Finally seen the consequences? Haha. I would rather think that the US has finally seen the consequences of their great plans, i.e. they don’t work that great.
Wasn’t it Germany (and others) who suggested already quite some time ago a faster hand-over of power but that was then rejected by the US and laughed at (incl. by some of the pro-war supporters here)?
So to me it looks like Germany hasn’t changed it’s position but the US has instead.
Hmmmm look at what the cat dragged in so Rascal does have an opinion on German foreign policy.
Is the underlying policy different? Perhaps, but who exactly will the US transfer to? Will the US pull out the troops? I don’t think so. Wherein, therefore, lies the difference?
No, I think the difference is that the hippies in Berlin (Fischer) got their chains yanked big time by the military and security administration which fully realizes that France is no guarantee of Germany’s security. AND if the US wants to make a fool of itself in Iraq, that’s Washington’s business, but the US is key to Germany security, Iraq or some new alliance with France is not. Anyway, Schroeder and Fischer will either have to change or get voted out. Either way, the future is improved relations with the United States. Happy Day.
[quote]BEIJING (AP) – Citing his country’s own turbulent history, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder affirmed his support Tuesday for the Beijing leadership’s most frequently touted diplomatic principle – the "one-China policy’’ that insists Taiwan is part of the mainland…
"We have experiences with what it means when a country is divided,’’ he said. "We come to that position largely through our own history.’’[/quote]
Schroeder made the remarks during a state visit to China.
These Germans must stop acting like such arrogant cowboys. They signed onto this treaty three years ago and now are trying to unilaterally break their commitments. Where is the respect for rule of law and international treaties now? Germany is a rogue nation that must be dealt with.
The German government yesterday raised the stakes ahead of this weekend’s crunch EU summit by refusing to countenance any compromise on the distribution of power within the union and predicting that the meeting could end in failure.
“There is no plan B. We are talking about the central question here. Nobody is travelling to Brussels in the expectation that the summit will fail, but we can’t rule it out,” said a senior German government spokesman. Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg and the EU’s longest-serving leader, forecast that the voting dispute could be settled by agreeing to delay im plementation of a reformed system until 2014.
That would have the advantage of being after the next EU budget round, in which an increasingly assertive Germany is threatening to reduce its own 25% contribution
All joking aside, the Germans are getting their act together, we need their help, they are natural allies and truthfully, things are going much better. Thank God the Germans are coming to their senses. Again, it is nice to have them on board again.
BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) – Over 5,500 German police took part in the country’s biggest ever raid against militant Islamists in a nationwide crackdown on alleged members of a banned extremist organization.
The swoop Thursday, in 13 of Germany’s 16 states, centered on over a thousand suspected members of the Cologne-based group known as the Kalifatstaat (Caliphate State), which the government outlawed in 2001 as unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.
Coming to their senses, eh? Germany has never pretended that terrorism or fundamentalist are not a problem or didn’t act, even long before 911 they have been watching certains groups within Germany.
The leader of the “Kalifenstaat” was arrested in 2000 and served a few years in prison and legal proceeding to extradite him are on-going, hence the raids are merely a part of activities which started many years ago.
The way you phrased your first paragraph makes it sound like Germany has never done anything and all actions taken (now) are related to or triggered by 911 only.
Just to clarify.
Well Rascal:
I agree with you 50 percent. The first part of your statement is correct:
The Germans have done nothing.
Now as to the post 911 thing, that is irrelevant. The problem has been with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Unlike the French, I will give the German government credit for honestly trying to prevent America from overreaching itself and making a mistake. This is why many in the security/military establishment found temporary common ground with the filthy French. Now that the security, military and business community is up in arms against Schroeder-Fischer, it is Germany who has backtracked the most not the US but it has not “lost face” or anything of the kind but returned to a normal position after a period of “temporary” misjudgment, and for that I am very thankful.
Truth be told, I even support Germany’s efforts to get more votes in the EU Parliament. I think it very unfair that 82 million Germans get fewer votes than 80 million Spaniards and Poles (29 to 54). But really the Germans must stop being seduced by the siren songs of the French, sorry, Blueface, that is filthy French.
