Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (148229)	11/22/2005 8:41:02 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793670

I received the following from a friend. There are two articles, one from the popular German magazine (Die Welt) and one from a Spanish magazine. UW Remember the history of appeasement and consider the following statement: "It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness." This is not a problem that is going to be easy to solve. It is the struggle to maintain our Western way of life and the very culture that has made it possible. Lose this one, and our grandchildren will be speaking Arabic, those of them that survive the "conversion". Look at what has been happening in Europe. For all practical purposes they won Spain without any effort on their part other than a couple of bombs in public places. Now they are burning Paris and hitting on Holland and Belgium. Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. This is a must read by all Americans. History will certify its correctness. EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is a translation of an article from a Spanish newspaper. The truth must be told! All European life died in Auschwitz By Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth that all Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned. And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (148229)	11/22/2005 9:11:55 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Jochen, I call it as I see it. See how your repressive Nazi tendencies popped straight to the surface? <I see on CNN German soldiers on the march through the night carrying flames on sticks in their Nazi-looking uniforms. They are celebrating their elections or something. What is it with your Germans-Nazis obsession? > "What is with..." implies the person is beyond the pale and "obsession" says the person is obsessed. Having a belief based on experience and knowledge which one recounts only occasionally when confronted with another example and commenting on it as a warning is hardly an obsession. Those who opposed Adolf in the 1930s weren't obsessed, they could see the Panzers lining up to drive over them. What is it with you and your obsession about my comments? If you read the last 100 of my posts [click on my name to get them], I don't think you'll find more than 10% of them are ranting on about German Nazi tendencies. You can't count posts about China's 50th celebrations and general political demeanour as being Nazi-like. The Nazi style is not a German patent, it's pandemic to a greater or lesser extent around the world. Germans, being orderly, efficient, disciplined and generally teutonic raised it to a fine art using significant intellectual wherewithal to conduct their operations, which made it all the more scary because it wasn't just the more chimpoid among us going ape in a wanton way. You will find posts from me on the substantial authoritarian nature of the USA and I am more worried about where that is leading than I am about Germany, which has got a worryingly large horde of unemployed who would look excellent in black uniforms with military insignia. The devil finds work for idle hands. I am also somewhat interested in Germany because three times in a century they have rampaged murderously across the landscape directly affecting my family. Ironically, as happens in human affairs, there's a bit of teutonic in me via the Bongards who were apparently German [my maternal teutonic ancestors' genes married my French and English forbears - Romeo and Juliet/Fiddler on the Roof wasn't just a nice story]. I've always wondered if they would do it again. My experience of people [and animals] is that they have a nature and they more or less manifest it as circumstances arise. <There's a lot more parading going on in the USA yet I haven't seen you calling them Nazis. Don't bite the hand that feeds you? > There's more than a little German influence in the USA, but it's a bit of a melange and doesn't seem to get traction though they have conducted a LOT of military actions and have quite a military, belligerent, authoritarian mindset for all their cant about freedom and individualism. New Zealand too has worrying tendencies with a burgeoning state and Big Brother socialist authoritarianism. But we lack Panzers to have an effect on outside countries. Helen Clark is planning on taking over the UN when she has finished with NZ [I think though that hasn't been stated] and that's a way of spreading the socialist Bossy State pathology. Even if David Irving does dispute that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz [which I doubt he does - have you got a quote from him, not somebody else?] so what? I don't think that's a crime. Come to think of it, I deny it too. I've visited Dachau's memorial and the Holocaust Museum but forget the details. I've read stuff and seen lots of photographs, but can't actually specifically recall evidence that Auschwitz had gas chambers. I am long enough in the tooth to know that people lie to make their case, or they are simply wrong having misunderstood. I can't actually say that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz. It would be quite a slander for me to say so about the nice villagers of Auschwitz and lovely German people if I don't have evidence, which I don't. Right now, I'd have to start scavenging around hoping to find direct evidence that there were in fact said gas chambers. I'd have to deny that there were as one couldn't think that Germans could do such a horrific thing so out of human experience. Do you really think Germans are up to that sort of thing? Good grief! Are they really that bad? Has Germany caught those who conducted those operations and how many thousand people do they have investigating such alleged vast crimes to ensure the perpetrators are all caught before they die? I haven't heard of Germans trying to catch them, so I can't believe there were any. Out of respect for the Great Gentle German people [GGG] I'd deny it too. Heck, one wouldn't want to be caught up in such a racist fantasy. That medieval-looking military parade in black regalia was also just pretend, not real. Back to ranting, Mqurice PS: Yes, it is 3am and I'm awake with a spot of insomnia; subconsciously worrying about the Nazis coming to get me [NZ govt version].

