5 ms·

This article presents typical left-wing German point of view to the point of predictability. As a dual Polish/US citizen I understand and can relate to a lot of

This article presents typical left-wing German point of view to the point of predictability. As a dual Polish/US citizen I understand and can relate to a lot of this what the article author says, but on the other hand what is striking in German liberal left is this: world is nice, safe place and any indications of terrors done by communists, or terrorists, etc. are widely exaggareted. I remember how I lived in Communistic Poland and during the Martial Law imposed by Communist Generals in 1980s Reagan not only called them Evil, he also started helping Polish resistance including food donations. I was one of these little kids really grateful for American food I got through a local church courtesy of the Paranoid US Tax Payers. Thank you for that guys. I still remember this tasty yellow cheese. Will never forget it. At the same time the West German political class was downplaying the Martial Law in Poland and refuse to criticize Polish GOvernment trying to "understand". And I see they continue doing this stupid thing. On the other hand after WW2 there were some extreme changes in German society. Pacifism uber alles instead of Deutschland uber Alles. And this is stereotypical article in that sense. In the sense of "All Germans and pacifist to the point of imposing danger on themselves and others". On the other hand I sincerely believe that the US is way over the top with the reaction to 9/11. The terrorists wanted to destroy our fundamental liberal freedoms. By taking away those freedoms the uS Government seems to be confused on which side it is really fighting for.

ilaksh 13y ago
9/11 was our Reichstag fire. The government created the domestic threats in order to have leverage over its domestic enemies (dissidents). This is a common tactic.
jivatmanx 13y ago
The USSR had dozens of nuclear ICBM's pointed at every major European city, and, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. city. They also had massive armies. If war had occurred, The U.S. could have been completely annihilated, utterly destroyed, ceased to exist. That's simply not the situation we face with today with Islamic terrorists. It's reasonable to ask the question if we might be willing to accept a handful of causalities in exchange to remaining a free country. Than, take the money we're spending on the MIC and use it for safer pools and bathtubs, saving an order of magnitude more lives.
- davesims 13y ago
  It's a reasonable question, but is it practical? 9/11 only killed a fraction of the number who probably died in the last few days in the recent typhoon, but the effect was to bring the entire country and economy to a halt. The US would need statesmanship beyond that of Churchill to galvanize and harden society against those eventualities. Moreover, in an era of dirty bombs, chemical weapons and even full nuclear devices, the consequences might not always be merely a "handful of casualties," and the grotesque effects of certain weapons, particularly on children, would be images that would be highly likely to incite increasingly aggressive responses. The US historically is not a society that is accustomed to the idea of being under any kind of siege, nor of allowing its families to remain under threat of any kind. That's not the underlying narrative, and it's just not in its DNA.
  - Roboprog 13y ago
    It's unfortunate that we feel the need to lash out at broad categories of people, rather than finding and arresting the actual perps. Of course, this is conveniently exploited for corporate smash and grab operations, and thus encouraged.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    I really don't think asking too much of our presidents to try an instill in the public the value of Liberty and Democracy; nor is this some Herculean task. It costs nothing, nor does it require a PHD from Harvard to explain, but it's an investment that will continue to pay off for generations without end. As for Nuclear Weapons, Al Qaeda obviously does not have the technology to make them, so their safety is almost entirely a factor of international cooperation in regarding their security in countries that do. Such cooperation regarding their most sensitive and strategically valuable weapons requires trust, something that will be in shorter supply if we continue unhindered economic and political espionage.
siculars 13y ago
Thank you for your comment and thank you for coming to America. My mother also grew up under the disastrous USSR. These leftist apologists would rather slit their own throats, and certainly others, than stand up to true evil. Where is Der Spiegel on the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria? Or the complete terrorism of fundamentalist Islam? I'm no fan of what we in the US are doing now. It needs to stop and be reigned in or everything we stand for will be for not.

ilaksh 13y ago

9/11 was our Reichstag fire. The government created the domestic threats in order to have leverage over its domestic enemies (dissidents). This is a common tactic.

jivatmanx 13y ago

The USSR had dozens of nuclear ICBM's pointed at every major European city, and, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. city. They also had massive armies. If war had occurred, The U.S. could have been completely annihilated, utterly destroyed, ceased to exist. That's simply not the situation we face with today with Islamic terrorists. It's reasonable to ask the question if we might be willing to accept a handful of causalities in exchange to remaining a free country. Than, take the money we're spending on the MIC and use it for safer pools and bathtubs, saving an order of magnitude more lives.

davesims 13y ago
It's a reasonable question, but is it practical? 9/11 only killed a fraction of the number who probably died in the last few days in the recent typhoon, but the effect was to bring the entire country and economy to a halt. The US would need statesmanship beyond that of Churchill to galvanize and harden society against those eventualities. Moreover, in an era of dirty bombs, chemical weapons and even full nuclear devices, the consequences might not always be merely a "handful of casualties," and the grotesque effects of certain weapons, particularly on children, would be images that would be highly likely to incite increasingly aggressive responses. The US historically is not a society that is accustomed to the idea of being under any kind of siege, nor of allowing its families to remain under threat of any kind. That's not the underlying narrative, and it's just not in its DNA.
- Roboprog 13y ago
  It's unfortunate that we feel the need to lash out at broad categories of people, rather than finding and arresting the actual perps. Of course, this is conveniently exploited for corporate smash and grab operations, and thus encouraged.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  I really don't think asking too much of our presidents to try an instill in the public the value of Liberty and Democracy; nor is this some Herculean task. It costs nothing, nor does it require a PHD from Harvard to explain, but it's an investment that will continue to pay off for generations without end. As for Nuclear Weapons, Al Qaeda obviously does not have the technology to make them, so their safety is almost entirely a factor of international cooperation in regarding their security in countries that do. Such cooperation regarding their most sensitive and strategically valuable weapons requires trust, something that will be in shorter supply if we continue unhindered economic and political espionage.

siculars 13y ago

Thank you for your comment and thank you for coming to America. My mother also grew up under the disastrous USSR. These leftist apologists would rather slit their own throats, and certainly others, than stand up to true evil. Where is Der Spiegel on the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria? Or the complete terrorism of fundamentalist Islam? I'm no fan of what we in the US are doing now. It needs to stop and be reigned in or everything we stand for will be for not.