Sitzkreig
________________Ranger Question of the Day, important enough that it is in-line: Do we really want Germans back in the war making business?
April 2nd, three German soldiers were killed fighting Taliban insurgents in Northern Afghanistan (German Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Clashes.) This is a problem on many levels.
German military forces are forbidden from engaging in wars of aggression, under their U.S. imposed constitution. However, the Luftwaffe and Bundeswehr engaged in military operations in Bosnia in 1995, flying combat missions while Panzer Grenadiers occupied portions of the country, all under NATO auspices. (Of course, neither the U.S., Germany nor NATO was the victim of aggression from any Balkan nation.)
Since NATO is a defensive alliance, why are German troops in an offensive posture? German troops are electively being sent to Afghanistan under the ostensibly defensive NATO banner yet are seeing combat, even though neither Germany nor NATO have been attacked by either Afghanistan or the Taliban. A repeat performance of Bosnia, where German troops continued their occupation for the next 11 years.
The U.S. disingenuously painted the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 as military in nature hence the NATO justification. Of course, it is farcical to justify an aggressive war as a defensive reaction, especially absent a military attack. But that is the U.S. muck up.
But how does Germany define its role, now that its soldiers are being killed in armed conflict? The Germans say they are participating in a "non-international armed conflict" -- a strange definition conflicting with their phony description for their participation in a phony war.
The countryside of Afghanistan is filled with international soldiers trying to force their will upon the Afghan people. One wonders what Germany, Australia and all the other players hope to achieve in this war-that-isn't-a-war. Exactly how will training an Afghan Army with German assistance alleviate the threat of terrorism?
As an aside, online lad broadside Thrillist leads today with deceptive full-length door posters from a German firm: things like meat hanging in a slaughterhouse, German tanks and several prison scenes. Just the thing to make a happy home. They have a different sense of humor over there.
Maybe German Chancellor Merkel thinks a she's next in line for a Peace Prize by launching her grenadiers in a non-defensive war.
Stranger things have happened.
April 2nd, three German soldiers were killed fighting Taliban insurgents in Northern Afghanistan (German Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Clashes.) This is a problem on many levels.
German military forces are forbidden from engaging in wars of aggression, under their U.S. imposed constitution. However, the Luftwaffe and Bundeswehr engaged in military operations in Bosnia in 1995, flying combat missions while Panzer Grenadiers occupied portions of the country, all under NATO auspices. (Of course, neither the U.S., Germany nor NATO was the victim of aggression from any Balkan nation.)
Since NATO is a defensive alliance, why are German troops in an offensive posture? German troops are electively being sent to Afghanistan under the ostensibly defensive NATO banner yet are seeing combat, even though neither Germany nor NATO have been attacked by either Afghanistan or the Taliban. A repeat performance of Bosnia, where German troops continued their occupation for the next 11 years.
The U.S. disingenuously painted the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 as military in nature hence the NATO justification. Of course, it is farcical to justify an aggressive war as a defensive reaction, especially absent a military attack. But that is the U.S. muck up.
But how does Germany define its role, now that its soldiers are being killed in armed conflict? The Germans say they are participating in a "non-international armed conflict" -- a strange definition conflicting with their phony description for their participation in a phony war.
The countryside of Afghanistan is filled with international soldiers trying to force their will upon the Afghan people. One wonders what Germany, Australia and all the other players hope to achieve in this war-that-isn't-a-war. Exactly how will training an Afghan Army with German assistance alleviate the threat of terrorism?
As an aside, online lad broadside Thrillist leads today with deceptive full-length door posters from a German firm: things like meat hanging in a slaughterhouse, German tanks and several prison scenes. Just the thing to make a happy home. They have a different sense of humor over there.
Maybe German Chancellor Merkel thinks a she's next in line for a Peace Prize by launching her grenadiers in a non-defensive war.
Stranger things have happened.
Labels: germans killed in afghanistan, PWOT, war on terror. phony war on terrror
posted by rangeragainstwar at 11:54 PM
57 Comments:
The question is why anyone is involved in this madness... picking out the Germans because of WWII seems a very dated approach.
U.S. is bankrupt intellectually and morally? Maybe?
Jay in N.C.
JIM,
I'm not picking the Germans out b/c of WW2 , but rather only for what's going on today.
Germany and Japan both have restrictions placed on their military due to their asggressive war stance that caused a few problems.
