🚀 go-pugleaf

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:
>> And I am very sad, that there had been not at least a protest, that 
>> the USA and Turkey decided to use, and thereby endanger, NATO area
>> for something, that is not the task of the NATO, WITHOUT asking
>> their partners.
> 
> Let's say that Tenesssee attacked Mexico.  If Mexico attacked Tenessee
> do you think there is any probability that the US would not defend Tenessee?
> Teneseee may be wrong to attack Mexico, but the US would defend it.
> Absolutely.

And quite wrongly.  If Mexico attacked Tennessee in return, this would
be called DEFENCE of Mexico, as in "Defence of Kuwait."  I do not
oppose the the military campaign against Iraq (as opposed to Olaf
Schlueter), but if the war against Iraq is justified, then surely
Mexico's war against Tennessee would be as well.

As to the involvement of NATO, if Tennessee attacks Mexico against the
will of the Federal government, I am quite sure the latter will have
the will and the means to intercede.  If it does not so beforehand, or
if it defends Tennessee without helping Mexico overcome the damage
done by the Tennessee attack, it is in the wrong for defending
Tennessee.

> 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.

> If you feel
> that allowing Iraq to retain Kuwait and for Saddam Hussein to emerge 
> victorious is MORE important than defending an ally, then that is your
> choice, but you may find that future German political voices are 
> ignored as unconstructive, unreliable and counterproductive.  

The point is, of course, that they are considered such, without regard
of whether they really are. (no Smiley.  This is the heart of the
matter.)

> I think it would be wise for you to consider being gracious for the 
> help the US has provided over the years until you have had such a
> positive impact on the world.  Not only does it antagonize Americans
> to think that all the help that we provided is not appreciated, we can
> easily come back with sufficient verbal assaults on the negative impact
> of German conduct in the world.  

Do you mean 'grateful'?  Certainly.  However, receiving help certainly
does not entitle the helper to give orders afterwards.  As to the
verbal assaults, I am currently replying to one.

> So your righteousness would be not
> taken seriously.
> It is quite shocking to learn that Germans have been a major contributor
> to Iraqi gas weapons and other weapons.  Your self-righteousness and feigned
> pacifism should be considered idiotic.

It is quite shocking to learn that the US have been a major
contributor as well.  In last weeks _Spiegel_, it was mentioned that
as much as 40 percent of the equipment for Saddam's central weapons
research center came from the US.  Your self-righteousness and
name-calling are based on very weak grounds.

> Iraq is the fourth largest military power in the world.  The Iraqis have
> more planes than Britain and France combined.  They have some 6 million
> mines.  They have thousands of tanks and artillery vehicles.  It is safe
> to say that Iraq could destroy 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.

> It is only the complete fright of the world
> to remember Germans fighting in WWII which limits the calls and outrage
> that Germans are not playing a much larger role in this conflict.

Quite rightly so.  It was the complete fright of the world which held
the Germans to a wholly defensive posture for the last 35 years.  It
was considered most constructive that Germany had no intentions of
using military force beyond NATO borders.  However, suddenly it's "the
Germans to the front" again.  Really funny.

> 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."

> 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.

> Germany stands at a steep precipice.  It must conduct itself with 
> maturity and in concert with the rest of the civilized world or risk
> threatening all the gains that have been made in the last 40 years.  Such
> a setback for Germany would be destructive in so many ways.

It must conduct itself with maturity, or, after 40 years of peaceful
and defensive posture (with acrid criticism following if Germany did
not fully comply with that posture) change its position at the whim of
its allies.  That's how I see it.

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.
If German politicians do not comply with US demands, they are
immediately considered weak cantonists, unreliable partners, and
violently attacked by the US press and public.  Friends, really.

I cannot recall how often I have told Americans that the German
constitution FORBIDS sending German soldiers to Saudi Arabia.  The
reaction is always an incredulous question on the lines of "Well, why
don't you change it when we ask you to?"  It appears that Americans
consider constitutions of other countries just as so much pieces of
paper.  Note that nobody precludes an eventual (and probably
inevitable) change of the German constitution, but kicking somebody to
do it NOW, BUDDY, is not a gentleman's way, SIR.

The greatest joke was a comment in last week's Newsweek which read
"the German government has invoked its constitutional constraint to
avoid sending troops to the gulf."  Does anyone ever INVOKE a
constitution?  As far as I know, it simply holds.  But then, perhaps
that's different from the US point of view.