Hi,
as I encounter this discussion over this theme all news are full of -
I feel the need to say something as a German among a lot of US citicens.
You give the keywords:
>> HItler had full support of german peoples as
>> BUsh have full support of US
>> citizens either by helping him or by not acting against his politic.
Better no Bush/Hitler comparisons.
That's why even some politicians had to go.
Anyway, Hitler (or better his party) did not have "full support".
He managed somehow to win the elections, at a certain point.
At the time a majority voted for him.
It was a point of no return (1933).
Afterwards people had no chance again to change.
The wars he started, forced the nation together (it works elsewhere too).
And everybody was in fear, great fear.
Not only to be killed in the war - in nearly every family a big percentage
of the men were killed (later also women and children by the bombings).
But also by the threat to be sent to a KZ. With the sole accusation to heave=
*said* something wrong, or have listened to enemy radio.
The decision was to go to the front (high chance to be killed) or
to try to escape (to be killed for sure by the government).
At the time of the election, people had no idea what the man intended to do
- to start a war.
Nobody would have voted *that* after WWI.
But - there's a point of no return.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:37:18 -0700, Jeff Keller
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Are you joking! The only reason the germans want to prevent war is because=
>they have money at stake or systems sold to Iraq that they don't want >foun=
d.
Don't you have any other idea why people would want to prevent a war?
In WWI and WWII a war was *started* by Germany.
Of course it was displayed differently to the people. War declaration
against France in WWI was of course only "a few days earlier as France (and
Russia)" would have declared anyway. Mobilization was already made in the
surrounding sountries.
So it just "had to be done". For prevention. Sure, isn't it?
In WWII Germany first attacked Poland. "Shooting back".
Attacked Stalin's Soviet Union - could really have been sole prevention
against an attack from the dictator Stalin.
But a crime against the people of Russia AND a crime against the people of
Germany.
Attacked France (to have hands free against Russia).
In the N=FCrnberg court action against the German "representatives" or leade=
rs
of the time, they were accused for _starting_a_war_of_attack_ .
That's what they have done and what must never be done by any nation.
Regardless of the reasoning. There is always a good reasoning sold to the
public. Germany's constitution prohibited the German army to fight out of
the country and out of an attack. Every nation should behave like this.
Now we have changed the constitution (after the Gulf war where we would have=
wanted to play the ally of Kuweit).
Why start a war?
If there's the danger of an attack, it can be *defended*.
If every nation waits until it's attacked, there will be no more wars.
Nobody will be attacked if he is strong enough.
Do you remember that balance of threat worked?
systems sold: many nations sold some "systems" to Iraq including the US,
when Iraq was a kind of darling against Chomeini
have money: there are a lot of French investments there, not German
Now I'd like to express annother reason why *not* to start a war, for the
majority of Germans and a majority in many countries.
Saddam will force millions of young iraq draftees into his war (of defense,
this time!).
US weapons of mass destruction will kill many many of them.
What is *their* fault?
In the Gulf war 100,000 iraq soldiers were killed.
And 148 US soldiers.
Do only US soldiers count as human?
What can a Iraq draftee do?
>Maybe it is because they know what will happen to Israel if Saddam gets the=
>bomb!
The real reason for the German government not to participate in this war
is IMVHO the *destabilisation* of the region.
I realized on exactely Sept,11 of 2001 that the times changed. Now
wars are not fought between nations. The real threats now are civil wars
and terrorists. What can even the biggest army do against a dozen of
suicide attackers who can easily hide away in a town of what they consider
enemy?
I think few will loose a tear if Saddam disappears. But a *lot* of people
will feel fellow with this arabic and muslimic country.
Hundreds of millions of people.
Terrorist attacks only need a few of high "motivated" subjects.
After the attack, there will be a *lot* more of such.
I think that's a fact that's very well worth to think about.
Now, it's not how many tanks or planes or nuclear bombs stand against one
another.
Now it's how to prevent one single dozen of people from making attacks
like of Sept,11.
Who can be sure that Saddam doesn't have agents in every US town (or
whereever) and each of them equipped with a bottle of deadly VX or botulinus=
?
Or even a nuclear bomb abord a ship or a van?
Starting a war will worsen the situation.
I understand this consideration of our government.
In this war of attack,
what is to gain? I mean besides oil sources? One state less (perhaps)
with weapons of mass destruction. Many countries have them, many.
Even terrorist groups will have some. It's so easy to produce some deadly
botulinus or other toxin. Which can kill... masses in a densely populated ar=
ea.
What is to loose? Apart from many many dead humans..
How about a terrorist risk increase? Further decline of the economy?
>Without war, their is no freedom and without freedom there is no health!!!=
I would replace war with *strength*.
>My heritage is German which at this point makes me sick. Maybe someday >th=
ey
>will learn what it means to be ruled by a tyrant. If anyone should have
>learned you wou think it would be them.
You bet we have learned it.
What made the tyrant really dangerous was that he could fight a war.
In WWI we didn't have a tyrant, we even had a king.
The real problem is the war.
Ok, friends now I have written a lot, totally off topic and lengthy.
I hope I didn't offend anybody's feelings, and I hope I could
display a little bit of a different understanding (as we hear in the US is
spoken).
I will not elaborate further on this single post, .
If somebody whished to complain or discuss further - I don't want to bother
the list with this. I will read private emails. But possibly not respond.
I don't feel in the situation to make anything change.
End of off topic.
regards
Amadeus
(with great sympathy with America)
|
