Article

2003-06-18 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-18 04:37 am|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 RW> As usual you completely miss my point. You say that I somehow claimed that I have the power to judge if the use of force was justified or not? It was the very opposite. It's *badanov* that claimed to know whether it was justified or not (to the point that he called it a non-issue unworthy of the slightest discussion) and I disputed that claim of his.

Right now I'm watching scenes from certain riots in Michigan. I see people are throwing rocks to the police, yet would badanov call it a "non-issue" if police started shooting on the crowd as a response?

Don> I quite agree with you. But you also missed my point, which concerned how nowadays statehood is considered a permanent state of affairs. It seems therefore that Puerto Rico can keep on having referendums of whether it will become an American state or not, until "they give the right answer", after which the referendums with stop.

And, unlike JFM, I don't really see anything wrong with that. (Not that this will happen in the EU -- in the foreseeable future, all countries will retain right to depart)

JFM> Those few changes weren't just "technical", they included Denmark's non-participation in the EMU, non-participation in any common defense, pretty much all the sticking points that people and politicians seemed not to like.

You also forgot United Kingdom from your list. And Switzerland.

As a sidenote in this forum you are often said to belong to a nation of "asswipes", and people constantly wonder why I would want to be in the same union with you. Because supposedly Greeks are so much better than the French, you see. An idea I quite disagree with, mind you.

Nothing in common between our nations? Both Huntington and Kagan would disagree with you. Huntington would classify us both as "Westerners" (actually he places Greece in a different "Orthodox civilisation", but personally I see it as nothing more than a subdivision of the same "Western" civilisation, same as the division between Western-European and American varieties of the same)

And Kagan sees enough of a difference in the ways that Europeans and Americans see the world, that it seems to me saying we have nothing in common is quite a bit of a hyperbole.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-18 14:21:58|| 2003-06-18 14:21:58|| Front Page Top

#2 ari, arguably the UK works cause all of its components are essentially english speaking. Switz works cause its central govt is so limited. Neither of which are likely to be true for the EU.

Note wrt to Puerto Rico - its current status is a US "commonwleath" repeated referenda give it option of statehood, OR independence. It is NOT now a sovereign state, so its not quite the same thing.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 14:48:59|| 2003-06-18 14:48:59|| Front Page Top

#3 this whole discussion misses the oint. Of course if US troops fire on iraqis its not a "non-story" Whats objectionable is that the Beeb said that they fired on "protestors", burying the mention of the rock throwing, and not mentioning at all the accusation that members of the crowd were firing weapons. It is still a story, but a different one, and basically much less of a story. And if the police fire on protestors in Michigan, I certainly hope no paper will bury details about any rock throwing.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 14:53:28|| 2003-06-18 14:53:28|| Front Page Top

#4 heres the independents headline

"US troops shoot dead Iraqi protesters "

You'd think they would have gone after some live ones, no?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 15:30:53|| 2003-06-18 15:30:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Interesting that JFM points out the lack of democratic traditions in Europe. I believe THAT is the major reason that there is so much distrust of the U.S. in Old Europe. France's revolution was nothing like ours, why would we expect the result to be the same? So why are we surprised when they are flirting with impending Islamization? Just WHEN did they become a democracy, anyhow? Pre or post Emperor de Gaulle? Ditto, Germany. And they question our motives and attempts at bringing our version of freedom to Asian nations? I think Mexico might have a longer string of free elections than either. When the term 'democracy' is used by Americans and most Europeans, they're not talking about the same thing.

Posted by Scott 2003-06-18 15:57:14|| 2003-06-18 15:57:14|| Front Page Top

#6 "If anything the nations who have a real democratic tradition (and that does not include Germany) should break of the EU and ask to become United States."

Now when did France start its "real democratic tradition"? With Robespierre who chopped off every dissenting head? Napoleon? PÃ©tain?

