quote:Ok, Germany has done "nothing" in the international spectrum to give "aid" to the world. They have also not used their Military in "any" way either humanitarian wise or in defense of "anything", "anywhere".
Chad, that is baldly incorrect.
Germany deployed troops in: - Somalia - Bosnia
Participated in (e.g., with support teams): - other UN missions - other OSCE missions (e.g., oversight of Afghan elections) - the Bosnia and Kosovo "Contact Group" (leading to the loss of diplomat Gerd Wagner and several soldiers)
Sent: - 3.1 million Euro to the UN for Sudan - 6 million Euro to the UN to aid Iraq reconstruction - more than 20 million Euro for Darfur aid - 100,000 Euro's worth of communications equipment to the UN for use in Sudan
And on and on and on.
[What Tom and AJ said.]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Did you not even do a basic google search for "germany peacekeepers" ?
Furthermore, as Bush was certainly able to get countries without troops in Iraq into Iraq within 6 months after the invasion, I'm wondering what flight of partisan fancy makes you think Kerry couldn't get troops from countries without troops currently in Iraq into Iraq within 6 months? Not to mention that Bush is still doing a wonderful job of driving allied troops out of Iraq, so keeping those around alone would be an improvement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
It is not okay to deliberately spread misinformation or to deliberately embrace one's ignorance of other countries (while claiming to know about them), not here. I don't know which route you have taken, but stop it.
For one thing, he might not have been aware of Germany's fairly extensive peacekeeping efforts; for another, he simply might not consider these efforts extensive by his standards.
While I'm persnickety enough to call him out on things like "wussy," I'd suggest that we NOT consider his expression of political opinions -- however well-informed or not -- to be an open invitation to insult him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As in previous years, Africa received the most funding, EUR 16.6 million, which was used to support 97 projects focusing primarily on the Great Lakes region, West Africa, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa.
O_O
What kind of projects are they doing in the Great Lakes?!?! Why are Africa and Germany focusing there? Don't they have enough problems to take care of at home?!
posted
*grin* I don't think it was an intentional pile, we just all had the same idea at the same time. However the combined posts added up. I agree that the kindest explanation is ignorance.
posted
Well, when he admits that he was wrong JUST ONCE, then I think that the dogpiling on him will be unwarranted. Instead, he shoots off fact-less data and claims them as ultimate truth, then ignores or disregards factual data given as some 'liberal spin.'
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have little respect for those who base their arguments against candidates on the shapes of clouds they see in their mind's eye.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, thank you for posting those links. I do see their financial EU contributions, but I am not finding there (or at any of the links) where they have committed Peacekeeping troops on a large scale.
Maybe someone has the breakdown of how many troops they have committed in Afghanistan, Former Yugoslavia, etc.
Again, I was wrong about their financial contributions.
quote: It is not okay to deliberately spread misinformation or to deliberately embrace one's ignorance of other countries (while claiming to know about them), not here. I don't know which route you have taken, but stop it.
Stop it.
Sara, I'm going to have to ask you to stop personally insulting members of this board. Stop it.
Stop it now.
Keep your opinions to the thread and topics and NOT on members of the board.
That said, what does Germany want in order to commit troops to Iraq now?
Have they agreed to commit troops based on certain concessions that if given would have their troops deployed asap?
I don't know what they are asking (other than the rumored oil contracts they had under Sadaam.) and so I ask.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being in charge of UN peacekeeping in Kosovo wasn't a big thing? Also, I recall your statements were that Germany was "missing" everywhere:
quote: Gulf War I? Missing. Yugoslavia? Missing. Anywhere in Africa? Missing. Anywhere in the world? Missing.
Every single one of these statements has been completely refuted. You now edge around it and say they didn't have any substantial number of troops there. Stop being wishy washy. Stop changing your arguments because your facts keep getting smacked down. Come up with an argument that agrees with the facts, then stick to it.Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, Sara is one of the most loved members of this board. You really don't know what you are messing with here. And either a) you were deliberately spreading misinformation b)you were misinformed yourself by a reliable source or c) you're willfully ignorant blowhard and d) incapable of doing a simple google search.