If we unleash the Germans then what was the point of all the deaths in the ETO?
jim
let us not ever forget, the warsaw pact and nato were only nominally formed to watch each other, they were originally formed to give the germans no where to fucking march.
when i was assigned to nato staff i used to hang with guys from the dutch navy a lot. they were fun, and the dutch sailors still had a beer ration (which was filled with heinekens). they had a bad opinion of the germans from the west who were in nato.
one day we were sitting around the office pretending to give a shit and stuff and i remarked that the bagging on the germans talk had been semi-constant. i asked what was up.
a dutch petty officer called me to the window. there in the courtyard were five germans in civilian clothes getting ready to hit the town. they were going out two by two with their senior petty officer off to the side. they were walking in step.
my dutch friend pointed at them and said:
see? see? they like to march!
MB,
I say that if you spin a Ranger or a Seal he'll stop spinning pointing North. True not magnetic.
You do the same to a German troop and he'll be facing Moscow.
Remember the jolly panzer grenadiers in the Balkans doing Nato missions- they put an actual skull on their vehicle hood.
This would've made Hitler proud.
jim
So would the SF troops who stormed a party in Afghanistan, killed a bunch of innocent people, including 3 women, then actually went to the trouble of making it look like th women had been killed earlier by the Taliban.
History post WWII has proven that the German's aren't any more prone to atrocity than anyone else, they just made the mistake of murdering educated people with connections and then losing the war. Very bad idea.
rangeragainstwar, I prepared a topic on inadequate graphics in use by soldiers and honestly, the "skull" thing appears most often with U.S. troops.
It seems to be roughly proportional to the qty of troops; more U.S. troops yield more indecent photos.
Besides; indecent pictures of skulls have a long history, and it's not really specific to any nation.
The Dutch furthermore tend to cherish many prejudices against Germans; it's in part a "small, similar neighbour" syndrome and in part a "they stole my granddad's bicycle" story. I'm serious.
I'm actually for not unleashing the dogs of war, whoever is represented by them, unless it's really necessary. Let's limit ourselves to wars of necessity and we might end up producing no regrettable news in war zones.
an especially poor taste:
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4032/rahxe.jpg
Jim3rdOps says:
"History post WWII has proven that the German's aren't any more prone to atrocity than anyone else"
I really must jump in at this point. The Nazi Final Solution is unmatched in its scope and heinous intent, and it is within living memory. We don't live in an arbitrary cutoff post WWII.
The statement that he was "murdering educated people with connections" galls beyond belief.
He was not simply "murdering", Jim -- he was SYSTEMATICALLY ERADICATING a people.
Are you guys are military men who study history? Or are you just that bigoted? This is not directed at you, alone, Jim. This vile anti-Semitism is pervasive.
I have been most enlightened being involved with site and others --ostensible bastions of liberal thinking -- to see how deep the prejudice lies.
When seeking a graphic for this article yesterday, I toured a white power site where someone was lamenting they'd run out of T-shirts printed with, "Love him or hate him, Hitler sure killed a lot of Jews!"
So y'all are not white supremacists, but you share certain values.
To Jim3rdOps, et. al.,
Just considering the arrogant dismissals of Jewish people on this site is dizzying, and it's so casual, so expected, that it just passes by.
Reader Avedis in a recent toss off comment mentioned the "big mouthed" Jews, with lots of money. So, from where does this attitude emerge, an attitude we wouldn't think of voicing if we speaking of Rwandans or Norwegians or Christians?
I feel confident that wars will be our fate for some time to come ...
Lisa,
Typical knee-jerk response. Dare deviate from the mantra that The Holocaust is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe and out comes the cry of anti-semitism.
Never said the Holocaust wasn't a horrific event... I have studied it at great length and am always ready for a fight with deniers.
One might call you a white supremacist, since you are being so free with accusations, because you place the killing of white people on a pedestal above the slaughter of millions of Chinese, Cambodians, and thousands of Ruandans just to name a few similar events.
One isn't an anti-semite for thinking that mass murder of non-Jewish people is just as bad as the mass murder of Jewish people.
Then their is our own history of slavery and genocide...slowly stopped.. of the Native Americans...but....
Lisa,
Also, lumping me in with that other guys comment about "loud mouthed Jews" is pathetic. You ever see me say anything like that?
