So Should Germany Be Dictating Terms?

by Englishman 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fodeja

  Then if they want to stick their nose into Amercin sovereignty, they can bring their wallet and paid the freight!!!

  How are they "sticking their nose into American sovereignty"? They're refusing to disclose things that are in their own possession -- they CAN do that, because they're a sovereign state. That's what being a sovereign state is about, amongst other things.

  Second, you ignored my point: the US government (or many other governments, for that matter) also wants to impose its view of human rights on other countries. Actually, the US has a long history of doing so. The US, however, certainly claims it is NOT willing to fund governments that are -- from a US viewpoint -- ignoring human rights. Should the US government pay money to Saddam Hussein to prevent the killing of dissidents? Well, I guess most "conservatives" would denounce that as "appeasement" (sure, that's a drastic example).

  So, why are the Germans not allowed to do the same? Because they're Germans? I guess they would be damned either way: if they disclose the evidence, they're weak and don't adhere to their own principles (aw, typical! Krauts!). If they don't, they're anti-American and somehow still feeling bad about the Nazi past (aw, typical! Krauts!).

  f.
• 

  fodeja

  Geraldo Riveria proves the point that conservatives have been making for years: a liberal is a person whose interests are not currently at stake. Dodge a few bullets and KAPOW, you're as conservative as they come.

  Sorry to spoil your simplification, but: I've dodged a few bullets, and as far as I understand the conservative American idea of "liberal", I do fit that cliche.

  If I should take your point seriously, you'll have to prove to me that all (or at least most) war veterans became conservatives. And I don't mean your neighbour next door, or that one guy Riveria -- that's too small of a sample for me or any statistician ;-)

  f.

  edited for spelling (hey, Simon, what's wrong with accented characters?!)

  Edited by - fodeja on 1 September 2002 14:58:8
• 

  RandomTask

  I am wondering, was Germany against putting to death Nazi war criminals who were tried at Nuremberg?
• 

  mustang

  "1. Germany acted this way before to oppose capital punishment."

  As already indicated, they have had something to say about it before.

  #2: I havent ignored your point, I havent got there yet. "Here is where the surprise comes", to paraphrase the old Prophet$.

  I dont agree with all the US Human Rights pushiness. We should let it slide, because we (US hat) arent really capable of picking a straight and moral high ground path that is defensible. Many mistakes have been made and more are likely to be made.

  The US should simply get out of the "moral guardian" business and just do what needs to be done. Frankly, and rightly or wrongly, the US has supported too many dictators to crow loudly about this. This definitely needs the old reverse gear and back off.

  As far as Human Rights are concerned, ALL parties have too far to go on this one.

  Ill go all the way back to the beginning: the Germans are on a high horse, at a bad time for the world. They have had internal terrorist attacks and so has the US. First things first, get these turkeys and worry about piss-ant, feel good ideology afterwards!!!
• 

  fodeja

  I am wondering, was Germany against putting to death Nazi war criminals who were tried at Nuremberg?

  Check your history books to answer this question: how much of an actually sovereign state of "Germany" was there when the Nuremberg trials happened?

  Mustang: thanks for your clarification. It seems we agree on some points (but certainly not on all ;-)) .

  f.

  Edited by - fodeja on 1 September 2002 15:9:16
• 

  RandomTask

  They weren't, but my pint was was this felt by the entire west to be the right and moral thing to do. It wasn't the US who was in charge of this but many western nations who felt that they only moral course of action was to put these people to death.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  REALIST,

  you said..

  . the members of the EU (as the rest of the world except britain and israel) is pretty fed up with US foreign politics. neither germany nor any other country has a reason to get involved in this war against terrorism since it is the politics of the US that has caused the whole mess in the first place.

