just find it some what odd that the most powerful nation on earth can't take out a group of religious fundamentalist. That speaks much more to me about the power of Al Qaeda then the few (in the grand scheme of things) ones they have been able to take out. In case you missed that being my point..

Naw you didnt attack "them". You attacked 2 sovereign nations in a frenzy of bloodlust and revenge furthering the agenda of international terrorism and making the world a more dangerous place than it was before 9/11. I would like to profoundly thank the U$ for being so focussed on the task at hand while making sure that terrorism has no more reason to spread.

HAHA!!! You go where your enemies are Gigatron. If we followed that mentality, we attacked THREE soveriegn nations in WWII in the form of Germany, Italy, and Japan.

In this case, our enemies was in Afghanistan. We said that if Afghanistan handed over said individuals we wouldn't attack. They didn't so we went in. We said that if Saddam just step down that we would leave Iraq alone. He didn't and so we went in. Besides going into Iraq WAS legal because they violated the cease-fire that was signed in 1991 and the UN Resolution that said that ANY MEMBER STATE can go in at anytime if cease-fire was violated. For 12 years we didn't go in even though Hussein was in violation. Now he's gone, the taliban is gone, Afghanistan is on the verge of an election. Iraq will have theirs early next year. Bin Ladin is running out places to hide and sooner or later, he will get caught. The question is, will he get caught alive or will he pull a hitler and kill himself? That is the question.

HAHA!!! You go where your enemies are Gigatron. If we followed that mentality, we attacked THREE soveriegn nations in WWII in the form of Germany, Italy, and Japan.

In this case, our enemies was in Afghanistan. We said that if Afghanistan handed over said individuals we wouldn't attack. They didn't so we went in. We said that if Saddam just step down that we would leave Iraq alone. He didn't and so we went in. Besides going into Iraq WAS legal because they violated the cease-fire that was signed in 1991 and the UN Resolution that said that ANY MEMBER STATE can go in at anytime if cease-fire was violated. For 12 years we didn't go in even though Hussein was in violation. Now he's gone, the taliban is gone, Afghanistan is on the verge of an election. Iraq will have theirs early next year. Bin Ladin is running out places to hide and sooner or later, he will get caught. The question is, will he get caught alive or will he pull a hitler and kill himself? That is the question.
That statement (bolded) is totally FALSE!!

When did a war warrant freedom of speech?
not only that but when you have a station who is inciting violence what do you do? leave them there? What would you do if you were iraqi prime minister right now? leave it on while it talks about american infidels, showing al sadr militants celebrating their power? blaspheming any help they get from non muslim countries? It doesnt sound like a very productive station. freedom of speech is strong, even al sadr's newpaper got put back on again.

Sometimes our freedoms become infringed when other people screw it up.
the classic school scenario, where one person messes it up for everyone else.
I have full faith that those freedoms will come back once again once the threat has gone away.

think of it this way.
we all love looking outside our windows, but when a hurricane comes what must we do? board up our windows until the threat passes.
Well right now in iraq there was 7 or 8 cities taking part in this uprising, while aljazeera wasnt telling people to stay calm, they were in effect showing people that the US military is powerless. So this window must be shut temporarily until the threat goes away.

Even here our freedom of speech and our rights get trampled on when things start occuring.. but i bet you once this is over and once iraq is ok, we will be as free as we were before.

To be free, and to be democratic people must make concessions for a bit, and thats what no one understands, they think a democracy is all about well i have the right to speak out loud. You do. but not to cause chaos, at that point your infringing on other peoples rights to be safe. you see? al jazeera is inciting chaos. Maybe if they toned it down a little theyd be fine. and then after the war, say whatever you want to say.

What threat? The threat of John Ascroft and Rumsfeld poking terrorist cells int action? No, no. The REAL threat is American capitalism destroying every value and right that America supposedly holds dear. Isn't that what the founding fathers were fighting for when they broke away from glory old England? No government or media organization (FOX News), should be the puppet of a corrupt, lying government who's people are brain washed by the corprate media which has everything to gain by promoting an unconstitutional war. There is a phrase for that: war profiteering.
prof·it·eer
Pronunciation Key (prf-tîr)
n.