The 21st Century is so devoid of nuance. 99% of people seem only to think in black/white terms... deviate from the righteous way by a step and that's the end of you.
Sven,
My unit in RVN was MACVSOG and our unofficial patch was a deaths head, which i always say is/was inappropriate for a liberal democratic army to display.
The Navy/Air Force have a lot of skulls in their insignia designed for units.
The PZG's had a real live/dead skull hung on their vehicle which is just plain stupid.
The pic you sent appears to be a Frenchman with the skull face mask.
The rifle looks to be French issue.
jim
To all,
If i had known that this entry would've descended into a Holocaust argument, i would've never posted it.
My cmt/essay is not/was not about the Nazis, but about the here and now.
It's safe to say that right wing extremism is standing on the stage,out of sight.Keep in mind that the Killing Jews t shirts mentioned by Lisa are sold here in the Homeland and not in the Vaterland. Extremism is not a German monopoly, nor was i trying to infer that it was.
I'm disappointed at the tone of the interchange here. This is not what RAW is about
jim
I'm not a student of history but Jim 3rd Ops pretty much covered the points that jumped to my mind. Genocide did not begin or end with Nazi Germany. The Holocaust has gotten more publicity than the others and touched more educated and influential people worldwide than the others. At least that is my take on it.
I am in no way discounting the Holocaust but I do believe that equally horrific things have happened in other places and under other regimes. Genocide, or mass murder on an unbelievable scale is not specific to Germany - in my "opinion."
Spain and the Jews in 1492
Ireland under British rule - potato famine
China under Mao
Pol Pot
Rwanda
Nanking
Turkey and the Armenians
Stalin - God alone knows how many were murdered. I seem to remember reading that the majority of the Soviet POW's repatriated at the end of WWII were put to death. ?
Native Americans
As I said, I'm not a history major but these instances come readily to mind.
Killing people for the hell of it seems innate and specific to our species.
Jay in N.C.
Jim,
I've maintained a hands off attitude on the SF scenario that you reference.
If it's true , and i suspect that it is , then we've gone full circle.
This is not what my tabs are all about.
I know that we are in agreement on this point.
I adamantly believe ,and so state ,that the US didn't need to be in WW2.
The Holocaust was not causus belli for us to fight, even if we knew this was gonna happen.How was Hitlers pogroms any worse than the Stalin pogroms.As far as i'm concerned these two should've fought to the death and then we should've kicked Britains ass , just as a teaching point.
WW2 was nothing but an extension of wars reaching back to pre-roman times.We had no need to be in it since Hitler couldn't even invade Britain across the channel, much less the US across the big pond. Our participation was elective regardless of the historical rhetoric of justifying our actions.
Historically we baited the Japs.
jim
Oops! RAW did his last comment while I was trying to do a post.
I realize that he did not intend a discussion of the Holocaust.
My only opinion/point is that a holocaust is always a possibility regardless of the nation or ethnic group. Whoever has the money, guns, and power is inclined to do away with the "others."
Jay in N.C.
Jay,
The fault of the Germans was that they were proud of their actions and documented their nastiness while Stalin had the foresight to keep cameras away from the gulags.
I'm not bashing Germans-i'm pointing out the need to keep them on a leash.
It's unwise to do otherwise.
jim
Ranger, I have a question (nothing to do with this topic) on which I would very much like your opinion but I do not want to publicly post the question. Is there a way for me to offer it privately?
Thanks
Jay in N.C.
"The pic you sent appears to be a Frenchman with the skull face mask.
The rifle looks to be French issue."
It's a Steyr AUG, not a FAMAS. That's an Austrian design.
The patch doesn't resemble the national flag of any UNAMID participating country and Third World armies on UN mission are often using unusual equipment, so I don't know about the nationality of the soldier.
I didn't mean to imply that he's American.
"I'm not bashing Germans-i'm pointing out the need to keep them on a leash.
It's unwise to do otherwise."
It's unwise to ignore that the people who had a say in '45 are almost all long dead and the present Germans have less resemblance to the WW2 Germans than do the inhabitants of certain other countries.
The German society and culture changed a lot and had a long, strong and sincere effort to learn from history. Others did not learn the same lessons due to the illusion that the events were not an expression of human fallibility but of German fallibility.
You shouldn't be careful about Germans for their destructive potential as much as you should be careful about nations that did not spend as much effort in learning from the past.
