German's protest against Unilateralism

[christian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2003000/2003706.stm

Demonstrations have overshadowed the start of a European visit by US President George W Bush.
About 20,000 people took to the streets of Berlin protesting against American policies on the environment, international trade, the Middle East and worsening relations with Iraq.


Can anyone from Europe tell me, what is going on?


What happen to "Ichin I bin Berlin"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1998000/1998172.stm

[Vic]

Apart from the obvious reasons (envy, a feeling of weakness, support of Israel...) - a lot of people here are genuinely concerned about arms race, environmental protection etc., the popular opinion being that the US doesn't shine on such issues.

Besides Berlin is famous (notorious) for large and violent demonstrations.

[Mediocrates]

"Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a sweet roll) - JFK

He should have left out the ein.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by christian
[url]

Can anyone from Europe tell me, what is going on?





Well, a normal reaction. The mainstream Europeans (believe me, it's not only the lefties we are talking about) don't agree with the US policies anymore. The US media is sending wrong and biased information to the world about Europe's so called anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. The Euro-people however, sympathyse with the Americans (and even with Israeli's), but it's the US policies of "veni vidi vici" that scare us.

The US said they wanted to rely on their European allies. Europe has supported the US-led war on terrorism, even though we get nothing in return but the statement that we are supporters of terrorism, which is not true. I like to recall Lamp's words on "western values", well, if there is such a thing like this, than Europe should be the closest ally of the US. Still, the US treats us like a bunch of divided lefties who's opinion is not important.

Europe wants to create a so called EUROCORPS, which should become a military force to defend our "common goals". This EUROCORPS can work under NATO-flag, but we don't want to be dependant on the US anymore. The US have too many troops and airbases in Europe, and is using NATO for its own national goals (Iraq). The coldwar is already over for ten years, but the US stills operates its airbases in Rammstein, Aviano, Lakenheath, Incirlick (Turkey) ... These bases should close, they are not there to defend democracy, this is pure imperialism.

We don't agree with Bush's axis of evil, and we don't want to start a new military adventure against Iran and Iraq. Bush is the president of the US, he has nothing to say here in Europe. He should stop using the NATO-umbrella for his war on terrorism, because NATO does not reflect what the European gov'ts and people think.

And last but not least, we don't want to install "democracy" all over the world, meaning the use of military force. We all like our own democracy, but we don't boast with it. US should stop using the argument that they attack nations because they are not democratic. Iran is more of a democracy than Saudi Arabia.

And the "evil regimes" sounds so childish. I mean, the evils vs the goods. :LOL:

[Mediocrates]

"And the "evil regimes" sounds so childish. I mean, the evils vs the goods. :LOL:"

You're right. There is no evil, only banality. There is no good, only success or indifference.


I don't get it. You're rioting in the streets against the US because you think we wrongfully say you're against the US? I think you just want a 4 day weekend.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Morpheus
The US have too many troops and airbases in Europe, and is using NATO for its own national goals (Iraq). The coldwar is already over for ten years, but the US stills operates its airbases in Rammstein, Aviano, Lakenheath, Incirlick (Turkey) ... These bases should close, they are not there to defend democracy, this is pure imperialism.
No, not imperialism.

But I agree with the Europeans that the U.S. should get all its troops out of Europe. As an American taxpayer, I have to ask why in the world am I asked to pay for the defense of our wealthy Euro trade rivals?

As for anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, all that is true of course. Europe is a bastion for both. We in America should not bother lecturing the Europeans on these issues, we should simply vote with our purchase decisions and national trade power.

[Morpheus]

First of all, there's a difference between peacefully protesting and rioting. The Germans had the right to express their opinion, they are against current US-policies, but they don't hate the Americans.

Second of all, you ask why you still pay for our defense? Well, in fact, politicans would like the US to leave. There's no direct threat coming from the east anymore so I don't see why these forces are still needed. But for the US, they have a very important strategic value. These bases are home of numerous fighter and bomber squadrons, which can be deployed to the ME or SA in no time, whereas with forces from the CONUS it would take ages. Thanks to bases in Europe and Japan/South Korea, the US has the power to strike every country in Asia without having too wait too long. For Europe, these forces are of no value.

[christian]

Originally posted by Morpheus
First of all, there's a difference between peacefully protesting and rioting. The Germans had the right to express their opinion, they are against current US-policies, but they don't hate the Americans.

Second of all, you ask why you still pay for our defense? Well, in fact, politicans would like the US to leave. There's no direct threat coming from the east anymore so I don't see why these forces are still needed. But for the US, they have a very important strategic value. These bases are home of numerous fighter and bomber squadrons, which can be deployed to the ME or SA in no time, whereas with forces from the CONUS it would take ages. Thanks to bases in Europe and Japan/South Korea, the US has the power to strike every country in Asia without having too wait too long. For Europe, these forces are of no value.

Morpheus,
I know little about Europe. However, I do know European wouldn't have Eurocorp anytime soon. In order to have eurocorp, you need to boost your budget spending. Which will sacrifice medical care, social benefits, education,etc.

