An example of America's way of promotion of "democracy" in CA (1 Viewer)

[Esengul]

http://www.apolitalking.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=282#282

As a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, I would like to attract attention of people from Europe to the situation in my country. The text I give link to is truthfully illustrating what is really going on here and the way Americans treat us.

First of all I'd like to note that I myself was merely shocked to learn that Niyazov "initiated the cease of all operations relating Western security services". As far as I understand, this is mainly meant for American secret services that are operating in Kyrgyzstan. Now I am positive that Niyazov is firmly on the hook of Americans and it must be them who made him an inveterate drunkard, though he is a Moslem and Allah prohibits us drinking alcohol. I'm sure that it is namely US ambassador Yovanovich who has done a lot in this direction. Anyway, Niyazov is a very weak-willed person who must not be Chief of Security Council. As for Americans, they defiantly tamper with our inner affairs and lean against our politicians like Niyazov who are empowered to make important decisions not for the good of our homeland but for the benefit of Americans. I hope that this text will fully open your eyes to how America promotes its so to say "democracy" in Central Asia. Americans are dirty cheaters not worth dealing with. Let Allah chastise you!

 

[Volker]

This airbase should not be used by the Americans. Kyrgystan is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which clearly stated in 2005, that U.S. troops should leave Central Asia. Uzbekistan told them to leave Karshi-Khanabad and this is what they did. Now obviously they found ways to manage to stay at Ganci Air Base, they signed a deal about it in July 14 this year. The way I understand it, it is not limited in time. They say it's because of Afghanistan.

If it is because of Afghanistan, than why is it not in Afghanistan?

 

[Volker]

This airbase should not be used by the Americans. Kyrgystan is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which clearly stated in 2005, that U.S. troops should leave Central Asia. Uzbekistan told them to leave Karshi-Khanabad and this is what they did. Now obviously they found ways to manage to stay at Ganci Air Base, they signed a deal about it in July 14 this year. The way I understand it, it is not limited in time. They say it's because of Afghanistan.

If it is because of Afghanistan, than why is it not in Afghanistan?

There are still 75.000 Yank troops in Germany, what are they doing here, helping us defend against Denmark?

 

[Volker]

Sure I know what these Yank troops are doing here, this is one reason more to send them back home.

 

[Vader]

This airbase should not be used by the Americans. Kyrgystan is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which clearly stated in 2005, that U.S. troops should leave Central Asia. Uzbekistan told them to leave Karshi-Khanabad and this is what they did. Now obviously they found ways to manage to stay at Ganci Air Base, they signed a deal about it in July 14 this year. The way I understand it, it is not limited in time. They say it's because of Afghanistan.

If it is because of Afghanistan, than why is it not in Afghanistan?

There are still 75.000 Yank troops in Germany, what are they doing here, helping us defend against Denmark?

We're overthere to do the work your cowardly government doesn't have the balls to do.

Stop using the term "yank" it's offensive to some people. You don't ever see us calling you "Krauts" do you?

 

[Volker]

Spare me with your stupid comments, Yank.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not empirial agression.

 

[Volker]

May the Force be with you :mrgreen:

 

[Vader]

Spare me with your stupid comments, Yank.

Your country does nothing to stop international terrorism, you do nothing but take cheap shots at people who stand up up Islam-o-fascism, and you top it off with a nasty nationalistic remark.

Shame on you.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised... Germany has always supported genocide.

:doh :shock:

 

[Volker]

There is no nationalistic remark.

You could choose to get yourself informed about what the Germany government does.
As long as you don't do, I'll take your opinion as what it is.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote by ESENGUL

(Now I am positive that Niyazov is firmly on the hook of Americans and it must be them who made him an inveterate drunkard, though he is a Moslem and Allah prohibits us drinking alcohol.)

One presumes that Allah also gave you the freewill to refuse substances that Allah deemed injurious to your good health.

Or perhaps not?

No one forced this guy to drink.

Volker, I think he is referring to the Nazi Government of A. Hitler, who most certainly did practise genocide.