Interestingly, the change of the conceptual foundations of German defense policy via the European level continues. On Monday, the EU foreign ministers signed a document in Luxemburg which explicitly endorses the pre-emptive use of force against states as a last resort which break international agreements on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The German government was more than lukewarm about this provision, but in the end signed it in the face of British and French pressu re. Still, this new European policy can in the future well lead to a situation, where Germany has to participate in such pre-emptive military strikes in a multinational European context. Again, these important consequences were hardly raised in the Germ an domestic context.
From the European Intelligence Digest an interesting look at “rule of law” as applied by certain EU nations…
As discussed in the last Digest, Issue No. 144, the European Parliament has decided, six months before accession negotiations are due to conclude, to subject the Beneš decrees to scrutiny to see whether they must be abolished before the Czech Republic can join the EU. (The same issue was not mentioned in the chapter in the enlargement report dealing with Slovakia, even though Germans and Hungarians were expelled from there too.) Supporters of this move claim that it is a normal procedure for EU candidate states to have their entire domestic legislation screened
German policy towards the proliferation threat has for much of the past 20 years varied between light-minded behaviour, complacency and very tentative attempts to forge a global regime to tackle nuclear proliferation. On the more positive site of the equation was the strong German support for the unlimited extension of the NPT in 1995 as well as its attempts to convince reluctant countries to accede. Here, Germany channelled its initiatives successfully in a European context and contributed to a remarkable unity among EU member countries. On the negative side was a German export policy up to the late 80s which directly or indirectly contributed the spread of deadly weapons in unstable and repressive environments. The construction of a Libyan Chemical Weapons Factory in Rabta with German technical support or the involvement of German firms in the Iraqi nuclear, missile and chemical weapons programmes are well documented examples.
As I mentioned previously…
In a remarkably short time span in June 2003, the European Union adopted a series of documents on the non-proliferation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons which could mark a U-turn of European efforts in this crucial area.
And to reiterate in another view on the same subject…
In addition, EU member states declared their will to intensify both the political dialogue with third countries and the cooperation with the United States. As a concrete step, Brussels and Washington outlined a broad spectrum of policies in a joint declaration on June 25, 2003. These include domestic legislation and the creation of “criminal penalties for the illegal export, transhipment or brokering” of WMD. Within the framework of its “Basic Principles”, the EU now contemplates the use of force to stop proliferators if all other means have failed.
So the question becomes, for all the talk about the unilateral American cowboys and crazed policies of George W. Bush, why then have the Europeans adopted the exact same approach? And if this was the problem in the lead up to the Iraq War, why then should Germany and France adopt the same policies but refuse to offer assistance in other areas now that the bone of contention has been removed?
Another article pointed out that the Germans and French only relented to US efforts to cut Iraqi debt AFTER Saddam was captured. Did these two nations think that Saddam was coming back? And if so, did they think that they would continue to do business as usual with him? And so were they once again willing to subjugate their professed policies to cater to a notorious dictator once again? Anyone? And if they were both so willing to cater to Iraq which is a nation of minor importance in their overal strategic policy, why not cater to a much more important nation such as the US in the lead up to the Iraq War? So which nations have the bewilderingly inconsistent foreign policies?
Don’t worry fred, there is no reason for me to wiggle out, I stand my position - and if by that I disagree with Germany and France then it just proves what I always said: I don’t speak for them and neither are they always right nor did I cite them as an example to follow.
Though I guess me disagreeing with them will make it harder for you to proof that I am anti-American and a Bush-whacker. 
But hey, the issue was not the pre-emptive policy (as it is defined above), the issue was to invade a country under such a policy while there was no conclusive evidence / proof that the country in question [Iraq] actually did have WMD.
Any country can have such a policy, but when it’s wrongly used then it’s where I see the ‘problem’. And as such the US is still worst because German and France haven’t invaded any country under this policy yet (rightfully or wrongly).
Still laughing?
