What Goes Around Comes Around

A

alanH

Registered Senior Member
"Germany reacted with dismay yesterday to America's decision not to return the 17,000-strong 1st Armoured Division to Germany, accelerating plans to relocate its troops to eastern Europe.

Roland Koch, the premier of Hesse state, where 3,700 of the 70,000 US soldiers in Germany are stationed, said the American decision would lead to the loss of 250 jobs and have a huge impact on shops and other businesses."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/03/wirq203.xml
 
AlanH.. Don’t you think you should focus on the now rather then the past.

It would be interesting to know if your hatred came from personal experience or from popular culture.

Germany is one of the worlds great cultures.. They deserve as much respect and admiration as any culture does.

Step beyond the stereotypes and think of the people, they are just like you.. They deserve to be treated just like you, and in my philosophy, even better.

AlanH “What Goes Around Comes Around..” Don’t stand to close you might get hurt..
 
Hard to believe an american would be able to say "What goes around comes around" after september 11th ...
 
Well, I also considered titling this thread "Be Careful What You Wish For." The point, overall, is that Germany, France and much of Europe has benefited greatly from handing their defense over to the US. This has let them lower their defense spending to almost nothing, using much of the money to prop up their largely socialist economies (socialist in relation to the US, anyway).

Also, the issue has everything to do with the now, rather than the past, as the world is in a time of transition, and it's going to change where the US will have its bases, and which European countries, and which countries overall, are going to exercise greater influence with regard to the US.

Germany indeed may be a great culture, albeit one with a number of black marks in its history. Their status, however, is rather irrelevant to this issue.

And given the US's responses to 9/11, I think we do understand the concept of what goes around comes around. The Taliban and the Iraqi Ba'ath party understand it even better.
 
Originally posted by alanH
The point, overall, is that Germany, France and much of Europe has benefited greatly from handing their defense over to the US. This has let them lower their defense spending to almost nothing, using much of the money to prop up their largely socialist economies (socialist in relation to the US, anyway).
Click to expand...

What do you want to hear ? "Thanks for your money, you can go away now...". Of course, it will be "hard" for Germany if all US troops go away. That's a fact that they were used to sell products to these consumers. However, they will survive...

And about the French and German defenses : don't worry about them ;)
 
Well, the French I certainly don't worry about...after all it doesn't take a particularly big army to surrender. :D
 
the issue has everything to do with the now, rather than the past, as the world is in a time of transition
Click to expand...
So we should forget the past transgressions of the US as well?
Why is that an unsurprising argument, given it's source?
:rolleyes:

using much of the money to prop up their largely socialist economies
Click to expand...
Actually, the biggest drain on the german economy has been reunification...
And since the US economy is in dire straits (remember, defaulting on your national debt before the end of may unless the debt ceiling is raised by $1 trillion, according to US economists...), I wouldn't go slagging off other nation's economies without a much thicker skin than the one you've demonstrated so far...
 
Sparks: forget nothing, if you like...my point was that this issue is not about the past,it's about the future. Take whatever into the calculations you like.

As for other nation's economies...the fact is we *are* in a slow economy with a lot of debt. I've got a thick enough skin, if I need it, to admit that. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground in Europe.
 
alanH,
forget nothing, if you like
Click to expand...
In that case, the problem is that there are many acts the US has carried out that could be cited as justification for 9/11, assuming that you think revenge is legitimate. (Which I don't, in case you're wondering).

As for other nation's economies...the fact is we *are* in a slow economy with a lot of debt. I've got a thick enough skin, if I need it, to admit that.
Click to expand...
Admitting it isn't the problem - it's the implications of that that requires a thick skin. Specifically, who do you think the US is borrowing from?

But that doesn't change the facts on the ground in Europe.
Click to expand...
Yup, decidely not. Thing is, the US economy is somewhat worse off than most in Europe. And the defence contracts currently propping it up - well, the last time I heard of a nations economy propped up by similar means was nazi germany (I'm not making the moral comparison here, just the economic one) - and their economy collapsed as well.
 
I think we'll need a crystal ball to prove this part of the argument either way.
Click to expand...
Or we could just wait...

