🚀 go-pugleaf

mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon (593-0923)) writes:

>In article <A0b0w2cr@oski.toppoint.de>, schlut@oski.toppoint.de (Olaf Schlueter) writes:
>> If it is the oppinion of the americans, that leadership means commanding
>> everyone else, I will support every effort to avoid US leadership, since
>> that means US fascism.

>You mean the kind of fascism that paid for Germanies reconstruction and
>wrote the peaceful constitution that Germany has and the fascism that
>helped build the EC and is the largest trading partner with Europe?
[etc.]

>You are a sorry example of a human being Olaf.  You are a direct product
>of American fascism and you call us fascist.  Your system is a direct
>copy of our system and you oppose US fascism.

>Since the American system is the most democratic system on earth and you
>believe it is fascist, then this says a lot about your faith in democracy.

No, read my statement again then.  It's an if ...  then sentence.  If
the USA government sees itself as a partner which contributes to an
alliance of democratic nations with its military and economic strength,
but accepts that decisions how to use that power are made up by
discussion and voting among equal allies, that's ok.  Even a leading
role is acceptable and fine if that means a leading role in making
suggestions.

What the United States has done in Europe during the fourties and
the fifties, is still acknowledged by me as by every other german,
despite the fact that some of us critizise the actual US politics.
But your historic memory needs a fresh up. We wrote our constitution.
And it's quite different from the presidial system used in the USA.
Our chancellor is by far not that strong as the US president. If it
is better or worse, shall not bother us here. I prefer the german
system, but that's a matter of taste.

>> Democratic leadership means discussing a problem
>> and then collecting the votes, which establish the decision.  US
>> leadership means discussing a problem, collecting oppinions and then
>> decide alone. The US diplomacy used the democratic way to get UN support,
>> but the "american way" to get turkish support.

>Democracy means that discussion takes place, and then a vote is called 
>and when the vote is finished everybody agrees to abide by the decisions
>and the leaders execute those views.

>If Britain and France and Turkey and Italy agree to sending troops to
>the Persian Gulf, and Germany does not and in fact resists supporting
>their allies, then that is as if Texas decided not to send men to the
>front line.  If Germany does not stand with its allies and "fellow
>states" then it stands against them, because this is a matter of life 
>and death.  You should think about this.  

You are critizising a statement I did not make. We talking about
the decision to use turkish air bases against Iraq. 

Let me finish with noting (again and then more directly) that
insulting someone during a discussion does not improve the own
position. In fact it is just the other way round.

-- 
Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, schlut@oski.toppoint.de
     Stop bombardment. Continue embargo. Start negotiations. NOW!
"Someone is always the evil in the land, and then the good guys are
marching, the eyes full of sand, into a holy war." Konstantin Wecker