It's generally unwise to learn only from the own nation's past. Almost all lessons are in foreign history.
Nations that reject the notion that they should learn from other's failures as if they were their own will either learn lessons the hard way or never.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/06/learning-from-past.html
Jim:
"I'm not bashing Germans-i'm pointing out the need to keep them on a leash. It's unwise to do otherwise."
That Leash would be NATO, consistently commanded by an American General, and a Euro Diplo. I think Nato is now, and has been for many years, a Jobs Program. Should the Russkies, or other Eastern Hordes ever metastasize threateningly (a dubious proposition IMO, since invading, occupying, destroying territories /peoples does little to enhance your own GDP), then NATO would have a Raison D'être.
Which gets us to the meat n' Taters of this contretemps of an argument. I think the US should get the fuck out of NATO, or get thrown out, like the loudmouth drunk that it is.
This would allow the Euros to mitigate any Teutonic Military resurgence through their own NATO.
Would this be an acceptable leash to you, Jim?
Today's Germans (correct me if I'm wrong, Herr Ortmann) are on a thousand year guilt trip......and like the third Reich, their trip won't last but a fraction of that.
It's in the genes....I Know, I have a funny story on that....might echo mail you that one later.
fasteddiez,
Spot-on, on all. U.S. out of NATO didi mau (as MB might say.)
"Today's Germans are on a thousand year guilt trip......and like the third Reich, their trip won't last but a fraction of that."
Elegance.
That "guilt trip" isn't lasting forever, the old Nazis are dead or dying and much of the youth is simply annoyed by the collective guilt hypothesis that's on the one hand being rejected officially and on the other hand internalised in rituals.
There's no reason to feel guilt if you did nothing bad yourself.
Do Americans still feel that their politics should be constrained and they should feel guilty because of massacring Native Americans, wars of aggression in Latin America and elsewhere and slavery?
The historical analogy that fits best to describe an "unleashed" Germany isn't the Third Reich.
It's rather the 1871-1912 period:
- Scaring the hell out of other countries with research, innovation and industrial excellence
- economic powerhouse with relatively large population
- focused on European politics
- united
- in peace (Germany had only three small wars and no European war in the entire 1871-1914 period and wasn't engaged in an army arms race until it reacted to French army expansions belatedly in 1912).
Then again, the ties of cooperation in Europe are extremely strong - especially between Germany and France - and the mere idea of seeking success or security in distant wars is being rejected in Germany nowadays.
We're not going to invade anything unless we're doing it with many European partners.
There are many countries that are more dangerous, some even with a war of aggression in THIS generation - even European countries.
My stance on Germany & war is basically that it's nice if the World is serious about not to provoke Germany to go to war ever again because that will offer the best chance to keep us out of stupid wars.
Jim3rdOps,
I don't wish to be devoid of nuance, and you are right --people tend to be wildly partisan today.
But let's cut this clearly:
Your initial commo didn't mention the Holocaust("Dare deviate from the mantra that The Holocaust is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe and out comes the cry of anti-semitism.")
It did mention Hitler making the "mistake of murdering educated people with connections". Jay goes on to mention that the Holocaust
"touched more educated and influential people". But they weren't so influential that they prevented their eradication, so entrenched was [is] worldwide anti-Semitism that even those who could escape found few welcoming outposts.
This is the cry of most anti-Semites -- that all Jewish people are filthy rich, and this somehow heaps calumny upon them (even though untrue.) It is just not so.
Most of those murdered were German citizens of the average stripe -- civil servants, teachers, shop workers, etc. I'm sure you know this, yet you claim they enjoyed some favoritism.
My mother, who is not Jewish, grew up in a German neighborhood in NYC and noted a general jealousy towards Jewish people for their industriousness. However, most Jewish people who rose to great heights in the U.S. came over from Europe as paupers.
Now for our descent into the Absurd. Jim3rd says:
"One might call you a white supremacist ... because you place the killing of white people on a pedestal above the slaughter of millions of Chinese, Cambodians, and thousands of Ruandans just to name a few similar events."
I am not a genocide favoritist. They are all bad, and I mourn for all. However, I think most would admit that the cold efficiency of the Third Reich far outstrips that of machetes in the Congo.
Jim continues:
"One isn't an anti-semite for thinking that mass murder of non-Jewish people is just as bad as the mass murder of Jewish people."