 

[Volker]

Volker, I think he is referring to the Nazi Government of A. Hitler, who most certainly did practise genocide.

I know, you don't have to explain his comments me.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

There are still 75.000 Yank troops in Germany, what are they doing here, helping us defend against Denmark?

OOOoooooo JUst making sure you guys don't get anymore bright ideas about marching around Europe....LOL

 

[Volker]

OOOoooooo JUst making sure you guys don't get anymore bright ideas about marching around Europe....LOL

This was good :rofl

We have the European Union now to help us prevent from doing something stupid :mrgreen:

 

[Calm2Chaos]

This was good :rofl

We have the European Union now to help us prevent from doing something stupid :mrgreen:

Aren't they pretty much the same peeps ya kicked the sh.it out of before? Kind of like putting the fox in charge of watchin gthe hen house....LOL

 

[Volker]

Aren't they pretty much the same peeps ya kicked the sh.it out of before? Kind of like putting the fox in charge of watchin gthe hen house....LOL

They are our friends now :smile:

 

[clockman]

I love Professor Volker's posts (funny how professors always make sure you know that they are). Initially he writes a post, then answers himself twice!

I never thought of "Yank" as a pejorative before, but Herr Volker's usage does make it seem so.

The reason all those U.S. troops are still in Germany is that German towns near bases depend so much on them for their economy that the Germans are begging us Not to leave. Of course, the fact that Germany tried to conquer the world twice in the last century might figure into it too.

And, Mr. Esengul, the only thing I agree with in your post (of those items where I can understand your English - of course I shouldn't be too smug about that, because I not only can't speak a word of your language, I do not even know what it is) is the charming conclusion that we Americans are all "dirty cheaters not worth dealing with." That certainly is true, at least as far as our politicians go. I deal with the public in business, and sometimes feel exactly the same way myself.

Humor aside, Americans are not all "dirty cheaters." But governments (all goverments) often make terrible decisions - it's the nature of the beast. And we must bear in mind that, despite our leadership's terrible management of it, America IS at war, and it's a very nasty war, indeed. Like it or not, ethical or not, the rules change in war out of necessity, and if we step on a few toes fighting this war, you and I and Herr Volker and all of us will just have to live with it.

 

[Captain America]

What-a-stan????

 

[Volker]

I love Professor Volker's posts (funny how professors always make sure you know that they are). Initially he writes a post, then answers himself twice!

Yes, its called elaborating a topic. It can help encouraging people joining a debate.

The reason all those U.S. troops are still in Germany is that German towns near bases depend so much on them for their economy that the Germans are begging us Not to leave. Of course, the fact that Germany tried to conquer the world twice in the last century might figure into it too.

There are some local politicians and businessmen, who want them to stay. Usually, they want some kind of compensation like a Bundeswehr military base or money to develop these areas. If the campaigns are loud enough, they get what they want. For an observer from outside these campaigns might give the impression as if American military bases are welcome to German people.

Humor aside, Americans are not all "dirty cheaters." But governments (all goverments) often make terrible decisions - it's the nature of the beast. And we must bear in mind that, despite our leadership's terrible management of it, America IS at war, and it's a very nasty war, indeed. Like it or not, ethical or not, the rules change in war out of necessity, and if we step on a few toes fighting this war, you and I and Herr Volker and all of us will just have to live with it.

America is at war, because it chooses to be at war. The rules you talk about are based on decisions made in Washington.

 

[Volker]

I love Professor Volker's posts

By the way, clockman set a good example here of how to start a post :mrgreen:

 

[clockman]

There are some local politicians and businessmen, who want them to stay. Usually, they want some kind of compensation like a Bundeswehr military base or money to develop these areas. If the campaigns are loud enough, they get what they want. For an observer from outside these campaigns might give the impression as if American military bases are welcome to German people.

Well, then I don't get why they're there either. It seems like a Cold War remnant. (My politics may often seem contradictory, but rigid order does not apply well in the chaotic real world.) I'd rather they were out of Germany, and most of the other WWII leftover places all over the world.