Bulldog, you say "Political and social integration, however, is unnecessary, undesirable and dangerous.
So how about a Europe of hundred states? Catalonia, Bavaria, Britanny, Basque Country? Why an United Kingdom? Did Scotland ever peacefully and democratically join the UK?

Scott- The democratic tradition of Germany is much older than you think. In the late 18th century the Western parts of Germany (then not a state) embraced democratic principles Ã la francaise (which were stomped out by the German princes). In 1848 we had a democratic parliament in Frankfurt for a short time (the Prussian military ended that one). We had just less luck than others. Democracy in post WW2 Germany didn't flourish because it was forced upon us by the US and UK, but because it grew on democratic roots that where there way before.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-18 16:24:51|| 2003-06-18 16:24:51|| Front Page Top

#7 The BBC has an outstanding reputation for twisting facts and slanting stories.

A reporter asking another reporter what was seen. This is the BBC's standard of journalism. Sorta like staying in a hotel and reporting the whole nation is descending into chaos all becuase some Iraqis are smart enough to go to the hotel where they are staying (and from which they will not venture) to stage demostrations.

What gets me is the headline: US troops fire on protestors. We only find out that rocks had been thrown at the US soldiers in the fourth sentance. Clearly this is a non-story, except the communists at the BBC saw fit to twist it into a Brutal US Troops Fire on Poor Unarmed Civilians story.

Posted by badanov 2003-06-18 07:29:55|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-06-18 07:29:55|| Front Page Top

#8 In most European countries, people throwing rocks isn't considered a really adequate excuse for armed forces to shoot them dead.

A non-story? It depends on what level of violence you consider as justifiable self-defense.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-18 07:59:15|| 2003-06-18 07:59:15|| Front Page Top

#9 While this is certainly not good, there's no point in encouraging people to be morons.

People move on from rocks, to molotov cocktails, to guns, etc.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-06-18 08:16:22|| 2003-06-18 08:16:22|| Front Page Top

#10 You seem to have a thing for the BBC even though other news channels have a similar headline. Sky News which is owned by your beloved Rupert Murdoch, sister station of you even more beloved FoxNews has the headline TROOPS OPEN FIRE ON DEMO. Not too different, do you belive Murdoch has been hiring Commies too?

Posted by rg117 2003-06-18 08:19:33|| 2003-06-18 08:19:33|| Front Page Top

#11 Badanov's point is that BBC is relying on secondary sources (and probably tertiary, quaternary, etc.). Of course, I'm sure many media organizations share similar shoddy standards.

Aris, I would imagine US troops are empowered to confront deadly force w. the use of deadly force. Can you tell me why a (barrage of) 5 lb. rock(s) is less deadly than a well-placed .223 round?

Perhaps you're referring to the upcoming debut of sharia within the EU. In that case, you are correct, the throwee is not often empowered to defend themselves against the throwers, as they are buried up to the waist. Viva mullah chirac!

Posted by mjh 2003-06-18 08:34:42|| 2003-06-18 08:34:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Last time I heard, stones could be used as lethal weapons. Use potentially lethal force against armed men, and what do you expect? Them to wait until one of them falls to the ground? And last time I heard, Iraq wasn't a European country. It's an Asian one, and unstable following a war in which its ruling regime was overthrown by foreign forces. The situation's a little different from downtown Athens on a Saturday night.

I agree badanov's criticism of the BBC in this case is a little harsh. To be honest the reporting of this story didn't raise my eyebrows at all. But then, I apply my mental 'BBC slant-adjustor' without even thinking about it nowadays.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-18 08:36:03|| 2003-06-18 08:36:03|| Front Page Top

#13 For some hypocritical greeks just let's remember that Danish police forces opened fire on their own citizens who were demonstrating against the EU. They killed two. And it has not been the only time demonstrators against the EU had been killed.