One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.


intr.v. prof·it·eered, prof·it·eer·ing, prof·it·eers

To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

war Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.


intr.v. warred, war·ring, wars

1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.


Idiom:
at war

In an active state of conflict or contention.
source: http://www.dictionary.com

No. I would not accuse the US of deserting the Iraqi people. Though, right now you are responsible for sorting out what you caused - which however might not be to the benefit of the Iraqi people. This does not mean that you need to do it alone. As always, its a question of how you ask other nations and what you are willing to give up in return. That the US want to keep total control over the country, no matter what, alienates other countries from spending their money and personnel to rebuild Iraq.

I caused what? :confused:

I think you are missing the point. France, Russia and China did not veto the UN sanctioned removal of Saddam's regime because of a sense of humanity or because they thought there were no WMD. They refused to commit to ousting Saddam because they were making millions of his rorting of the Food for Oil program. Now that cash cow is gone.
Of course, now that the invasion of Iraq has gone ahead without the UN these nations would seem hypocritical if they now decided to help out by way of allowing UN intervention. So, no matter how nicely they were asked, I would not hold my breath waiting for them to come around and assist in Iraq.
Simply saying the US and the coalition should immediately withdraw and allow the nation to descend into civil war is a short-sighted "solution" and a recipe for disaster as I said earlier.

However the main argument in the discussion in Europe was the WMD issue. And that didn´t turn out as claimed.
I think that it was necessary to controll Iraq and to go for regime change in the long-run. However whether it was the right thing to do it at that time is another question. It would certainly have been preferable if there would be an successful uprising (for example within the Iraqi military) against Saddam and not to go for an invasion. Unfortunately all those attempts failed.
Now we have the present situation and have the risk of civil war. It is now a responsibilty of the coalition to prevent it.
Iraq is freed from a dictator however the state structure was destroyed, the security serviced disbandoned and crime, terrorism and destability has risen in that coutry. And some regions are still out of control and the country is at the risk of falling apart.

I am well aware what the platform for the invasion of Iraq was. Attempts to "control" Iraq were unsuccessful as the 12 years of UN sactions showed. Regime change was never going to happen internally as the sanctions meant only those loyal to Saddam had access to weapons. As I said in an earlier post, the people in Iraq were oppressed to the point an internal uprising was never viable.
Indeed we have a risk of civil war in Iraq. A risk greatly increased by short-sighted "solutions" advocating a full withdrawal to leave the Iraqis to "sort out their own problems". This is an invitation for disaster and a huge humanitarian catastrophe.
The troops need to remain in Iraq to maintain security in order to hopefully enable elections to be held and a platform for a free Iraq to be built. Deserting the country now will not solve a single thing.

I am well aware what the platform for the invasion of Iraq was. Attempts to "control" Iraq were unsuccessful as the 12 years of UN sactions showed.
Well: the Iraqi regime was never able to restart their weapons program to an extent like in the 1980s. In that regard it would be wrong to call them unsuccessful. They were unsuccesful in respect to the aim of regime change.

Regime change was never going to happen internally as the sanctions meant only those loyal to Saddam had access to weapons. As I said in an earlier post, the people in Iraq were oppressed to the point an internal uprising was never viable.
It was at least unlikely. And if it happend very likely a Baathist sunni general would have taken over. Probably a less problematic figure. But otherwise at least up until Saddams natural death the problem would have remained.
Indeed we have a risk of civil war in Iraq. A risk greatly increased by short-sighted "solutions" advocating a full withdrawal to leave the Iraqis to "sort out their own problems". This is an invitation for disaster and a huge humanitarian catastrophe..
Indeed. I never said otherwise.
The troops need to remain in Iraq to maintain security in order to hopefully enable elections to be held and a platform for a free Iraq to be built. Deserting the country now will not solve a single thing.
That is right. The responsibilty of the coalition to remain in Iraq to maintain the security is the logical consequence of the decision to invade Iraq and to overthrow Saddam.

Of course, now that the invasion of Iraq has gone ahead without the UN these nations would seem hypocritical if they now decided to help out by way of allowing UN intervention. So, no matter how nicely they were asked, I would not hold my breath waiting for them to come around and assist in Iraq..
Why should they actually? What would be the profit for them doing so? Nation always act in a way they think is in the best of their national interests.
There is no friendship between nations, they are just common interests.