But that is not what you originally said. Had you made a more global statement re. exploitation and power, we might have been in agreement.
"However, I think most would admit that the cold efficiency of the Third Reich far outstrips that of machetes in the Congo."
Actually, Rwanda kind of turned out to be a more extreme genocide than the Holocaust in my opinion.
It was extremely quick, secrecy was not even attempted, it was done almost by the general population and it was about neighbours killing each other.
Most Jews, Sinti&Roma, Communists and other who died in concentration camps weren't Germans.
The Nazis furthermore never managed to incite more than a "normal" progrom (vandalism with "only" ~400 dead) against Jews in Germany. The Russians had much worse progoms.
All else had to be kept a secret and the regime made sure that even those who knew about what happened would mostly (naively) think that it happened without Hitler's knowledge.
Rwanda was "different". The people listened to the radio, they heard about atrocities in other villages, took their machete or agricultural tools and killed their neighbours.
More interestingly, it happened only one (African) generation ago, not 65-68(!) years ago.
Lisa, by "educated and influential" I meant that enough German Jews escaped or survived to do a thorough job of publicizing the Holocaust so that its evils are widely known. American Jews contributed massively to revealing Nazi Germany and its treatment of Jews to the world.
At least, I knew about it as a young child and it has been a recurring theme in popular literature, movies, and scholarly work throughout my life.
I am almost knee-jerk pro-Israel and am about as far from anti-semitic as one can be. I do take your point that anti-semitism, which was once open and unapologetic, is now more subtle but almost as pervasive as in earlier years. Nonetheless, I don't think that making the argument that Germany is not an isolated instance of wholesale murder is anti-semitic.
I do wholeheartedly believe that any nation and any people are capable of doing exactly the same thing as the Nazis. I will agree that the Jews have been subjected to robbery, displacement, and slaughter more often than other people. That is the price they paid for centuries for not having their "own country."
Jay
Jay says:
"Nonetheless, I don't think that making the argument that Germany is not an isolated instance of wholesale murder is anti-semitic"
I agree, nor did I ever say as much.
Also,
"I do wholeheartedly believe that any nation and any people are capable of doing exactly the same thing as the Nazis"
While I concur that hatred knows no boundaries, and we know on the small scale (as with the Kitty Genovese case), people will turn a blind eye. But regarding the Nazis, their hideous Final Solution, and the Germans, I must borrow from Ms. Simon,
--Nobody does it better.
[you can reach Jim @ jim-at-rangeragainstwar.com.]
For the record, Lisa, I have agianst Jews per se.
I do have a big problem with Israel, her influence over Washington, her treatment of her own non-Jewish citizens and neighbors and, especially, how she is dragging us into potential war (perhaps actual) in that region. Certainly some of our involvement in this PWOT is due to our unquestioning support of Israel's inhumane policies.
Israel can do these things because there are well organized, very vocal, wealthy groups of Jews from Israel and from here at home that are very dedicated to an agressive zionist cause. These are facts are noting them is not anti-semitic.
I do not feel that gentile buy in is fair, appropriate or desirable.
I chose the handle "avedis" not because I am a percussionist, but because it is an Armenian word and because I am of Armenian descent on my father's side.
My grandfather and grandmother survived the genocide perpetrated by the Turks and Kurds; each being the only ones left alive out of their entire extended families. BTW, Turkish and Kurdish deprevations weren't just in 1915. THat was just the "final solution". There was a long history leading up to that event.
My grandfather lived with us after my grandmother died (when I was 3 or 4). He told me the stories. He did not lack for industry. His first act after becoming a citizen was to enlist in the US Marine Corps hoping to have a chance to kill Turks in WW1, but mostly wanting to serve his new country. He barely had English. He was so oustanding that he was promoted from private directly to sergeant by a BGen (I have the paperwork framed). He was a fine farmer and horseman; working from sun up to sun down every day, except Sunday, until 88 years old (when he dropped dead).
Armenians, generally, have made contributions to this country disproportiate to their population size.
Yet, our government won't even ask Turkey to admit to what it did to people like my grandpa. Nor does it do anything for an Armenia that is surrounded by enemies who continue to commit malicious acts of agression; like cutting of pipelines for natural gas used for heating.
You will have to excuse me if I find the fact of the holocaust less than justification for our support of zionism as it has been implemented.