  Care to explain that? It is NOT the politics of the US that caused this whole mess but the HATRED of people like Osama Bin Ladin. It's the foreign politics of folks like the Germans that made WWI and WWII necessary. It was European inaction in the face of the outright slaughter of thousands in the former Yugoslavia that made our intervention there necessary. So explain where US politics are responsible rather than the hatred of the likes of OBL!
• 

  Farkel

  Englishman,

  I'm not going to comment on the moral issues, even though I have my opinion about them. Simply stated, the Germans are a sovereign power and they have a prisoner in their Country. Their country, their rules. Period.

  Although nothing is as black and white as I've just stated, still the USA has no right to dictate extradition terms in this case. We're talking about ONE prisoner, not a country like Afghanistan which harbored terrorists who committted an act of war on our soil, and then refused to turn over the perpetrators.

  So what if that prisoner is executed or serves a long, long life sentence? Either way, he's screwed.

  US Politicians are using this tempest-in-a-teapot to pander to the low common demoninator of "revenge" in the US populace so they can get votes. It's all bullshit.

  Farkel
• 

  Amazing

  Dear Fodeja:

  *sigh*

  Yes, sigh, poor thing ... feeling oh soooo frustrated because your superior inteligence is oh so taxed ... oh sigh.

  I found one "opinion" of yours provocative and downright stupid (because it's simply irrelevant to the issue and nothing except a sort of ad hominem attack). Your answer implied that you didn't mean it, after all, you used the "intended humor icon" at the end of the message.

  Oh now on top of provocative it is stupid ... but your opinion is oh so good and smart and not provocative. Why do you do that? My comment is not irrelevant, because Germany has a seriously tarnished history that needs more time before all the people from its Nazi era are long dead ... it has little business bringing up the death penalty issue.

  So, forgive my stupidity for not being able to decipher your grandiose writing (in spite of all that boldface and colored stuff) and enlighten me: was your accusation that the Germans oppose the death penalty (in part) because they feel bad about the 3rd Reich

  The German government signed onto the EU with voter consent. Therefore, it stands to reason that a majority of German citizens oppose the death penalty. This is no secret. But Mr. Moussaoui is not necessarily facing the death penalty, and his trial is not over. He has already admitted guilt, but the judge will not accept his admission, therefore, whether he is executed or not will have no bearing on whether the German authorities provide intelligence information. The German authorities are using this as a political football for a second agenda.

  Germans often have told me throughout my life of how bad they feel about the Nazi warlords and the concentration camps that executed millions of innocent people ... and it stands to reason that such might affect their current social views regarding the death penalty, much as Americans today bend over backwards to try and deal with racial issues left over from slavery. It is a natural consequence, very relevant ...

  ... and therefore, since you are the one who calls your own opinion stupid, then so be it if you cannot see the obvious connections and have a civil discussion with accusing me of trying to be provacative. You started with the allegations about my motives ... and ruined what otherwise was meant as a discussion, albeit with some little icon insertions that you keep making into a big deal.

  a) meant seriously,
  b) meant as a joke,
  c) not meant as anything, I'm just imagining it, it's all my fault, and I shouldn't take things out of context like all those aposta...oh, sorry, you get my drift.

  If you read the context, and use some common sense, you can see:

  1. Some points are obvious humor.

  2. My mood was light, and not provocative.

  3. The serious points stand out for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less.

  If you don't agree with a point, then please say what it is that you do not agree with, and deal with that. Why get into accusing me of having a provocative intention or motive? For when you start that you are really getting off track.

  Your attempt to connect the "quote" business to how apostates are viewed is very irrelevant, for in no way is this situation similar to how the Watchtower deals with matters. I am willing to debate you, respect your opinion, and respectfully disagree where necessary ... but you are the one who used "ad hominem" in going after my intentions ... I have yet to use ad hominem with you.

  Edited by - Amazing on 1 September 2002 17:33:45
• 

  larc

  ok, Frarkel, you are just a buchet of poop, not matter what you say, you are wrong, so just a life with it and accept it. you are do good worth of dog doo. Get a life man. Hey, am I being harsh. Course not. I be tryen to help ya, brova. Oh shit, give me a big hug, ((((Fraaaaakle)))