I'm not arguing with the opinion part that Tom pointed out. None of the above options speaks well for you. I think you have done an admirable job in triying to tone down your posting style to fit this forum. But if your facts are wrong, they are wrong and that's what we object to.
posted
Chad, you did not merely claim that Germany did not commit "sufficient" troops or "on a large enough scale." You did not merely claim that Germany did not contribute "sufficient" humanitarian aid or "on a large enough scale."
This is what you said [bold added by me for emphasis]:
quote: Well, let's look at all military/humanitarian efforts the country has been involved in since unification....
Oh wait, there aren't any.
quote:No, I never claimed that. I claimed they are wussy and no one has been able to show in any way in which they are not.
Unless you happen to have any evidence of their military might from the last 10 to 20 years.
Or humanitarian also would be accepted.
I await the proof that they are NOT wussies and why.
quote:A wussy is someone who can't defend themselves, has no military power, offers nothing to the world, makes threats but cowers when confronted, but feels like they have a right to dictate their wishes on those who do.
quote:Ok, Germany has done "nothing" in the international spectrum to give "aid" to the world. They have also not used their Military in "any" way either humanitarian wise or in defense of "anything", "anywhere". ... I've provided my proof. Their wussies, and John Kerry's future "war friends".
I shudder to think of that future.
Either you deliberately lied, or you didn't care enough about matters of (eaily verifiable and important) fact to check with a simple Google search.
Take it back, and explain why you did it, please.
It was decisive, but it was wrong.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admitted I was wrong on the financial aspect. If Germany is willing to donate BILLIONS to Iraq, then that is definately a large plus.
But what I am concerned about is that they match their monetary donation with the same in ground forces/military.
Could someone provide me with the numbers for their troop involvement from GWI to present in international UN business.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, if you explore further on that site, you will find that Germany has currently committed 10,000 troops and 2,000 civilians to more than half of the U.N.'s ongoing peacekeeping missions, making it one of the larger contributors of manpower as well.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now I watch you not even admit that you were wrong as to whether or not they had committed troops. You repeatedly stated that they had not committed any troops anywhere, and named specific places they had not committed troops (according to you). Those places have all been refuted. They contributed troops in every one of those places. Yet you do not admit you are wrong. Why?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying you were very categorical about proclamations that were clearly wrong.
It's about your actions, not you.
I do apologize for being abrupt and rude about it. I'd still like to hear your reasons for posting such things. Your actions here are things that you are held accountable for.
(If you'd like me to be held accountable for mine, you can use the whistle-blower icon. Or you can just ask me to delete those parts of my posts which you find offensive to you personally. I'd be happy with either, actually, although I won't be able to delete until after lunch. My husband awaits me for brunch.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Germany received international criticism for its unwillingness to assume a role proportionate to its military power and political importance. The strong pacifist streak in German society again manifested itself in anti-United States and antiwar demonstrations that contributed to an impression in some quarters of German indifference to Iraq's aggression. Germany did make a contribution of US$10 billion to the UN operation against Iraq, but its military actions were confined to the NATO area. German naval units and mine countermeasure ships were shifted to the Mediterranean to cover for NATO vessels sent to the Persian Gulf. After hostilities ended, German ships took part in mine-clearing operations in the gulf. German Alpha Jets and air defense missiles were deployed to Turkey, largely as a political gesture to demonstrate solidarity with other NATO countries involved in the conflict with Iraq. Later, German troops and helicopters were sent to northern Iran and Iraq to aid Kurdish refugees.
In December 1992, the government pledged to provide some 1,600 troops to regions of Somalia where peace had been restored to assist in reconstruction and the distribution of relief goods. The contingent included specialized logistic and medical units plus a small protective detachment of infantry troops. Despite political opposition, the government said it was determined to deploy troops to areas of Somalia where there was no fighting. German troops subsequently participated successfully in the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II).