Avedis
first line should read "...nothing against..."
brain faster than hand.
avedis
Range, there are too many "Good Germans in THIS country.
Avedis,
"For the record, Lisa, I have agianst Jews per se"
Freudian slip? "Per se"? One should have nothing against members of a particular religion, period.
Are you like Letterman and keeping a Top Ten list of genocides? If so, your Armenian one @ 600,000 ranks well below the Holocaust.
Armenian? Can you just imagine being an Armenian Jew?
You say:
"I do not feel that gentile buy in is fair, appropriate or desirable"
..tell it to the U.N.
Sven says:
"Germany had only three small wars and no European war in the entire 1871-1914 period"
...small wars are so much better than big ones...
Lisa, most scholars have the number killed in 1915 closer to a million (or more) with another million displaced, out of a population of about three million. And that's just in 1915. As I said, the problems were ongoing for a long long time prior to 1915. But who cares. We are talking christian gentiles and denial is permissable. Perhaps you are one who is ready to argue that the Armenians "brought it upon themselves".
No equivalent of Spielberg to tell the story and reinforce the need for payback. No equivalent of AIPAC greasing palms in Congress. No equivalent of the anti-defamation league. No whining/no begging/no excuse making; just getting on with life.
A race with a third killed, a third displaced. Pretty much disasterous by any standards. But some peoples have enough class and character to not use such a history as an excuse to turn around and do the same to someone else.
Freudian slip? Cute. I knew you would say that.
Getting back to the original point of Ranger's post. I say go ahead, let the Germans do whatever they want.
If we are willing to unconditionally support a bunch of fanatics that believe they are god's chosen people (LOL) who have a right to "the promised land" up to and including the murder of the prior occupents of said land, then why not allow the Germans to have a whatever military presense in the world they desire? At least they are no longer publicly declaring themselves to be the master race.
Turks have been allowed to engage in military adventurism since the Korean war.
Liberal thinking? My bet would be that any Palistinian would call Bullshit on your self righteousness.
Hava nagila? No thanks. I'd rather have a tequila. Adios.
avedis
avedis,
1 Mil is not 6 Mil, so in your hierarchy, the poor Armenians fall short of top billing (displacement doesn't = death, so that Mil on the march doesn't qualify for inclusion.)
avedis says, "But who cares. We are talking christian gentiles and denial is permissable."
Sorry, I just don't get all that choked up about Christians, as they've perpetrated most of the atrocities in the past few millennia and often against the Jewish people.
Far as Jewish people killing "the prior occupents of said land", I really think that's goin' both ways. Mr. Arafat refused 99% of the occupied lands during Clinton's administration. Occupied lands occurred because Israel has fought five wars and won them; spoils of victory. The Golan Heights provided a little protection for a while. We like occupying lands, too.
By any stretch, Israel's situation is dire. Oh, and the Jewish people were the "original" occupants.
I see the absurdity of this life, avedis. To compare atrocities is the height of arrogance, and I would never think to do it. The world spins round, and we crazy monkeys boot people out, brutalize our fellows, or deny them their lives, all whilst praying to God and feigning belief that no one knows the date and time of our departure but the Big Guy.
This is why I often choose such absurd songs or quotes, and ironically juxtapose. I'm trying to say, we're all pretty absurd.
Seriously, get off the idea that the U.S. has any say about what Germany does. That ended in 1990.
Germany is a sovereign country now, and the U.S. would need to defeat the entire EU militarily (the Lisbon treaty is also a defensive alliance) before it could dictate anything to a European country such as Germany.
Good luck with that, especially as the Russians would certainly not allow this to happen and two EU members are nuclear powers.
In short: The U.S. has no veto right or whatever on Germany's policies. We do what we want and can do. The "leash" is a mere illusion, and this illusion isn't a compliment to those who stuck to it.
Sadly, such an overestimation of the U.S.'s ability to dictate or allow things in the world is not uncommon at all.
To Lisa and Sven,
Small wars are big wars with training wheels attached.
jim
Sven,
Yes, i'm in favor of letting our comrades doing as they please. It's alright with me.
jim
To all,
I say again- this entry had nothing to do with the Holocaust in WW2.
This is NOT a topic that i would dare to write or even think about.
I have way too many concerns for today and tomorrow to worry about yesterday.