Nice try Rascal:
That is not what this debate is all about and you can argue the semantics as you are doing now, but you were arguing that pre-emptive policies were wrong. Well which countries in the world do not have them? I am laughing because you are so thoroughly beaten on this. You can either back down like Germany and France because they too were wrong or you will have to shift to such an ivory tower approach to diplomacy that no one will be able to take anything you say seriously since it will be so manifestly abstract in its “enlightened” approach that implementation of any policy at all will be impossible given the high bar that you have set. But that is really what this is all about: Moral posturing based on a confused moral equivalence that ends in narcissistic nihilism. You are right. I am not longer laughing. That is so sad, it is pathetic, but argue on about the semantics Rascal argue on. You lost big time on this one and are thoroughly and completely busted. hahahahahahaahahahaha
The new policy means that opposition by France and Germany to the US action is completely wrong. If the two nations have adopted the US position and also do not intend to go through the UN, wherein lies the interest in solely the US-led action? You personally were afraid of the legal ramifications of setting a precedent so where are your concerns now that the action is determined to be legal by ALL international actors AND outside the auspices of the precious and useless UN?
Your moral concerns are wearing a bit thin and are increasingly taking on the appearance of kneejerk anti-Americanism. Damn those gun-toting American cowboys for designing policies that we civilized Europeans will quietly, ever secretly adopt while continuing to decry American unilateralism. Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahah BUSTED.
Fred, I think you are willfully obtuse here: I didn’t argue against the policy itself - see my explanation (or rather the attempt to explain it, you obviously still don’t get it), so you entire argumentation is just “off”.
How? Having such a policy or someone else adopting it makes hardly anything right or wrong (except from you very own and perhaps biased point of view).
Adopting such a policy is not adopting the same position as the US in case of the war against Iraq, there are certainly terms or conditions which have to apply before action under such a policy is / will be taken.
Such terms and conditions are not mentioned here, so it might actually be wrong to say G&F have taken the same position.
So the US might have such a policy, France and Germany might have adopted the same or similar policy - but it matters shit.
Rascal:
Interesting. However, intl law to my understanding is still determined by state actors. You are a national of Germany. You as a citizen are committed by treaty to pre-emptive action. Think about that as the committed idealist that you seem to be presenting. You can argue about morals and individual viewpoints all you want but you Rascal are still committed to treaties signed by nation states. In this case, Germany. We do not live in a world where individual moral actors such as yourself can determine the legality of “international law” no?
Fine. How it is implemented can make a difference, but the dangerous precedent set by pre-emptive action being removed from the table of arguments or if you want to leave it on, why only point out the evils of America in this regard when everyone else (even those opposed to Iraq) have now adopted similar policies? Oh yes, they might “implement” it different. Touche. That is rich.
My point is that you cannot “proof” the US action was illegal. That is why I am laughing so much about Germany and France (yes you are right your policies are not exactly similar and it was unfair to paint you with the same brush) hahahahahahah but I am still laughing anyway. Humor me. It is close enough so that I will find endless amusement from it. Where now is this famous debate about the dangers of the pre-emptive strike precedent? Obviously, not in Berlin and Paris anymore. hahahah and that is what I love most of all.
In the meantime, I do recognize your concerns Rascal, but until you can “proof” that America knew ahead of time that Iraq had no wmds, where is your “illegality?”
The question is not who adopts such a policy, but who uses it when and how.
And in case of US vs. Iraq it seems (as of todays knowledge) it was wrongly used, thus setting a dangerous precedent.
I.e. the precedent is set not by having the policy, but by using it in the way it was done.
I was obviously referring to the fact that Iraq was not posing a threat to the US which would have warranted the use of such a policy (in this case). And that makes a big difference IMO.
(Unless your policy just says we invade anyone anytime we want … 
)
Since the war was mainly based on the WMD argument I think it’s for the US to prove that they are/were there, not the other way around. Else I don’t see any legal reason for invading Iraq. Furthermore I might add:
- Invasion of a souvereign country
- No authorization by the UNSC
- No self-defense
Rascal:
Invasion of a sovereign country has happened throughout history and by many a European nation as I need not tell you.
