Rumsfeld compares Germany with Libya?

[Phantom Lord]

Rumsfeld said "some countries would neither engage in war nor help in rebuilding Iraq after a change of government", namely Cuba, Libya and Germany.

(article, in german)

Strange bedfellows indeed - do we belong to the axis of evil now? When will we be invaded?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No invasion; been there done that, no real challenge left.

 

[MrPresident]

They both aren't noted for their sense of humour. Not sure if that makes you evil but it sure does make me suspicious...and I'm not going to mention the war.

 

[Mr Spice]

Well, Rumsfeldt has a recent record of speaking without really thinking through what he says. Don't bother too much about everything that pops out when he opens his mouth. About Germany not being prepared to help re-build Iraq, that it is from what I understand a lie.

 

[Drewcifer]

Rumsfeld is the American version of the old hardliners who ran the Soviet Union. Unfortunately his opinions do matter. All I can do is apologize on behalf of America (if nobody else does).

 

[redtom]

He's nuts

 

[CurtSibling]

I care not for the loaded words of some old war-profiteer like Rumsfeld.

A statesman of his high office should keep his inflammatory degradations of other countries for his quaint dinner parties at the Whitehouse.

 

[jack merchant]

Such a great way of enlisting allies

However, I'm wondering whether what he said may indeed be factually correct - I know the Schröder government opposes the war against Iraq, but have they also said they will not assist in postwar reconstruction ? Either way, if the Americans want German help, this is not the way to get it.

Also, the Germans are already helping the Americans in Afghanistan. In fact, together with the Dutch, they are now in command of the peacekeeping force there.

 

[Phantom Lord]

As some of you may know, the german constitution was developed with the help of the western allied states after WW2, these states (France, UK, USA) also formally approved it. The US were strongly involved in this process and I think that our constitution is something we can truly be thankful for.

Besides many other things it takes Germany's offensive behaviour in the first part of the 20th century into consideration and therefore states the following rule:

Article 26 [Ban on preparations for war of aggression]

(1) Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be made a criminal offense.

Taking an active part in a war against Iraq would definately result in a constitutional lawsuit against the german government, since every adult can file a constitutional lawsuit and many would do so. It's not unlikely that such a lawsuit would be successful. Therefore the whole discussion about taking part and the "different" positions of our major parties are somewhat superficial.

Concerning "rebuilding" Iraq: I think at the moment we're proving in Afghanistan that we are willing and able to help to accomplish such (peaceful) tasks. Other examples for Germany's behaviour in such cases include our actions in states of former Yugoslavia.

@Drewcipher: Apology accepted

And btw, Rumsfeld has some german roots ...

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Phantom Lord
Taking an active part in a war against Iraq would definately result in a constitutional lawsuit against the german government, since every adult can file a constitutional lawsuit and many would do so. It's not unlikely that such a lawsuit would be successful.

It was done about Kosovo and it was of course not successful.
Constitutions are just pieces of paper, unfortunately, as ours is great except for a few points.

Considering Rumsfeld, well, the Bush administration made one of its few smart moves when they let Powell speak before the Security Council...

This will really rally Germans behind him.

 

[amadeus]

If Germany isn't going to help, how is the comparison wrong? Schroder clearly has no problem with leaving a totalitarian regime in power. Rumsfeld does.

 

[MrPresident]

Schroder clearly has no problem with leaving a totalitarian regime in power

Iraq isn't a totalitarian regime.

 

[Cruise]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
If Germany isn't going to help, how is the comparison wrong? Schroder clearly has no problem with leaving a totalitarian regime in power. Rumsfeld does.

It's not about totalitarian regimes, it's about oil and finishing daddy's job. In the past USA has and still supports a few bad ass guys you could put on the same line as Saddam. Musharaff for example. USA also supported the Taliban, and quite some more.

I can fall into a day-care taking discussion here but i won't. If you're only watching news from US stations there's no point in discussing this because you're not getting to see the bigger picture.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
If Germany isn't going to help, how is the comparison wrong? Schroder clearly has no problem with leaving a totalitarian regime in power. Rumsfeld does.

Mr. President, I disagree. Seems pretty totalitarian to me. If it's merely authoritarian, well, let's quibble .

But Rmsharpe is also wrong. Rumsfeld, and administrations he's worked for, clearly have no problem with leaving totalitarian regimes in power. Iran is not under threat of invasion. Nor, for the moment, is North Korea. Nor is Cuba. And, in fact, throughout Rumsfeld's lifetime, he supported (and presumably continues to support) "constructive engagement" with repugnant regimes of every description.

Whatever the argument, it was a stupid thing to say, if quoted accurately. The Bush administration has to learn the one lesson that Bush #1 can teach it: contempt is not an effective tool of persuasion...

R.III

 

[joespaniel]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Iraq isn't a totalitarian regime.

Well, OK then.

Lets call the whole thing off.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Cruise

It's not about totalitarian regimes, it's about oil and finishing daddy's job. In the past USA has and still supports a few bad ass guys you could put on the same line as Saddam. Musharaff for example. USA also supported the Taliban, and quite some more.

I can fall into a day-care taking discussion here but i won't. If you're only watching news from US stations there's no point in discussing this because you're not getting to see the bigger picture.

Well said.

Certain governments have short and selective memories.
Certain people have no wits at all when it comes to seeing the obvious.

 

[MrPresident]

Seems pretty totalitarian to me. If it's merely authoritarian, well, let's quibble

You may think I am being...well an annoying [insert swear word here] but it is a misconception that a dictatorship is automatically totalitarian. For a state to be totalitarian it must have absolute control over its citizens, in effect the individual is subordinated to the state or as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr puts it, “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul”. A dictatorship is in contrast a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator. So you can be a dictatorship and not necessarily a totalitarian regime. The belief that any dictatorship (or practically any) is automatically a totalitarian regime grow up in the 1950s when Americans (and the West) wanted to protray Stalin as similar to Hitler. The ironic thing is that Stalin was a lot more totalitarian than Hitler (there is some argument as to whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian at all). But these all leads to my conclusion which is that Iraq is a dictatorship but not a totalitarian regime.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by MrPresident

You may think I am being...well an annoying [insert swear word here] but it is a misconception that a dictatorship is automatically totalitarian. For a state to be totalitarian it must have absolute control over its citizens, in effect the individual is subordinated to the state or as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr puts it, “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul”. A dictatorship is in contrast a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator. So you can be a dictatorship and not necessarily a totalitarian regime. The belief that any dictatorship (or practically any) is automatically a totalitarian regime grow up in the 1950s when Americans (and the West) wanted to protray Stalin as similar to Hitler. The ironic thing is that Stalin was a lot more totalitarian than Hitler (there is some argument as to whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian at all). But these all leads to my conclusion which is that Iraq is a dictatorship but not a totalitarian regime.

I knew you would say this, and knew you could. It's a fair point, and one I have some sympathy for, but not alot! Let's just say that it seems pretty totalitarian by authoritarian standards...?

R.III

 

[polymath]

"A statesman of his high office should keep his inflammatory degradations of other countries for his quaint dinner parties at the Whitehouse."

Beautifully put! What a pity that Rumsfeld clearly has absolutely no grasp of 'realpolitik'. Or indeed international diplomacy.

 

[MrPresident]

Let's just say that it seems pretty totalitarian by authoritarian standards...?

I prefer it seems pretty authoritian by totalitarian standards but okay.