Significant differences: these were not civilians and probably not ordinary (ie conscript) Iraqui military. They were far more probably former Republican guard who instead of demonstrating should be rejoicing for having been spared (notice that the mistake can be mended. Another point is that there is probably some sort of martial law in Iraq. Still another one is that these are not US citizens so there is no reason US soldiers should show the same restraint. Finally, soldiers are neither trained or equiped to deal softly with demonstrators: if you throw rocks at them you know that you are likely to get a bullet.

Now go tell the EuroNazis to be softer on demonstrators.

Posted by JFM 2003-06-18 08:36:49|| 2003-06-18 08:36:49|| Front Page Top

#14 VIOLENT DEMONSTRATION LEADS TO TWO DEATHS

BAGHDAD, Iraq â U.S. forces from the 204th Military Police Company responded in self-defense to a demonstration outside of the Office of Coalition Provisional Authority compound this morning when it became violent.

A military convoy was entering the compound when demonstrators began throwing rocks. One demonstrator pulled out a weapon and began shooting. U.S. Forces responded killing two of the demonstrators.

The two Iraqis were evacuated to 1st Armored Division Battalion Aid Station and confirmed dead.

The demonstration, at a site of regular gatherings, was being held to protest the lack of jobs.

From Central Command

Posted by Chuck (not Taylor) 2003-06-18 08:44:35|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-06-18 08:44:35|| Front Page Top

#15 "For some hypocritical greeks just let's remember that Danish police forces opened fire on their own citizens who were demonstrating against the EU. They killed two. And it has not been the only time demonstrators against the EU had been killed."

I'd like more information about that. Because I somehow seriously doubt it was treated as a "non-issue" by people based only on the excuse that "they were throwing rocks".

If the US forces fired in self-defense, that's fine. But don't call it a non-issue just because some people were throwing rocks. There exist enough weapons in Iraq that had people wanted to use lethal force on Americans they'd have used *guns* instead of rocks -- as this latest report by Chuck seems to indicate may have indeed happened.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-18 09:06:12|| 2003-06-18 09:06:12|| Front Page Top

#16 It was the day of the second Danish referendum about the Maastricht treaty. European democracy at work: if people vote yes then, like in France they are not allowed to change minds but if they vote no kee calling referendums until they give the right answer.

Posted by JFM 2003-06-18 09:17:42|| 2003-06-18 09:17:42|| Front Page Top

#17 If I remember correctly Denmark received four or five opt-outs from the treaties before it went on to the second referendum. Until they give the right answer? The question was rather different.

They're not allowed to change minds? Yes, your absurd arrogance not withstanding, nothing stops them for voting for a different government that'll put forward a new referendum on any issue it desires.

Where are you from, JFM? If you're from America I'd like to call you when was the last time that certain states in the South were allowed to vote on the matter of secession.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-18 09:38:57|| 2003-06-18 09:38:57|| Front Page Top

#18 Ari - they didn't ask first. They just rebeled. Or as Congress is/was empowered - To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Nothing on the books stopped them from submitting a Constitutional Admendment to permit legal succession. Their problem [as it was for the Japanese nearly a hundred years later] was that they attacked a federal installation. Once the bombs started flying [in both cases], the issue would be resolved by force. Lesson - don't shoot first unless you're damn sure you're going to come out on top when its over.

Posted by Don 2003-06-18 10:02:12|| 2003-06-18 10:02:12|| Front Page Top

#19 Folks folks. Remember that Aris thru his powers of bi-location was there standing next to the US troops in Baghdad during the demo, so he is well qualified to comment on what level of force should have been used. In his opinion it was too much. Let's accept it and move on.