Second, all the protesters have now signed on (as in treaties) to pre-emptive action against wmds, including most notably Germany and France. I thought one of the key factors riling so many people up was that the US action would “set a dangerous precedent” (not to mention any names here!) and that it would be outside the purview of the UN. Well, guess what our French and German friends have decided to do just that: GO OUTSIDE THE UN. Wherein lies the difference? What accounts for the outrage if the two policies US/UK and France/Germany are equal? Implementation? Give me a break. Cannot wait to see how France uses that to prop up corrupt governments in Africa.
Third, Germany and France agreed to the 16 UN resolutions calling for Saddam to come into compliance. The vote for the 17th was unanimous with Germany and France both voting for it.
Fourth, given that Germany and France recognized that Saddam was not in compliance the US was “legally” entitled to view this as a threat to its security under these parameters.
Fifth, that Germany and France may have chosen to do things differently is irrelevant. The US was legally entitled under the now accepted treaties to pre-emptively take out the threat. Your earlier concerns were about the dangerous precedent. No one recognizes that anymore so why should you be so concerned?
Finally, you may not believe that the threat was real but then you are not the US government and whether you agree or disagree does not make it any less “legal.” That is your personal opinion not the Law of the Land as determined by international treaties. New treaties set out new laws. Where is this codified version of international law that you speak of otherwise. It is all in treaty form. Some laws are contradictory. Which international agency must be consulted before new laws are added? Which legislative body approves them? I think you see just how hollow this international law is.
We have not found any wmds YET but I wonder why Paris, Berlin and Moscow are suddenly so cooperative about Iraqi debt after nine months of nothing. Perhaps, we will soon find out where and when those systems were put in place and when and how they were dismantled. I would never seek to besmirch the good names of the German and French governments but…
Another meaningless statement from you: That fact does not explain, excuse or justify current US actions - and certainly it does not legalize them.
Again: the precedent was set by using the policy, not by having it. As such Germany and France have not gotten outside the UN.
If action based on such a policy are warranted in e.g. a case of self-defense then there is nothing wrong with such a policy (and automatically sanctioned by international law / the UN).
After all, it’s just a policy - not a SOP, i.e. it is not something that is always applied / used.
The last sentence says it all: if, and only if, France would take such action against another country without good reasons (claiming existense of WMD and hence saying it is applying action under that policy) then there is no difference to what the US has done.
But if France was indeed threatened (imminently) by WMD than it could, based on this policy, act in self-defense.
Back to my earlier example:
Having a policy to shoot it down if it poses a threat is legal, but it does not legalize shooting an airliner down in any case. And neither does shooting it down if there wasn’t any threat but saying: ‘hey, we got this policy, so it’s ok no matter what’.
Which means exactly what related to the on-going discussion?
Yeah, it’s ‘security’. Like in no co-operation between Saddam and Al Quada, no WMD (as of todays knowledge) but lot’s of worst-case scenarios.
Not to mention on-going inspections, sanctions and military forces around Iraq - what a threat to US security.
Aeh, care to explain this a bit further? Did Iraq sign such a treaty or are you again implying because Germany and France adopted such a policy any action by the US under the same (similar) policy are automatically legalized?
And what threat? There was NO threat from Iraq against the US, there was only what the US claimed and perhaps wanted it to be.
If Iraq would indeed have the amounts of WMD your administration claimed you would have an argument, but already before the war it was obvious that intelligence was conflicting and there was no proof, in fact some ‘evidence’ had been proven wrong already.
As for the argument Blix wouldn’t have been able to find anything - but what did your own search teams led by Dr. Kay (aka the we-will-make-some-suprising-announcements-soon loudmouth) find so far?
Care to show that others don’t recognize that anymore? Did anyone ‘stand up’ and retract the statements that the US has set a dangerous precedent?
Your ‘but Germany and France have adopted such a policy’ is hardly proof of that, in fact that others adopt such a policy now and later may take action under it in the way the US has done proves that the precedent already shows it’s first effects
Yeah, because I am not the USG I also did not support Saddam, supply him with WMD, support (other) countries which carried out genocide, displaces other people (also referred to as genocide) nor did I invade other countries for my own selfish interest.
That’s what you call “legal action” by your government based on it’s own security parameters and policies… !?
Apropo believe … does millions of people believing in God make him real? :?