I'm interested in what acts you consider to be justification for 9/11, as well.
Click to expand...
And where exactly did I say that I thought 9/11 was justified?
 
OK, let me be more precise: what acts do you believe could be cited as justification for 9/11?

As for the economies, I figure waiting is about all that can be. If I had that crystal ball, I'd be happily retired by now. :)
 
alanH,
I'm guessing that the encouraging of a rebellion in Iraq in '91 in the full knowlege that they could not provide support, military action in the lebanon, and unquestioning support of Israel no matter the actions of the IDF or the nature of Israel's nuclear program would be cited.
 
Sparks: I think you missed the most cited justification, that being our military bases in Saudi Arabia. But the one you list that baffles me is our abandonment of the Kurds, which was truly a black mark on us...but considering the Kurds are not the ones behding 9/11, I don't see the justification.
 
alanH,
I selected specific aspects of US foreign policy that would have given the most grief to OBL, who it is widely believed orchestrated the 9/11 attack. I did forget the SA bases.

It wasn't just the Kurds that were involved in the uprising, and it wasn't not supporting it that was the unethical act - it was calling for it while knowing that the UN resolution that the US was operating under did not allow for any action within Iraq (687). And it would have given grief to OBL because OBL and Saddam are enemies - and giving aid to Saddam by allowing him to use gunships and armor to put down a rebellion would be counter to what the US trained OBL for.
 
Sparks: enmity and friendship seem to be a very fluid thing in that part of the world. At any rate, my own take on the situation is that we were wrong because we told the Kurds we'd support them and then we abandoned them. And that was awful and probably, in my mind, the worst thing the first Bush administration did. I don't really care much about the UN resolutions-- the very example cited here shows how little they have to do with anything moral or just. As for ObL, I think Saddam was pretty far down his list, probably offering him the most offense since SH isn't/wasn't particularly religious.
 
enmity and friendship seem to be a very fluid thing in that part of the world.
Click to expand...
And in the US it would seem - since Saddam was a trusted ally not so long ago.

I don't really care much about the UN resolutions-- the very example cited here shows how little they have to do with anything moral or just.
Click to expand...
Actually, that example resolution (678) could not under have called for deposing Saddam because of Article 2, section 7 of the UN charter prohibits the UN from overthrowing soverign nation's governments. Since the US helped write that clause, it's a damn big bit of hypocracy to use it to damn the UN.

As for ObL, I think Saddam was pretty far down his list
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Overthrowing Saddam was the primary objective that the US had in mind when training OBL. Unless you mean his xmas card list... :rolleyes:
 
Sparks: I think there's worse things in the world than hypocrisy...if a Saddam needs to be overthrown, then he needs to be overthrown-- regardless of whether it makes our actions inconsistent. I'm always amazed at those who point to the US's prior accomodation of Saddam as some sort of reason that we shouldn't have removed him from power. If anything, it seems to me that if you make a mistake, it's incumbent upon you to correct it, not forever remain consistent to the mistake.

As for ObL, I guess I misunderstood how you were prioritizing. I was thinking of ObL's goals, not the US's goals when they were training him. Although wasn't it the overthrow of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan that they were training him to help remove?
 
I think there's worse things in the world than hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Good thing too, given your president...

I'm always amazed at those who point to the US's prior accomodation of Saddam as some sort of reason that we shouldn't have removed him from power.
Yet another disingenous argument. Nobody has pointed out the US's prior collusion with Saddam (accomodation ends and collusion starts when you pay for the weapons he was using) as a reason for not removing him from power. Everybody points to it as a reason to not trust the US's moral compass when it comes to foreign policy, because precedence shows it's non-existant.

wasn't it the overthrow of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan that they were training him to help remove?
Click to expand...
Not as a primary target as I was given to understand. I may be incorrect - but we do know he wanted free reign to help overthrow saddam after he invaded kuwait and was restrained by the US, and later survived an US assiination attempt.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Sparks: what's your take on the French, or Russian, moral compass regarding this issue? Which country, do you believe, has a more on-target moral compass than the US. I'm curious.

As to the whole issue of the US supporting Saddam earlier on, I think it's perfectly valid to bring up the argument, as it's often made and I think you made it fair game by bringing up the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top