Just who the hell is the German foreign minister? - Page 2

BeBro · February 14, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Hilarious article. And I thought "Bild" was a crap paper, but, ya know, in the States is everything a lot larger.

Well, I hope not really everything

Harovan · February 14, 2003, 09:33

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, I hope not really everything

No, if I consider the lot of "penis enlargement" ads I get in my mailbox from US addresses. They must have a gigantic market for this.

Daz · February 14, 2003, 09:34

Yes I checked. Not available....

I know for whom that "with us or against us" message was intended to initally, but the US government is applying the same attitute on the European countries that are "not cooperating" now.

True or false?

If your answer is false, I'd like to remind you of Rumsfelds remark on North Korea, Lybia (or was it Cuba) and Germany not being helpful...!!!!!!!

What was that about then?

Sikander · February 14, 2003, 09:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
Yes I checked. Not available....

It's working for me. ??

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
I know for whom that "with us or against us" message was intended to initally, but the US government is applying the same attitute on the European countries that are "not cooperating" now.

True or false?

I can't see even the most controversial comments by the administration as threatening to Europe in a physical sense, though the nasty back and forth has gotten way out of hand on both sides IMO.

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
If your answer is false, I'd like to remind you of Rumsfelds remark on North Korea, Lybia (or was it Cuba) and Germany not being helpful...!!!!!!!

What was that about then?

That was going too far I agree, but I don't begin to equate it with any sort of "you are against us, and now are our enemy" kind of thinking. Richard Perle's comments about France on the other hand crossed this boundary, but he doesn't speak for the administration.

Oerdin · February 14, 2003, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo
at least Fischer doesn´t lie to the UN security council and present faked "evidences" in order to justify a war and killing thousands of innocent civilians.(sorry, I couldn´t help binging this polemic but much more proven fact at this point.)

Translation: The evidience presented does not conform to my narrow little political dogma so I will utterly reject it out of hand. Doing this makes me feel better and saves me from actually doing any sort of thinking; which is good because thinking makes my head hurt.

*Edit: Alright that was more sarcastic then oedo deserved but it is so irritating to hear people repeat the same tired falsehoods a million times. Like that will some how make them true.

Spiffor · February 14, 2003, 10:42

Sikander :
I wasn't in Germany when there was a scandal regarding Fischer, but I think it was clear Fischer had been a radical in his past, and admitted to have hit the policeman, IIRC. I don't think there is a point in arguing this, since pretty much everybody agree Fischer wasn't a good boy 30 years ago.
Now, this doesn't make the point of this column less stupid : "I don't like what Fischer says, so I will dig up some old dirt rather than taking his reasonment into account"

Oerdin :
Are you concious you're doing exactly the same as Oedo ? The "evidence" (I don't pretend to know whether they are true or not) which Powell presented conforms to your pro-war stance, and allows you to further justifiate it without thinking.

Oerdin · February 14, 2003, 10:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
If your answer is false, I'd like to remind you of Rumsfelds remark on North Korea, Lybia (or was it Cuba) and Germany not being helpful...!!!!!!!

What was that about then?

Daz: The question asked Rumsfield was which states had made specific absolute statements that they would not assist in remove Saddam. He response was that the three states mentioned were the only ones who had stated outright that they would not assist.

Half the people in Europe seem to be going out of there way to deliberately take things out of context just so they can get indignent about the "misunderstanding" they purposefully made.

Oerdin · February 14, 2003, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oerdin :
Are you concious you're doing exactly the same as Oedo ? The "evidence" (I don't pretend to know whether they are true or not) which Powell presented conforms to your pro-war stance, and allows you to further justifiate it without thinking.

Actually I can give you a thread where the evidience is reviewed and talked about extensively. Would you like a link?

Spiffor · February 14, 2003, 11:01

gladly

BeBro · February 14, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Actually I can give you a thread where the evidience is reviewed and talked about extensively. Would you like a link?