What have WMD to do with the other point? Nothing I rekon.
Cannot believe that I am arguing with Rascal about this on Christmas! Jesus Christ!
Anyway, I do believe that the big concern was “legality” and that the US was setting a dangerous precedent by enacting a policy on “pre-emptive” action. Now, you want to water this down to “how the policy is implemented” not whether such a policy is enshrined as national policy. I do believe that seems to be backtracking.
My point in all this debate is that Germany and France have behaved with incredible stupidity and hypocrisy on a huge scale. My other point is that except for them, all the other nations in Europe ALREADY supported the US in its Iraq action. Yeah yeah, I know, perenniel neutrals like Ireland and Sweden and Austria. But for the most part, this action is in my view “legal.”
Yes, Rascal. Iraq did sign a treaty. One in which it promised to verifiably disarm and account for its wmds. It failed to do so.
My other point is that why imply the US invaded Iraq for false reasons when EVERY country believed that Iraq had such weapons otherwise why the unanimous 15-0 vote in the security council?
So here we are again. The US did NOT provide the bulk of Saddam’s weapons. Yes, we sold some at a time that was very different with Iran perceived to be the bigger threat. Yes, we tried to gain influence. We failed. The policy was terminated. Given that German and France were much bigger more important suppliers, you may wish to find cause for Outrage closer to home.
AND for one last time, Germany and France (who matter somewhat) as opposed to Rascal and me (personal opinions only) opposed a nation that had been an important ally and I would say friend to protect a nation of no significant interest to either of them. Why? Because they strongly opposed a “pre-emptive” policy outside or lacking the imprimatur of the UN. Yet, here we are merely months after the action and the two very very quietly sign onto a treaty, with France YES FRANCE pressuring Germany to sign on as well, in which they both commit themselves to pre-emptive action. This was never a question of HOW such policies were implemented. The big fight was over having such policies at all which would rock the very world order. Now, Rascal is arguing not that the policies cannot exist but that it is important how they are implemented. This was not the original debate and represents in my view some pretty slippery backtracking.
Now that is Rascal. He can have any opinions he wants. But let us re-examine the original French and German positions and then try to figure out how such “strongly held views” were worth fighting for so much that they led to a serious rupture in Europe, with the US and within NATO only to be dropped in June nay not just dropped but complete policy reverse to adopt the very policies that they were both so desperate to stop that they would cause all of the fracas mentioned above AND again for a nation of little consequence to either nation strategically, but perhaps PERSONALLY the leaders of France and Germany may have “interests” that led them to such vociferous condemnation? Perhaps, with Saddam captured we will soon find out ala Taiwan’s Lafayette purchases etc.
No backtracking. As I tried to explain you can have any policy you want, doesn’t do any harm until you use it.
And when you use it, in the way the US has wrongly used it, then the precedent is set.
No-one would argue if e.g. Cuba suddenly aquires WMD and points them at the US and making some threatening remarks, then you might have even a right to use your policy for a pre-emptive strike - but in case of Iraq you have pretty much nothing left from your earlier claims.
I assumed you referred to a treaty where Iraq would be aware of the pre-emptive policy. Might have missunderstood.
Else on-going UN inspections and no authorization by the UNSC, that’s all I say.
Your administration claimed they KNEW, not believed in WMD in Iraq.
What others believed or thought they knew (45 minutes anyone?) matters not.
The correct statement would be: The US did not provide the bulk of CONVENTIONAL weapons.
Needless to say I didn’t make such a claim nor did I say the US was the major supplier of WMD. Other’s supplied, too, but no information about the quantities is available.
On this point, what about the latest suggestions from the british 9I think)? The story goes like this:
- Iraq destroyed all its WMD
- Saddam didn’t know this
- Mid-ranking officials had destroyed the weapons because of inspections but told Saddam they’d kept some stashed ‘round the back’ to keep him from stringing 'em up to the nearest flagpole
- At the same time, to bolster their story, they were telling Western intelligence assets that there were stll weapons.
Thus, the only people who knew there were no weapons were those inspectors such as Ritter, mid-ranking Iraqi bureaucrats, and anyone who didn’t have access to an intelligence network!