Unless, the European is considering to US kind of budget. I doubt they will have a independant military anytime soon. Moreover, US will find excuse to start another war like the Kosvo war. This will redirect the attention of European.

It is most likely Iraq will be another American adventure. European will be force to jump in eventually.

Although, Tony Blair has domestic pressure on another Iraq war. It sounds like Tony will override the domestic pressure back home.

Uk and US will strike Iraq next year or this year. France and Germany will follow after.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by christian


Morpheus,
I know little about Europe. However, I do know European wouldn't have Eurocorp anytime soon. In order to have eurocorp, you need to boost your budget spending. Which will sacrifice medical care, social benefits, education,etc.



Actually our combined defense budgets are quite high, and we do have the money to invest in military projects similar to the US. The Eurofighter, the French Rafale are all examples of Europe's growing interest in defense. EUROCORPS should be a good idea, because now we have 15 different 'little' armies. If we combine them, we can save on some fields and invest it in research. The EU alone organises 60 % of all peace-missions. The Americans are not so good at peace-keeping missions, we all know what happend in Mogadishu.

But I'm not willing to give up our excellent social security and healthcare. A good military should not be that expensive, as long as you don't spend money to wicked projects like "National Missile Defense".


Problem with Europe is it can't just say NO to the US. During peace-time they like to whine about the US, but in war, the first question is "George, where do you want our troops?"

[Skogan]

The EU will eventually develope a National Missle Defense to. Count on it. (Actually, they'll probably just borrow ours and forget about how hypocrytical their b*tching is). Mutually assured distruction was good enough when the only people who had WMD were governments who acted rationaly. But now that people who think suicide is the easiest way to get laid by 72 virgins are getting nukes, it doesn't work so well. If counter attack doesn't deter, you need some defense.

Skogan

[Morpheus]

How can a NMD protect our asses from being fried. Didn't 911 show that you really don't need ballistic missiles to get a nation on its knees? If terrorists want to use nukes, they will use suitcase bombs and no ICBM's. ICBM's is a leftover from the coldwar, only a handful nations have the technology to build them (North Korea being the only rogue state to have ICBM's).

The USSR has build 100 suitcase-nukes, 60 of them which are now lost. These bombs are probably in the hands of unknown terrorists, ready to strike immediatelly. I don't see what a NMD can do about that.

Pakistan, US closest Muslim-ally nowadays, also has ICBM's, which they bought from North Korea.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Morpheus
[B]How can a NMD protect our asses from being fried. Didn't 911 show that you really don't need ballistic missiles to get a nation on its knees? If terrorists want to use nukes, they will use suitcase bombs and no ICBM's. ICBM's is a leftover from the coldwar, only a handful nations have the technology to build them (North Korea being the only rogue state to have ICBM's).

You got it all wrong. It is not suppose to protect. It is suppose to make $$$ for the weapon industry. :D

Remember star wars plan in the 80's.

[kauffner]

Morpheus: 9-11 brought America to its knees? Where do you get your news from, Al Jezeera?

After what happened on Flight 93, nobody will be hijacking any American plane for a long, long time. Soon the planes will have secure cockpit doors, which will make hijackings even less likely. Of course, there is still the danger of private planes being crashed into buildings. But private planes are a lot smaller than commerical jets and would be anti-climactic after 9-11. The terrorists would have to buy a plane and fully train a pilot, so it would be a lot less bang for the buck.

ABM obviously isn't a cure all. No weapons system is. The allegations about suitcase bombs were made back in 1997. The "missing" bombs are ones that used to be stationed in the Baltic repubics and in Ukraine. Maybe they were destroyed by the Soviet military when these places declared independence or maybe they turned over to the new governments. Either way, we talking about something that happened eleven years ago. If terrorists really had them, they would have used them by now.

Suitcase bombs are persumably more delicate devices than the Stinger missiles the U.S. gave to the Afghan freedom fighters in the 1980s. These apparently don't work anymore, given that none were used against U.S. forces in the Afghan War (batteries have probably run out by now, among other things).

Suitcase bombs are not the most dangerous terrorist issue anyway. A nuclear bomb doesn't have to be small for it to be useful to terrorists. It is a lot easier to get a hold of a semi or a cargo ship than a nuclear device.

Several countries, including China, North Korea, and Iran, are spending a lot of money the on long range missiles designed specifically to threaten the United States. In addition, there is the possibility of an accidental launch of, for example, a Russian missile. It therefore only logical for the U.S. to put countermeasures into place.

It's a little hard to take the Chinese and the Europeans seriously when they complain that ABM is a waste of money. After all, even if it is a waste of money, it would not be their money. If non-Americans are concerned about the project, it is because they are afraid it will be effective.

Turkey, Kuwait, Oman, and Jordan are America's Muslim allies. Pakistan created the Taliban and played a disruptive role all through the Afghan War. It's a snake in the grass as far as I am concerned.