The point of Fischer is not that he doesn´t believe Powell´s evidence - the point is more if this evidence is enough to start military action.

edit:

Quote:

Thats because Fischer is far left and anybody who disagrees with him is a bougeios recationary and should probably be shot

Fischer is by no means "far left", and also the Green Party of Germany has changed its course slightly. It is still a left party, but absolutely not far left. Fischer itself is the most respected politician in polls, those past radical views are long gone - and most people accept that here. Also, he´s normally rather moderate towards the US, he´s not at all an America-hater.

lord of the mark · February 14, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Does that make the NY post a leftist paper. They are attacking the source of the statement (i.e Fischer) instead of arguing the merits of military action.

Powell made his case. Fischer responded "I am not convinced. That is my problem"

Her did NOT point by point refute Powell, or make an intellectual case. He simply asserted his own personal credibility. In doing so he invited personal attack.

His past associations surely do NOT indicate that he is or was a terrorist. They DO indicate that his judgement of terrorists and of political groups that ally with them is poor, something quite relevant to the current situation. It may also indicate that his judgements about the merits of liberal democracy, its prospects in places like Iraq, etc are similarly poor.

Kelly tends to be obnoxious and ad hominem in his attacks - this is nothing compared to what he used to write about Clinton. And he certainly neglects the fact that Fischer has been more concerned about the American alliance than Schroeder. However this is hardly quite as far out some here would have it.

Imran Siddiqui · February 14, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Every NYer, at least, knows the Post is the equivalent of London's Sun.

Not true! The Sun has boobs on Page 3!

BeBro · February 14, 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

His past associations surely do NOT indicate that he is or was a terrorist. They DO indicate that his judgement of terrorists and of political groups that ally with them is poor, something quite relevant to the current situation.

No, perhaps that was the case in the past, but absolutely not today (and by today I mean, at least since he´s foreign minister). This judgement is simply not correct. He´s gone a long road from the 70ies to his current political positions.

Boris Godunov · February 14, 2003, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
His past associations surely do NOT indicate that he is or was a terrorist. They DO indicate that his judgement of terrorists and of political groups that ally with them is poor, something quite relevant to the current situation. It may also indicate that his judgements about the merits of liberal democracy, its prospects in places like Iraq, etc are similarly poor.

If behavior 30 years ago is indicative of current judgmental capacity, then I suppose you are comfortable with having a drunken, coke-snorting frat boy in the Oval Office?

Wernazuma III · February 14, 2003, 13:13

Really, someone, who likes Bush to be up there should not dig out old mud from others 30 years ago, just like Boris pointed out. In a situation with high emotions, half-true articles like that in the first post here are only unnecessary fuel in the fire. It's only escalating the whole difficult relations between Americans and Germans more. One has to have a little bit more insight into Germany's 70s to understand the story better. Imagine German newspapers questioning the credibility of the US government just because Bush did coke and drunk drive and was an intimate friend of America's greatest fraud.

lord of the mark · February 14, 2003, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

If behavior 30 years ago is indicative of current judgmental capacity, then I suppose you are comfortable with having a drunken, coke-snorting frat boy in the Oval Office?

well i voted for the wooden nerd from tennesee myself. (And his hawkish holywood bashing running mate as well) And if all i had to go on was dubyas word, i would have real difficulties - but in all cases where the admin has said "trust us" it was more than just dubya - and in the situation under discussion it was Powell.

lord of the mark · February 14, 2003, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro

No, perhaps that was the case in the past, but absolutely not today (and by today I mean, at least since he´s foreign minister). This judgement is simply not correct. He´s gone a long road from the 70ies to his current political positions.

If that is indeed the case, I would like him to lay out exactly why he believes Saddam is in compliance with UNSC 1441. Not make a case that 1441 shouldnt have been passed, but why he believes that Saddam is in compliance with it.

Rather than hysterically shouting "Excuse me, I'm not convinced"

(I note that Fischer may be getting hysterical both because of his troubles with Schroeder, and perhaps isolation within his own Green party (?) but for all that, until such time as he resigns he's still the spokesman for FRG policy, and it seems not unreasonable to ask if his current statements make more sense in context of his 70's history than of his 90's change of ways. )

HershOstropoler · February 14, 2003, 14:57

"I would like him to lay out exactly why he believes Saddam is in compliance with UNSC 1441."

He's not unconvinced of Saddam's non-compliance, he's unconvinced of the need for war.