German armed forces participated to a limited extent in several other UN-organized operations, generally ones with a humanitarian purpose that would evoke minimal criticism that the Basic Law was being flouted. In 1992 a group of some 150 Bundeswehr medical personnel went to Cambodia to provide health care to the 2,200 members of the UN mission in that nation. Amid objections from opposition parties, a destroyer and three reconnaissance aircraft were sent to join forces from seven other NATO countries in an attempt to monitor the UN embargo of Serbia. German troops were involved in delivery of food to the besieged city of Sarajevo but avoided airdrops that could result in conflict. Service by German crews on unarmed NATO reconnaissance aircraft to help enforce the "no-fly zone" was only narrowly approved by the Federal Constitutional Court.
quote: Germany is maxed out with 8,000 troops deployed abroad — primarily in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
I also found this:
quote: But a German government official notes that his country also has peacekeepers active in the Balkans. While not ruling out German participation in Iraq, this official says that it would probably be minimal. "I don't see that we would be able to send troops on the order of thousands," says this official.
So they do have a smattering of forces deployed, but in my opinion couldn't be considered substantial.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, Sara addressed behavior. She didn't call you a liar or a flip flopper. Though I was hoping you'd come up with some links that refute Tom's claim about gerbils and the president. at Tom.
If you ever feel you are coasting along marvelously on conservative rhetoric, it is because all the liberal posters are pulling links. I can't yet prove that they leave one guy to reply to you while they do it. After all, it is the Secret Liberal Cabal.
Summary: Don't ever coast on rhetoric. What kind of victory is "Germany is wussy"? Even if I'd been here I could have told you that I greatly admire them for having mandatory military service. I think it is only for men, but still, and admirable thing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back to the original purpose of the thread -- the debate discussion.
Farmgirl,
I'd kinda like to do that too, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest - this thread has moved on to something else. Rather than fighting it, I'm thinking of starting a separate thread looking at some of the (as I perceive it) weirdness in today's press coverage regarding the debate.
posted
Compared to the US its certainly small. Compared to everyone but the US, its pretty big, especially as (as noted) Germany has good reasons for not wanting to seem warlike. So unless someone has a comparable number of troop deployments as the US, they're wimpy? Putting 8000 citizens into harm's way in order to promote peace and deliver aid is wimpy?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
According to the 1999 link it had 370,000 active military personel in proportion to a population of 82 million inhabitants. I'm not sure how this compares to the US.
quote: Those places have all been refuted. They contributed troops in every one of those places. Yet you do not admit you are wrong. Why?
They did not commit troops to Gulf War I at all. It does appear they had "hundreds" in Yugoslavia, etc. and maybe a couple thousand in Afghanistan (which I didn't list.)
I admitted that I was wrong on their financial donations.
In my opinion (and I did list those posts as MY OPINIONS which means READ CLEARLY as my belief) what we may give up should be proportional to what we gain.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you not read the very quote you just posted? While Germany's contributions to Gulf War 1 were very small, they did send troops on missions in Iraq (primarily to aid refugees), and had troops on standby earlier in countries such as Turkey. Was their contribution large? No. Was it there? Yes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, if you don't mind me throwing a slightly different de-railing onto this thread, did anyone see the Daily Show coverage of the debates? They didn't use the clip I thought they would (well, I called a couple of them right silently to myself, but they didn't use the clip I claimed here on the forum that they would.)
But if any of you still doubt the bias of the interviewing (going back to the thread about Jon Stewart's interview of Kerry), did you notice the difference between how he handled his interviews, on the very same show, of Wesley Clark and Rudy Giuliani? He sucked up to Clark so hard it left a hickey. And every comment he made to Rudy sounded like he wanted to start a brawl. I was surprised that Rudy didn't challenge him to a duel.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We only have 18000 troops or so in Afghanistan. Considering Germany's expenditures on the military aren't even in the same order of magnitude as ours, having a few thousand there is a pretty big thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, Be a man already. You made a stupid, ignorant statement that also, as it turns out, was completely wrong. Own up to it. Stop acting like a little child trying to wiggle out of the consequences of your action.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Putting 8000 citizens into harm's way in order to promote peace and deliver aid is wimpy?
In a world of 5 billion plus it's not a large amount. Don't more people than that die on unnatural circumstances in one day?
