On a historical scale that includes genocide, talk of Germany's liberation mandates caution. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt reached for it a few weeks ago.On a somewhat unrelated note, one sentence in particular seemed of interest with regards to the Iraq situation:
"Eisenhower would never have thought of it as a liberation," he said. Very clear and precise at 85, Schmidt sat in his office in Hamburg and recalled how he, as a 27-year-old anti-aircraft lieutenant back then, certainly did not feel liberated. Among Germans, it was those in jails and concentration camps who did. …
Seen in the abstract, the factions' tactics and strategic goals appeared identical: Germany's lumping itself in with the world's victims in order to rejoin the world's just.
… it took 10 years from the time of the Nazi surrender for the new Federal Republic of Germany to operate with full sovereignty.Why, then, all the hurry and the (French and German) pressure to transfer full sovereignty to Baghdad as quickly as possible? Didn't Germany turn out as a success story in spite of the 10-year delay?
4 comments:
"Why, then, all the hurry and the (French and German) pressure to transfer full sovereignty to Baghdad as quickly as possible? Didn't Germany turn out as a success story in spite of the 10-year delay? "
Yes, but Germany and Japan were pacified in a couple of months after the cease-fire; some institutions and symbols were preserved.
Restoring Irak sovereignty is a way of putting the Irakis in charge of their own future. A top to bottom approach (islamist use a bottom to top one...)
Forthermore, if we want the Democracy in Middle East Domino Therory (c)2003 GWB to become a reality, better start soon...
Why the hurry?
They are getting tired of waiting to try to cash in on the Iraqis again. They want to suck Iraq dry as they were doing before the invasion. They won't invest blood or money for the benefit of Iraq but they are eager to feed on the Iraqis again for their own gain. That is their hurry.
StinKerr
I haven't seen anyone in either Blogdom or the mass media raise this obvious point in the whole sovereignty debate yet but it's this one:
Does the Government of the Ivory Coast have operational control over French troops? Does the Government of the Ivory Coast have the right to command the French forces to leave? If not, why not? If not, when will they get it?
For the last Anonymous.
The difference between the troops in Iraq and Ivory Coast is aboyt legal framework.
In the first case we are in a post-war scenario, in the second one in a UN-sponsored peace-keeping mission. I think the Ivory Coast gouvernement can ask the UN troops to leave tomorrow (along with the huge French community). If so, you can expect something between Sierra Leone and Rwanda...
Post a Comment