That's what i try to write about.My writings don't change present day reality and they certainly won't affect the past , or what people believe about the past. We can't even agree what terrorism entails, let alone defining the parameters of who shot John.
Again, i should have known better than to post this entry.
I'm learning.
jim
To all,
I must add that we are all friends here and the level of this discussion is way too personal for my likes.
That's not what we're supposed to be about.
All of us'ns.
jim
Jim says,
"Again, i should have known better than to post this entry"
Au contraire! I believe you misunderstand how the game can be played when people choose to let their prejudices rise, and it's all o.k., really. If people choose to engage in heated debate, they may. Some of us feel passionately, and are not afraid to make that known.
This (life, site) is not always about playing pretty, or burying what you perceive as uncomfortable. That's not how some of us choose to play it.
Don't be petrified of it. You can't stop it -- this is public discourse. Just sit back for the ride. Heads won't roll -- these are words. An yes, we have respect. We want to understand each other. reifications may only occur via dialog.
From "Message in the Bottle" (Walker Percy):
Where are the Hittites?
Why does no one find it remarkable that in most world cities today there are Jews but not one single Hittite even though the Hittites had a great flourishing civilization while the Jews nearby were a weak and obscure people?
When one meets a Jew in New York or New Orleans or Paris or Melbourne, it is remarkable that no one considers the event remarkable. What are they doing here? But it is even more remarkable to wonder, if there are Jews here, why are there not Hittites here?
Where are the Hittites? Show me one Hittite in New York City.
Fr. his, "Why are you a Catholic?":
The only other sign in the world which cannot be encompassed by theory is the Jews, their unique history, their suffering and achievements, what they started (Judaism,Christianity), and their presence in the here-and-now.
The Jews are a stumbling block to theory. They cannot be subsumed under any social or political theory (Marx, Weber and so forth). Even Arnold Toynbee, whose
theory of history encompassed all other people, looked foolish when he tried to encompass the Jews. The Jews are both a sign and a stumbling block.
That is why they are hated by theorists like Hitler (fascism/racism) and Stalin (fascism/communism). The
Jews cannot be gotten around.
The great paradox of the Western world is that even though it was in the Judeo-Christian West that modern science arose and flourished, it is Judeo-Christianity which the present-day scientific set of mind finds the most offensive among the world's
religions.
Judaism is offensive because it claims that God entered into a covenant with a single tribe, with it and no other. Christianity is doubly offensive because it claims not only this but also that God
became one man, He and no other.
One cannot imagine any statement more offensive to the present-day scientific set of mind...
To me they're just a tiny, overrated group of people scattered over much of the world. They're about as interesting as the Lebanese.
Lisa, I'd like to give the advice to use the "anti-semite!" thing with more caution.
I as a German have seen this accusation being used far too often with far too little consideration. I've even seen Jewish publicists being accused!
"educated people with connections" wasn't a "anti-semitism" tell-tale sign. Think of the Roma & Sinti, the homosexuals, Communists and others who were put to death in the same camps - and aren't remembered as well.
History is being written by survivors; the Sinti&Roma hadn't the education and the communists hadn't the connections in the West to create the same kind of outrage as did the Jews. Sure, more Jews (I think they prefer "Jewish people"?) were put to death, but the quality was the same.
I'm sure the holocaust wouldn't have been remembered as well if Hitler had ordered the killing of 6 million homosexuals, communists and Sinti/Roma.
Mr. Ortmann says the Jewish people are "a tiny, overrated group of people", and uses the cases of "h" provocatively:
"the holocaust wouldn't have been remembered as well if Hitler..."
Nice effort, O., but I'm really not into race-baiting.
Guten tag, friend.
Oh, and Sven, a few stanzas from song you might enjoy,
"Neighborhood Bully (Dylan):
"Well, he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn’t hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He’s the neighborhood bully.
"Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He’s made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one’s command.
He’s the neighborhood bully.
"Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He’s the neighborhood bully.
"What’s anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin’, they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He’s the neighborhood bully.
"What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.
Lisa,
Excuse me!!
I thought this blog was about thinking rather than passionate feelings.
If i want emotions i'll write an Ann Landers blog.
This discourse has nothing to do with dialogue ,istm that everybody is talking at rather than with one another.
jim
Jim say,
"I thought this blog was about thinking rather than passionate feelings"
Can it be both?
Oh, and Mr. Ranger:
Why is it you address me personally on the "passionate feelings" bit?
