@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:We are all influenced by our histories and as a result take different points of view on these issues.
We agree on that.
georgeob1 wrote:It seems to me that Old Europe is more confident than the facts justify on the absolute innocence of large numbers of the Guantanamo detainees.
I have expressed no such opinion. I have pointed to the case of the Uighur captives, which were found innocent and harmless through the process that okie advocated as practically flawless, and to the fact that despite the findings those Uighurs remain incarcerated in Guantanamo to this day.
I have given no opinion on whether I consider "large numbers of the Guantanamo detainees" innocent or guilty.
georgeob1 wrote:I find it remarkable to note the emotion and energy devoted to this issue by Europeans who stood silently aside during the genocide that occurred in their own midst in Croatia and Bosnia following the disintegration of Yugoslavia - some apparently still influenced by old ethnic and cultural affiliations. Truly these were offenses that far eclipsed, both in terms of severity and the numbers affected, anything that has occurred in Guantanamo. Moreover the motived were of self-aggrandizement, not self-defense.
I find it interesting that you not only find it necessary to drag out an old
tu quoque argument, but also that you seem to think that a proper way to defend the incarceration of innocent people for years is to point to the mass murder and genocide perpetrated by the Milošević regime in Serbia.
The fact that
georgeob1 wrote:The emphasis on the efficacy of "international treaties" shown by Old Europe does not appear justified by recent events. When indeed will the mighty ICC tame the government of Sudan??? Indeed the "Law of the Sea" treaty so embraced by others (not the U.S.) has, among other things, paralyzed any practical means of stopping the piracy near the Horn of Africa.
The United States have signed the Geneva Conventions, and consequentially, under the Bush administration, violated those treaties. The fact that other countries violate those treaties as well hardly serves as an excuse for the United States, but rather America down to the level of those regimes.
Also, it seems to be a rather poor attempt to excuse the violation of those treaties by pointing to the difficulty of enforcing them.
And finally, you probably didn't notice the irony that the legitimisation for invading Iraq was almost exclusively based on Iraq's alleged or factual violation of international agreements. It would seem that if the United States have no reason to abide by international treaties and agreements signed by them, the whole
casus belli for the invasion of Iraq is rather mute.
georgeob1 wrote:Walter repeatedly notes the constitutional constraints limiting the deployment of German troops to other areas, implying that they otherwise would do more, and noting that they do have troops deployed to Afghanistan. Weak excuses.
Weak excuses, based on German Basic Law, based among a number of reasons on the strong feelings by the Allies after World War II that Germany should not be allowed to send troops to foreign countries for whatever reason, but, if allowed to have a military at all, have it restricted to self-defense.
That said, if you have been keeping up with the news, you will have noticed that the German parliament, in accordance with the Basic Law, not only increased the number of troops in Afghanistan (making the German presence in the region, if I remember correctly, the third largest after Britain and the United States), but also approved a solid mandate and committed additional troops for the fight against piracy.
georgeob1 wrote:I detect an unflattering willingness to let others do their dying for them.
The United States of America started the war in Iraq, without a UN mandate, and against the vehement objections of Germany. For the life of me, I cannot find any basis for labelling this war "Germany's war." Therefore, I cannot see how American troops dying in a war started, on a flimsy pretext, by the United States of America, are in any way, shape or form dying "for Germany."
georgeob1 wrote:One of the serious issues we face in Afghanistan is the unwillingness of the German government to allow their troops to be put at risk of casualties.
See, that's funny: I would regard it as a weakness of the Bush administration to readily have troops be put at risk of casualties. Even if you firmly believe that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary - how could you possibly approve of the piss-poor planning of the post-war phase, which essentially cost thousands of American lives?
georgeob1 wrote:All this suggests to me a rather strange state of unreality and delusion.
What "strange state of unreality and delusion" are talking about, exactly? The firm denial that Saddam had, as a matter of fact, weapons of mass destruction ready to be sent to the United States? The denial of how American troops were welcomed as liberators? The denial that the war was over in weeks?
Yes, I'm denying that.
georgeob1 wrote:The median age of Germans is about seven years greater than that of Americans. A related factor?
Hardly. You merely have more illegal immigrants, which come to the States at a younger age and tend to have more children. I'm not sure that they are more willing to die in foreign countries than German soldiers.