Posted by RW 2003-06-18 10:14:41|| 2003-06-18 10:14:41|| Front Page Top

#20 I am from France. Our election was tilted by a massive pro-euro campaign funded by public money. And I am sorry but forcing another referendum very shortly after the first one even with a few technical changes is like trying a person two times for the same crime (until you find a judge who gives the right answer). And if you want my whole opinion the so-called EU is only a conglomerate of countries who have nothing in common and are hold together only by a system of subsidies amounting to corruption of the electorate but who implode at the first shock. It will be as weak as all conglomerate nations: the Austrian empire, Yougoslavia. Or the Persians. If anything the nations who have a real democratic tradition (and that does not include Germany) should break of the EU and ask to become United States. Yes, those United States. :-))))))))

Posted by JFM 2003-06-18 10:22:46|| 2003-06-18 10:22:46|| Front Page Top

#21 Well, Bonjour JFM! It's always good to hear some sanity from France.

You're bang on as regards the EU. There's nothing whatsoever wrong in principle with the EU as a simple trading bloc. Political and social integration, however, is unnecessary, undesirable and dangerous. IMHO, those who advocate it are either deluded through slavish adherence to unworkable ideology, incapable of visualising the inevitable consequences, gullible, or power-crazed transnationalists. Vive la difference!

PS You missed the Ottoman Empire and the USSR off your list.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-18 10:43:07|| 2003-06-18 10:43:07|| Front Page Top

#22 A soldier, which has picked up a rock to throw at another soldier. These were not women and children protesting the Evil USA (TM) for food. These were soldiers demanding they be paid and subsequent to not getting paid, resort to physical violence to express themselves.

All of which means that violence must be met with violence. I don;t know the full facts of the story, but I do know that commanders in the field cannt even take a dump in the open without checking with military lawyers. I have every faith in the US Military an appropriate amount of counterforce was applied to the situation.

And yes I have a HUGE thing for the BBC. Where I work I am daily forced to listen to these Marxists spout their opinion on virtually every news story they broadcast. It is not such a great leap that the facts of this story have been twisted to suit their own ends, as has obviously been done. But for me the corker was interviewing another reporter.

Holy Lord! Are journalists so fully qualified to report on a story they can't get for themselves that they must consult another reporter who was actually there, and with no clear corroboration? This is the HIGH standard for those communists and it is with great justification I will continually pillory this dangerous Marxist inspired news organization.

Posted by badanov 2003-06-18 11:32:01|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-06-18 11:32:01|| Front Page Top

#23 A situation with ten of our guys vs two hundred demonstrators is an extremely dangerous situation for our guys, especially if they're only, say, ten yards apart. Note that people in the crowd could have concealed weapons that enable them to open fire at any moment. What we have in Iraq is a condition of martial law, until all resistance is wiped out. Demonstrations should be forbidden as a matter of policy. Until Iraq is pacified, let them say what they like in private.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-06-18 12:16:50|| 2003-06-18 12:16:50|| Front Page Top

#24 france's democratic tradition goes back to 1871 and the fall of Napoleon III. Theyve had uninterrupted democratic governance, except for the Vichy interlude. And while Vichy certainly reached to undemocratic roots in France, it was also a result of their interaction with an invading country, which it is more polite not to name. Many here will deny that France is democratic anyway, because of the relative autonomy of its civil service, and the elitist nature of entry into officeholding - im not eager to start that debate - im not sure the Bundesrepublik is so much superior to France on those grounds.

Germanys democratic traditions pre-1945 are shakier than your comment implies. The young people of 1848 accepted Prussian militarism with surprising ease - and German liberals managed to compromise with it for the life of the second reich - and the democratic experience under Weimar was also difficult. Now there is of course a debate as to whether this was due to intrinsic aspects of German culture, Germanys situation of uniting late, or simply due to the geopolitical situation in which imperial germany found herself (the Caleo thesis) However it is glossing over things to pretend that Germanys pre-1945 roots are as strong as those of the states to Germanys north and west.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 17:20:28|| 2003-06-18 17:20:28|| Front Page Top

#25 tga - of course scotland never joined the UK - england and Scotland joined to form the UK, under the act of Union in 1707(?). the suffrage was not democratic, but then that was normal for 1707. It was certainly peaceful and legal. And generally accepted by Scots to this day.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 17:23:39|| 2003-06-18 17:23:39|| Front Page Top