The article is utter crap. My respect for the WP has fallen even further.

lord of the mark · February 14, 2003, 15:02

An American writer defends Joska Fischer, and takes issue with Kelly's piece. Definitely worth reading.

Slate magazine: a defense of Fischer

Oerdin · February 14, 2003, 15:03

To be far to the WP they usually run a whole host of different articles in the opinion section. This would be just one and the normally run an op-ed piece as well.

lord of the mark · February 14, 2003, 15:06

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I would like him to lay out exactly why he believes Saddam is in compliance with UNSC 1441."

He's not unconvinced of Saddam's non-compliance, he's unconvinced of the need for war.

The article is utter crap. My respect for the WP has fallen even further.

So let him say - I am convinced UNSC res 1441 has benn violated by Saddam, but i beleive 1441 was wrong, and teh UNSC should repeal it.

Wrt the WP - it was an op ed piece - a coumne- the Wapo has columnists who cover the ideological spectrum, and who often take position different from the paper's editorial line. Kelly was digging nastily into Clinton for years, when the WaPo was one of his chief defenders.

Mathemagician · February 14, 2003, 15:40

so, Holy Warrior, you cannot believe that joschka fischer has changed from a left-leaning rebel to a serious politician in 35 years ?
why trust Vladimir Putin then, the former KGB leader (or was it vice leader ?) ?
Jassir Arafat, who condoned terrorism not long ago.
im sure someone politically and historically more inclined could have given better examples.
i bet your beloved george w.bush has some dark chapters too in his life. after all, he is a texan and we all know texans like to shoot people, right ? (getting cynical here, granted)

anyway,
your point is simply stupid.

Wernazuma III · February 14, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So let him say - I am convinced UNSC res 1441 has benn violated by Saddam, but i beleive 1441 was wrong, and teh UNSC should repeal it.

1441 does not include a war declaration in the case of non-compliance. Furthermore, the only authority who can tell in detail that Iraq doesn't comply is the chief inspector Blix, nobody else. At least not with facts that are called nonsense or wrong claims by Blix (Powell) or have been proved poor plagiarism (British).
Considering the poor body of evidence I think it's fully understandalbe that Fischer shouts "Sorry, but I'm not convinced" to Rumsfeld, who didn't even try to give good arguments but only says that Germany isolates itself by not following the US...

lord of the mark · February 14, 2003, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

1441 does not include a war declaration in the case of non-compliance. Furthermore, the only authority who can tell in detail that Iraq doesn't comply is the chief inspector Blix, nobody else. At least not with facts that are called nonsense or wrong claims by Blix (Powell) or have been proved poor plagiarism (British).
Considering the poor body of evidence I think it's fully understandalbe that Fischer shouts "Sorry, but I'm not convinced" to Rumsfeld, who didn't even try to give good arguments but only says that Germany isolates itself by not following the US...

1441 calls for "serious consequences" in the event of non-compliance. As powell has stated, everyone on the UNSC knew that meant that if Saddam did not comply, the UNSC would gather to vote on war.

The resolution did not state that Blix is the only one who can determine compliance. It left it to the UNSC to determine that.

Powell did not call call Powell's claims non-sense in his report today. Most of Powells claims he simply ignored. Those he mentioned he said were open to alternative interpretation.

I will also note that at NO point did Blix say that Saddam IS in compliance with UNSC res 1441. He seems to imply that that does not matter at this point. Whether it does or not is not for Blix to decide, but for the Council. If the Council decides that Iraqi defiance of its own resolution promising serious consequences is not a matter worth taking action on, it will be incumbent on the US and its allies to decide what to do in light of that fact.

Adam Smith · February 14, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark Most of Powells claims he simply ignored. Those he mentioned he said were open to alternative interpretation.

I will also note that at NO point did Blix say that Saddam IS in compliance with UNSC res 1441. He seems to imply that that does not matter at this point.

This is where I am starting to have a hard time. I am NOT in favor of attacking Iraq. And I still think the connection to terrorism is tenuous at best. However, it is hard for me to see how any fair-minded person could dismiss Powell's evidence of non-compliance, as Blix appears to have done. I think the UN is failing to provide a viable option by refusing to take effective action on what seems obvious.