Also, the US has what 130 or 140,000 troops in Iraq? Let's say Germany puts in 2,000 (which appears to be WAY more than they plan to).
That percentage is very small. I think the reconstruction they should be afforded should be equally small.
In fact I think that is where the problems arise.
The US wants those who contribute more to be given more. France and Germany want who gets what to be controlled by the UN, which means the UN will give them to whoever regardless of the troop deployment.
That based on previous UN "missions" in foreign countries where the United States has put SUBSTANTIALLY more into the operations, financially and militarily, but when it comes time to divy up the rebuilding contracts, etc. the playing field is made equal.
Again, this is just my take on the former Yugoslavia mission, but does ANYONE know a single person who worked rebuilding that country after the war from this country?
We contributed the most significant portion to those conflicts, yet I feel we were sort of "short sticked" on the role post war.
I am for getting what you put in. You put in more, you get more, you put in less, you get less. You pull out your troops, you get "0" as in Spain.
Perhaps I am putting the interests longterm of the United States before diplomacy, but that is my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see that question brought up in a future debate (yes, this is an attempt to get the Chad bashers back to thread topic so we'll see if they have any self control) to Kerry about which countries he "says" he has promises from of joining the coalition if he wins.
I remember him claiming that he has spoken with the leaders of many countries who said that if he won, they would join the coalition.
I want to know who they are and how many troops they promised to send.
That would be a good debate question.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, Chad, I'm a bit depressed by how important you seem to consider the reconstruction contracts.
(BTW, a simple "okay, so I was wrong" would probably go a long way with the crowd here, who seem upset that you're yet again refusing to acknowledge having been caught out in some substantial errors.)
posted
I am totally on board with making sure that the people who fought in the Iraq war should get the benefits that their sacrifices made possible. As such, I think any of the directors of Haliburton and other such companies that was down on the sand or driving a tank or flying a plane or heck, even working behind the lines as a medic should get special consideration in terms of awarding contracts. Other than that, what the heck did they do in this war that they should get special rewards out of it? If the money they were making was getting funneled into bonuses for the troops (or even getting proper gear for them), I'd be much more inclined to the idea of giving them consideration. Heck, Haliburton isn't even technically a U.S company. Their official corporate headquarters are in the Caiman Islands (or at least so I've been told).
As it was, our President flipped the rest of the world the bird when they didn't agree with his assessment of the situation and is now trying to punish them by exluding their companies from Iraq contracts. That's all well and good and maybe it makes us feel better in a "Hah! We showed them!" way, but it's still actively pissing them off. Whether this is a good idea depends on whether or not you wnat them to join in on helping out. Getting righteously indignant may or may not be justified, but it doesn't change the practical considerations the we need their help and that the course we're taking is almost designed to make sure that they don't want to give it to us.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, Seriously, you've metaphorically pissed your pants and are now stomping around like a petulant child saying that everyone else should be wearing diapers. Grow up already. Admit you made a big mistake. Stop trying to weasel out of it or put the blame on other people. Act like a man.
edit: I don't know about other people, but I tend not to take advice from someone with urine stained pants too seriously, which is pretty much the state you're in right now. Clean yourself up, because right now you stink.
quote: To be honest, Chad, I'm a bit depressed by how important you seem to consider the reconstruction contracts.
So Kerry is wrong in saying that we should be concerned about the $200 Billion spent on the war? Where is the repayment of some of that going to come from? If Kerry gets elected, it's not going to come from Iraq because they money from Iraq is going to go to the Germans, French, etc.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I promise this will be my last post in the derailment subtopic of Hatrack ettiquette for Chad. This is what a personal attack looks like:
Chad, you are a stubborn bigot and you make me embarassed for conservatives. In fact, maybe you are an interference person planted by the left. Have you ever posted under the name StarGate?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Where is the repayment of some of that going to come from?"
That is, indeed, an excellent question. Has Bush answered this question to your satisfaction?
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that the $200 billion will ever be repaid, but that's just me. My gut feeling is that the bulk of war profits are going to go to war profiteers, and most of those are talented enough to avoid paying many taxes in the first place.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Brunch sounds delicious!
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
at Tom.