To: Elsewhere who wrote (148229)	11/22/2005 9:13:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Will Germany's Coalition Work? By Henry A. Kissinger Tuesday, November 22, 2005; Angela Merkel takes office as chancellor of Germany at a moment of crisis for a country poised between domestic reform and economic doldrums and social deadlock, between stalemate and new creativity on European integration, and between tradition and the need for new patterns in the Atlantic Alliance. When I first saw the close election results and the makeup of the Grand Coalition that is to govern, I feared deadlock. How would a chancellor with disappointing electoral results tame a coalition of parties historically in strident opposition to one another, and that had bitterly split on almost all issues in the recent election? And the foreign policy issues -- especially the disputes with the United States -- have become so embedded in German public opinion that significant modifications might prove unfeasible, especially as the new foreign minister is one of the closest associates of the outgoing chancellor. But there is an alternative prospect to which I am increasingly leaning. Both coalition parties know that if they frustrate each other, the coalition will break up and each will face the dilemmas that obliged them to form it in the first place. When the departing chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, attempted marginal reforms, it threatened to split the Social Democratic Party. When Merkel offered a far-reaching, market-oriented alternative, it divided the electorate almost evenly -- indeed, with a slight majority for the left if one includes former communists. Thus a deadlock might make the dominant parties irrelevant by producing a major electoral shift to minor parties or to new ones at the extremes of the political spectrum. The personality of the new chancellor provides additional hope. It was fashionable to deprecate Merkel's apparent charisma deficit during the electoral campaign. But for the chancellor's office, the extraordinary achievement of her rise may prove more relevant. Within a short time, she advanced from obscure scientific researcher in communist East Germany to chancellor, without representing a special constituency of her own, against opponents in her own party who had spent their lives scrambling up the political ladder. Her single-minded persistence in the pursuit of substantive goals may create its own impetus in the day-to-day business of governing. Foreign policy is the field where the scope for leadership is greatest. During the Cold War, Europe needed American power for its security. And the trauma of its wartime history produced a moral impulse in Germany to return to the world community as a partner of the United States. A sense of a common destiny evolved which led to the foundation of the Atlantic Alliance, spurred European integration and helped submerge tactical differences. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended Europe's strategic dependence on the United States; the emergence of a new generation ended Germany's emotional dependence on U.S. policy. For those who came to maturity in the 1960s and afterward, the great emotional political experience was opposition to the Vietnam War and deployment of medium-range missiles in Germany. This dissociation from the United States escalated into massive demonstrations, especially in 1968 and '82. When the collapse of the Soviet Union coincided with a change of government in Germany, the stage was set for a modification in the tone as well as the substance of allied relationships. A similar shift of generations in the United States moved the center of gravity of U.S. politics to regions less emotionally tied to Europe. It is likely that any German chancellor would have been reluctant to join the war in Iraq. But no chancellor or foreign minister not of the '68 generation would have based his policy on overt opposition to the United States and conducted two election campaigns on a theme of profound distrust of America's ultimate motives. Nor would demonstrative joint efforts with France and Russia to thwart American diplomatic efforts at the United Nations have been likely. Mistakes were made on both sides of the Atlantic. The proclamation by the Bush administration of a new strategic doctrine of preemptive war was one of them. The doctrine was intellectually defensible in light of changed technology, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism. But announcing unilaterally what appeared as a radical change of doctrine ran counter to traditional alliance practice. In the end, the issue of multilateralism vs. unilateralism does not concern procedure but substance. When purposes are parallel, multilateral decision follows nearly automatically. When they diverge, multilateral decision making turns into an empty shell. The challenge to the Atlantic Alliance has been less the abandonment of procedure than the gradual evaporation of a sense of common destiny. Both sides seem committed to restoring a more positive collaboration. In America, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outlined a new consultative approach in a February speech. In Germany, the Merkel government marks the advent of a third postwar generation: less in thrall to the emotional pro-Americanism of the 1950s and '60s but not shaped by the passions of the so-called '68 generation. This will be the case with the new foreign minister from the Social Democratic Party. The generational change is especially pronounced in the case of the chancellor. With her systematic scientist's approach, Merkel will avoid choosing between Atlanticism and Europe or confusing sentimental moves toward Russia with grand strategy. Matter-of-fact, serious and thoughtful, she will strive to be a partner for a set of relationships appropriate to the new international order -- one that refuses to choose between France and the United States but rather establishes a framework embracing both. The Bush administration has shown willingness to cooperate. Indeed, one concern is that cooperation may shade into an enthusiasm that overwhelms the dialogue with short-term schemes drawn from the period of strain. The administration needs to take care to restrain its proclivity to conduct consultation as a strenuous exercise in pressing American preferences. Scope needs to be left for the elaboration of a German view of the future. The key challenge before the Atlantic nations is to develop a new sense of common destiny in the age of jihad, the rise of Asia, and the emerging universal problems of poverty, pandemics and energy, among many others. The writer, a former secretary of state, is chairman of Kissinger Associates.