Well: the Iraqi regime was never able to restart their weapons program to an extent like in the 1980s. In that regard it would be wrong to call them unsuccessful. They were unsuccesful in respect to the aim of regime change.

Iraq would never be "under control" unless there was a regime change. Not to mention the fact that Saddam would be free to carry on murdering his citizens whilst "under control".

It was at least unlikely. And if it happend very likely a Baathist sunni general would have taken over. Probably a less problematic figure. But otherwise at least up until Saddams natural death the problem would have remained.

And continued via one or both of Saddam's sons.

That is right. The responsibilty of the coalition to remain in Iraq to maintain the security is the logical consequence of the decision to invade Iraq and to overthrow Saddam.

Which is the point I have been arguing all along.

Why should they actually? What would be the profit for them doing so? Nation always act in a way they think is in the best of their national interests.
There is no friendship between nations, they are just common interests.

I was actually referring to Gigatron's comment that France, Russia and China would have "come to the party" had they been asked nicely by the US. I was pointing out that that was a load of crap. The reason it is a load of crap is for the reasons I pointed out and you confirmed...national self-interest. Nothing wrong with that, but it shows Gigatron's assertion to be complete fiction.

American TV doesn't tell the story from the side of the Muslims, only from the side of the Americans, Do you really think some dude in Iraq cares about whether or not Martha Stewart is going to go to jail? NO! However, I'm sure they are interested in what is going on in their region, kind of like local news for them. It's this type of delusion that America is what every one wants to be like is what also makes America so disliked.

That statement could not be further from the truth and displays exceptional prejudice.

First, of all there are many Muslims living in the US and that quote does not account for them at all.

Second, there is no concrete proof backing any rational of why anyone likes or dislikes America nor is there any reasonable proof that America is disliked by any major percentage of people at all. It is just as likley that other countries do aspire to be like America. Who watches local news anywhere? No one I have ever met.

Third, Martha Stewart is not the only type of news on American stations. That is an intentionally leading example.

I highly respect the long tradition of parlamentarism in Britain. Britain has the longest unbroken history indeed. Generally anglo-saxon countries (with their culture and philosophy) are better in keeping a liberal democracy.
And by the way: Europe has a longer history than the US. But it not only has a history of great cultural archivements but also of genocide, hate crimes, repression and authoritarian rules. And that is the case for many countries on the continent. So, a bit of modesty is appropiate for us in Europe indeed.

Wouldn't you expect that as we have literally thousands more years of history than the USA?
In fact, essentially many Americans are Europeans in a way, as it's Europeans who "discovered" the terriotory that today makes up the USA.
Of course, the Native Americans were there already. But the society that today is dominant in the USA is clearly largely decended from Europeans.
Don't forget the USA has had its fair share of less than wonderful moments also: slavery persisted longer than in Europe, the death penalty and so forth.
I am afraid the USA is not perfect nor is Europe. I doubt anywhere is!

Back to the topic, I don't think Irak should have banned Al-Jazeera television, it doesn't do much for freedom of speech. But then, their government has the right to do so, and it's at least good that it is temporary. If they feel that extreme measure is necessary to help improve their country's security, I guess that's excusable.

I disagree with you. It can not be tolerated that terrorists spread their hate propaganda. The fact that Arab states allowed that caused the rise of terrorism and islamism. There shouldn´t be tolerance for the intolerant.
Al Jazeera has to distance itself from terrorism otherwise it should not be allowed to reopen in Iraq.Why can they not spread their propaganda? Their propaganda is their point of view. The American government (indeed, nearly everyone) also spreads its own propaganda and incites hatred of its enemies - just look at the way you use the word 'Islamism' - it doesn't mean that you hate Muslims but the word itself is deliberately inappropriate to its meaning, and will definitely cause misunderstandings.
Banning a political channel is in direct conflict with freedom of speech.
If the terrorists do not have a medium through which to contact the world, how are we supposed to form our own opinions? why should we only be allowed to see what one side of the 'war' wants us to see?