#26 a europe of a hundred states is probably desirable to the Catalans, basques and brittons, for whom acting in France or Spain means loss of their own language - their democratic opportunities in europe may be no worse. For Bavarians and english-speaking scots i suspect its another matter. Bavarians seem to be willing to go with europe for the same reasons as other germans - the intrinsic problems of german statehood, rather than bavarian subnationalism. The scots seem willing to chance europe - though not all are keen are full integration into a superstate. I would assume that Scotty nats and LDs are willing - but that Scots Labor voters follow Blair in a slightly cooler enthusiasm for Europe. But not many tories in Scotland.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 17:29:17|| 2003-06-18 17:29:17|| Front Page Top

#27 liberalhawk, no doubt that Scandinavia and Britain have deeper roots and a longer democratic traditions. The decisive point is: Germany is a stable democracy now. And will remain so.

Many European nations were actually put together of pieces that didn't match: France is an excellent example for that: Occitania, Basque, Britanny, Alsace... yet there is no doubt that they all feel very French now. This was achieved by force btw.

Why shouldn't it work for Europe when it's a free democratic choice?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-18 17:54:13|| 2003-06-18 17:54:13|| Front Page Top

#28 My, my, my.

When I say democracy, I'm referring to a form of rule by law that merely acknowledges the innate rights that all human beings should have. Our founders said those rights were God-ordained, and were so obvious as to be 'self-evident'. They may have been giving us too much credit. Or maybe not, because the system has enough power checks in it to prevent rule by despot or mob. But it's true genius is shown that when those "poor masses" get engrafted, they receive a higher view of the dignity of all men, not just themselves. Therefore, democracy (at least American-style democracy) is more an attitude toward the governed than a style of governance. (and we may be finding that that cannot be imposed) The American birthright is to believe that ALL men should be free, and that as Americans, we should maybe do something to see that it happens. For this, the western world thinks we're "cowboys" and the east has no grid for it. Have you not noticed that Americans bristle when people in other lands are oppressed? Who else worries about such things?Why do we do that? Who are they to us? Just potential customers? Or dangerous savages that need babysat lest they produce better spears? No. It's that we don't see ourselvers as fundamentally any better than them. Or more precisely, we see ourselves IN them. That makes us want to act. France, Germany, Russia, all had empires. To what end? The domination of others. We defeat nations and make them better. Who does that?

Are Americans arrogant? Yeah. Humility and power are hard to balance. But much of Europe and Japan bear our ideological imprint, and it's a dang sight different than what Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Tojo were exporting.

Democracy, like any truth, must be struggled with or it's never truly received. There are no grandchildren. Americans are just lucky (blessed, I believe) to have been given a good framework that we could struggle within and not spin out of control.

Posted by Scott 2003-06-18 21:36:57|| 2003-06-18 21:36:57|| Front Page Top

#29 TGA, you forgot von Humboldt.

Posted by Brian 2003-06-19 00:47:35|| 2003-06-19 00:47:35|| Front Page Top

#30 TGA

I think it is fair you have your deutschmark back. And I think it is fair the ECB being dissolved and we get back our Franc.

About the partnership in leadership things have changed since 1991. Perhaps you haven't noticed but while Frnace is not in very good shape Germany is the "sick man of Europe" with growth rates who have been consistently inferior to the French ones during a whole decade and a demography who will make the French problems for pension funding look like a triffle by comparison.

Now we have a problem in the bad will Chirak and the pro-Europe press have built between the USA and us in order to please their German masters.

Posted by JFM 2003-06-19 04:08:51|| 2003-06-19 04:08:51|| Front Page Top

#31 TGA, don't you agree at all with the "dangerous" aspect of European integration I mentioned earlier? ;) Let's be realistic.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-19 04:24:39|| 2003-06-19 04:24:39|| Front Page Top

#32 Okay, Aris,; My turn to twist your words against you.