Hmmm...
"cases of h", "race-baiting" ?
Sorry, you exceeded my vocabulary.
I can only reply with a general statement; In case of doubt, just read what I wrote and don't interpret anything into it that I didn't write.
Chances are I really meant what I wrote and not much else.
A mere 13.2 million people are really not that interesting in a world that doesn't know whether it has 6.8, 6.9 or maybe already 7 billion human inhabitants. So yes, they're over-rated. They have "elite" status in Western mainstream media and get exaggerated coverage and attention.
Did you know that much of Africa's trade depends on networks of exile Lebanese, Indians and Chinese? I certainly learned more easily about the less important Jewish diaspora than about Lebanese, Asian Indians and Chinese in foreign countries.
Sven,
The Jewish people may over-perform out of all proportion to their numbers, but they are most certainly not "over-rated".
Check out the percentages of Jewish Nobel Prize laureates.
Who are these vaunted Lebanese you keep speaking of? :)
Oh, come on. Nobel prizes are a poor metric, especially as they weren't really open for non-Western people until after WW2.
The notable Lebanese are unknown in the West because they aren't Western. Even Japan got none before '49.
Lebanon = Phoenicia -> Carthage
A Phoenician sailed first around Africa, 2,000 years before the Portuguese did so.
Lebanon => the most impressive international network of a small nation since the demise of Venice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_diaspora
My point was that the attention for the Jewish is completely out of proportion if you look at their numbers. Europeans should allocate several times as much attention to the Ukrainians as to the Jewish. The Ukrainians are much more numerous and simply more important for Europe.
Sven,
Don't worry -- only 20 of their 165 Nobels were won prior to WW II (more than Japan's 16 subsequent).
Just for comparison, there are about 130 Million Japanese in the world today, compared to about 13 Million Jewish people.
Does everyone consider Israel or Jewish people "Western"? After all, it's a religion, and certainly all are not Western. They are a diaspora.
Ah, yes -- the dear Ukranians. Just another installment in the brutality against Jewish people.
A movement is afoot to honor the members of the WW II Ukranian undergroud (UPA) as brave defenders of the motherland.
Small problem is that they "collaborated with the Nazis, killed thousands of Jews and perpetrated a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Poles."
Brutality all 'round, eh, Sven?
I have to throw in my two cents on this. The holocaust was a terrible thing but it seems that society believes that the only people that suffered in WW2 were Jews. Over 50 million people died in WW2 and more than 20 million of them were Russians. If anyone has the right to play the victim its them.
First, the number of Jews killed during the holocaust has been steadily decreasing, it is now at 6.5 million and not 8. Russia had a minimum of three times as many deaths.
Second, Lisa you stated being Jewish was a religion which is correct. However were the Nazis killing people who practiced the faith or were of that decent? Also, is Israel a country for people of the Jewish religion or decent? I think that this is an important distinction in this discussion.
Lastly you said that the land the Jews got (Israel) is rightfully theirs. I hope you see how tainted and flawed that argument is. Should we give back the entire United States to the Native Americans? What about Europe to Italy since the Romans conquered it way back when? How far back do we go to determine the rightful owner of a land?
Joe, et. al.,
Where did we ever get off on this being a Jewish thang? Everybody knows their history (even though it wasn't taught in MY h.s.): lots of people were disposed of by the Germans.
The fact that so many must argue against the Jews on this small post on a liberal site tells me the Jews have an uphill battle, and few friends.
I guess the fundamentalists are behind them, only so that Israel can be smoked, and they can ascend to heaven in the Rapture.
Well, I hope everyone will be happy when Israel's gone and you have only the wrath of the entire Middle East to contend with.
"The fact that so many must argue against the Jews on this small post on a liberal site tells me the Jews have an uphill battle, and few friends."
That is what happens when you create a racial state and continuously violate human rights. To top that all off they justify their actions with "well they would do (or did) the same things to us". Oh and I "support" all that with my tax dollars since we send billions in aid to Israel every year. Lovely.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Being Jewish or Israel doesn't mean they can't be criticized regardless of whether they had a rough history.
Jim,
What do you mean, "They created a racial state"?
The U.S. sends wads of money and weapons to everyone -- friend or foe.
Lisa; I didn't even criticize the Jewish/Jews/Israel here.
Post a Comment
<< Home