🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3972@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
> From article <1991Feb6.193157.19254@tss.com>, by mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon (593-0923)):
> > In article <A0b0cf8k@oski.toppoint.de>, schlut@oski.toppoint.de (Olaf Schlueter) writes:
> > I DONT THINK TURKEY IS WRONG TO TRY TO DEFEND KUWAIT, BUT IF TURKEY IS
> > ATTACKED IT IS SURELY A CONCERN OF GERMANIES.  To suggest otherwise
> > shows a gross lack of concern for your partners.  It certainly would 
> > put into question the reliability of Germany as a partner.  
> 
> An alliance is based on mutual trust.  If Turkey tries to use its
> membership in NATO for expansionist purposes (and up to now, no
> country in the region has made as bold claims for Iraqi territory as
> did Turkey), that trust could well be considered forsaken.

Look, I have no problem with your argument.  What I am saying is that you
should be addressing this to the Turks, because it seems to me that it is 
the Turks who are the people who are questioning and it is your decision
to distrust Turkey and defend the continued occupation of Kuwait OR to 
stand behind your allies and build trust.  This is the decision you have
to make and defend to Turks not to me.

About Iraq attacking Germany.
> (a) I don't know.  (b) If Iraq was in situated in Central Europe,
> perhaps.  Since it is not, all it could do was raise oil prices.
> That's a far cry from destruction.

So, you depend on your neighbors defending you first?

> > I suggest a more constructive attitude of Germans should be to stand
> > behind their allies.  
> 
> Aren't they? (excluding the minority that does not support the war) I
> got the impression that what you wanted was not "standing behind", but
> "dying with us at the front."

No.  I understand your argument about the constitution and I have no 
problem with this as I have no serious problem with Japanese NOT being
in the Gulf either at this time. 

> > The Germans risk being alienated in their own
> > alliance.  So far they have alienated the Turks.  The Germans risk
> > alienating the French and the British.  For 30 years Germany has tried
> > to become a mature leader in the EC.  
> 
> Where does this leadership shit come from?  I do not think anyone can
> cite a German politician who said that Germany wanted "leadership" of
> the EC.

If the EC becomes a reality and there is a united Europe, there will
be leaders who control the destiny of other members of the EC.  I presume
that Germany expects and wants to be part of this leadership.  If you
do not want to be part of the leadership, then I guess you like a role
of being told what to do and when.  Since you have complained about that
way of doing things above I suggest that Germany may not be ready for a 
real united Europe.

> Basically, what the last months show is that despite all that blabber
> about Germany's role in the world, Germany is still considered a
> nation under probation, which can be ordered in any direction at will.

You suggest you want to be part of the EC.  You also suggest you don't 
want to be a leader.  You cannot also complain about being a follower. 
Either you are not ready for EC membership or you must be willing to
accept responsibility for leadership.  Logic is wonders.  It solves a
lot of problems if we can talk in rational ways instead of blaming
each other for irrational things.

If you do not like the leadership of the US, then you must be prepared
to be a leader yourselves.  Criticism is fine and all that, but if
you have no solution please do it in the bathroom.  If you do not
want to be a leader and have no alternate solutions your complaints 
are meaningless and unconstructive and will be ignored.