I said this was a non-story because it was clearly written by someone who was not there; relying upon what another reporter saw. I don't know about how the Euros run their papers but the first time a reporter working for me files a story in which the main witness is another reporter, that reporter will be walking the streets trying to find new work.

The writer didn't even bother talking to the site commander for the US or anyone else. Just took what a photographer was saying, and filed that as the gospel truth.There are plenty of reason to suspect this story and for me to call it a non-story.

What the writer did is typical of the crap BBC spews forth daily in the name of journalism. And the funny thing is, they not only never get it right, they almost alway favor the the enemy.

I post these things against the BBC, so they sound shrill. You want me to shut up? Let me witness the BBC start telling the truth and filing stories that tell the whole truth; not what the Marxists at the BBC want you to believe.

So this can get personal. I promise I will not call it a non-story if protestors get shot. However,if you personally get shot throwing rocks at soldiers, this will definately be a non-story for me. Deal? Deal!

Posted by badanov 2003-06-18 18:12:42|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-06-18 18:12:42|| Front Page Top

#33 TGA france spent several hundred years forcefully destroying the local languages.

Thats the real question? doesnt a true vibrant democracy require a common dialogue - politicians statements, party platforms, etc that all can understand in a common language?? Will a multilingual state necessarily be a bureaucratic one, removed from the people (aggravated perhaps, by the existing bureaucratic tendencies of many european states) The histories of Belgium, Canada, and India are mixed,Im afraid. Switzerland is not meaningful example.

I can certainly see that there are reasons FOR further integration - though i'll let you point those it - but i think its a mistake to not see the potential for some tradeoff in political democracy. and I see valid concerns on that point from brits, danes, etc. And while i certainly dont think the US should in any way interfere with the process, i dont think we need to be in the cheering section either.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-18 18:24:38|| 2003-06-18 18:24:38|| Front Page Top

#34 Scott

Calling De Gaulle an emperor is positively stupid. He was ever uncompromising about the Republic, he abolished Vichy's laws against the Jews (as a side note they had been keept in vigor after Torch by Roosevelt's minions ie Darlan and Giraud) and last but not least he resigned in 1969 after a reform about Senate's powers was rejected by the people. Had he been a Chirac he could have climbed to power for three additional years but he didn't want to rule without people's approval.

About Mexico's democracy you have to be joking. Why they have had a string of elections, a string of free, untamperedelections is a different thing. Just consider the following Mexican joke:

-American: "We are a very modern country. We know the name of the new President just five minutes after the closure of the election".
-Mexican: "That is nothing. We know our new President six months before the election"

True Geman Ally:

What I menat is that French and Germans have nothing in common: our languages are completely differnt (and French is much closer to English than to German), we don't eat the same things, we don't have the same vision of world or the same attitude vto life and death. In about everything we are closer to the Anglo-Saxons than to you (you could object that you are still closer to them but that is not tyhe point) and sooner or later either you or us will begin to wonder what we are doing togzether in the EU. Not to mention when French discover they gave their independence and that you rule the EU. About France's democratic roots: an undemocratic royalty was forced down our throats in 1815, in 1830 the bourgeois cheated the people in accepting constitutional monarchy, democracy in 1848 for two years, Napoleon III (who abolished fortune-based restrictions to vote) and full democracy after 1870 except for a dictatorship of four years due to German interference. While we are at French history believe it or not Robespierre was one of the few members of the Constituante who were for democracy, all others wanted to keep the vote for the rich. He also was againt the war because he foresaw it would lead to tyranny (he didn't foresaw the tyrant would be himself). Notice too that the Terror proper had a body count in the low thousands and that France was under invasion in several of its borders. Counterinsurgency operations at Lyon or in Vendee were bloodier but still nothing comparable with what the Bolsheviks did.

Liberalhawk:

Sorry but you know little about history and geography in Europe. Let's take the example of Catalonia. It happens I lived there. It is not poor opressed Catalans against eeeeeevil Castilian opressors, it is region who is richer than the remainder of Spain and now snobs the others. Why are they richer? Because during XIXth century the Spanish state was protectionnist a thing who was good for Catlonia and Basque country but who empoverished Castilia and the Southern half of Spain. An additional reason is that it benefitted from cheap labor coming from South of Spain and the rason it was cheap was Franco's police was ensuring they didn't unionize. When democracy came the people whio had come from Aragon or Andalucia were about nearly as many as Catalans but the left let them down, they couldn't vote for the national right who was too close to Franquism at those times and the people who tried to make a party for representing them in Catalonia got a bullet in the kneecap. Today Catalonia is in a state of semi-apartheid with the Spanish speakers being treated as second rate people.

Also there is a nation in Europe who sees itself as reatively homogeneous and has been trying to fan nationalisms in order to make implode its neighbours. This nation is Germany. There is a powerful German society who has been funding seperatist movements everywhere in Europe (except Germany of course). A couple years ago Arte (a Franco-german TV) had a special about Scotland consiting in a series of dccumentaries all of them negative about Scotland's relationship with England and all of them German. (Arte's programs are half German and hamf French).

About Basques: They have had a first class writer in all of their history: Unamuno. But he wrote in Spanish (BTW the instiators of Basque naionalism didn't speak Basque). In fact he was a Spanish nationalist despite being Basque. His name is banished from their streets.

Posted by JFM 2003-06-18 18:58:11|| 2003-06-18 18:58:11|| Front Page Top

#35 Reading JFM I guess he DID in fact look up the photo posted on LGF!
If we have nothing in common with France... well, can I have my Deutschmarks back, Monsieur Mitterand? Maybe the Rantburgers are right and Europe won't work. Not with that attitude.
Maybe Germany has more in common with the United States after all.
We should have been more keen to accept the "partner in leadership" offer George Bush made us in 1991.

Je crois que Ã§a ne vous aurait pas amusÃ©, JFM?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-18 20:31:48|| 2003-06-18 20:31:48|| Front Page Top

#36 Saw some photos on Yahoo news the ones I saw showed the protesters and soldiers within 2 feet(1/2 meter) of each other.That close you don't need to throw a rock to kill.

Posted by raptor 2003-06-18 20:46:19|| 2003-06-18 20:46:19|| Front Page Top

#37 Bulldog- yeah I see it now, you were right :-)

JFM- German economy has problems for the following reasons:
- reunification drained ressources much more than expected as we took over a country in dismal shape
- rampant bureaucracy and inflexibility (job market, investors etc.)
- growing "cheap" competition from Eastern Europe
- demographic factors (too many rather "young" pensioners, not enough young working people to pay for the pensions; well you French have all the young Islamic families to pay for your pensions, right?)
- bureaucratic and too expensive health care system
- Unflexible money market due to fixed ECB interest rates (which should be lower for Germany and higher for Ireland)
- (too high farm subsidies for France?)

Schroeder's Agenda 2010 is a step in the right direction to reforms but way not enough. I hope the next government will finally push for radical reforms.
German masters? Oh come on now. Hand over your veto right to us now, will you?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-19 14:49:05|| 2003-06-19 14:49:05|| Front Page Top

14:49 True German Ally
21:27 Anonymous
21:15 Frank G
21:12 Frank G
21:10 Old Patriot
20:49 Ernest Brown
20:46 raptor
20:31 True German Ally
20:25 raptor
20:21 raptor
20:19 True German Ally
20:15 raptor
20:03 raptor
20:00 raptor
19:51 Secret Master
19:38 Alaska Paul
19:37 Old Patriot
18:59 Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)
18:58 JFM
18:51 Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)
18:50 Becky
18:25 Alaska Paul
18:24 liberalhawk
18:23 ColoradoConservative