The rules you talk about are based on decisions made in Washington.
Yesterday 04:33 PM

First, of course the rules are made in Washington, as the rules are made in any Capitol city during war. But that is not relevant to the point. Rules change in war, and people must accept that fact (but they are not obligated to accept each and every rule, just the principle that the rules are temporarily different). In WWII people had to accept the fact of gasoline rationing, but should not have accepted the fact of the Japanese-American internment camps.

America is at war, because it chooses to be at war.

Not true, and I must draw some distinctions here. America is at war because of (specifically) 9/11, and (generally) Al Qaeda's war against us, going back well before 9/11. In this matter, we have no choice other than allowing ourselves to be destroyed.

Now, the War in Iraq is another matter entirely. We are at war in Iraq because the controlling group in our Administration "chooses to be at war," and has misled the American people long enough to get us into an inextricable mess. Many, if not most, Americans want to be out of Iraq, but so much damage has been done there that it is difficult to devise an exit strategy which will not damage Iraq even more.

I think most Americans now realize that there was never any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Our massive resources are now tied down there, preventing us from Really fighting the war against terrorism.

President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was perhaps the most damaging speech ever given by an American President. Two of the three members of this "Axis" have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and the third we can do very little about anyway.

America has a big problem with an ideologically-based Administration with very dangerous ideas, and a weak Congress. I can only hope we get rid of these ideologues in time. (And I am a Republican)

Not to be conciliatory, but rather as a point of fact, our best successes against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism have been when American agencies have worked in conjunction with European agencies. This would be a better direction to move in than the current one of intransigently alienating every one of our traditional European allies.

I don't know if this clarifies or confuses my positions, but it is what it is.

(I just saw a new post from Prof. Volker) Yes, I Do love posts that are informed yet highly opinionated - That's the way to get a stimulating and engaging discussion going!

 

[Volker]

Well, then I don't get why they're there either. It seems like a Cold War remnant. (My politics may often seem contradictory, but rigid order does not apply well in the chaotic real world.) I'd rather they were out of Germany, and most of the other WWII leftover places all over the world.

Yes, this is what it is. The Russian troops left in the early ninetees, the Forces françaises en Allemagne have still 5,000 troops in Germany with most of them being part of the Franco-German Brigade, which is under command of a common European Army name the Eurocorps.

It's different with the British Forces Germany, they have 23,000 soldiers and 2,000 civilians here and additionally 30,000 family members. Obviously they like to have the military training areas here, they don't have so much places in the UK where they can fly around with their warplanes and drive around with their tanks at the island, I guess.

The Americans have now have 70,000 troops. They were like 300,000 maximum during the Cold War. It is expected that more American troops leave Germany, but not necessarly Europe. Some bases in Italy could be extended.

First, of course the rules are made in Washington, as the rules are made in any Capitol city during war. But that is not relevant to the point. Rules change in war, and people must accept that fact (but they are not obligated to accept each and every rule, just the principle that the rules are temporarily different). In WWII people had to accept the fact of gasoline rationing, but should not have accepted the fact of the Japanese-American internment camps.

This war on terror is not a real war, at least not in traditional meaning, they only call it this way in Washington.

Not true, and I must draw some distinctions here. America is at war because of (specifically) 9/11, and (generally) Al Qaeda's war against us, going back well before 9/11. In this matter, we have no choice other than allowing ourselves to be destroyed.

I doubt, America can be destroyed by them.

Now, the War in Iraq is another matter entirely. We are at war in Iraq because the controlling group in our Administration "chooses to be at war," and has misled the American people long enough to get us into an inextricable mess. Many, if not most, Americans want to be out of Iraq, but so much damage has been done there that it is difficult to devise an exit strategy which will not damage Iraq even more.

I think most Americans now realize that there was never any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Our massive resources are now tied down there, preventing us from Really fighting the war against terrorism.

President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was perhaps the most damaging speech ever given by an American President. Two of the three members of this "Axis" have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and the third we can do very little about anyway.

As far as I know, three of three members of this "Axis" have nothing to do with them.

America has a big problem with an ideologically-based Administration with very dangerous ideas, and a weak Congress. I can only hope we get rid of these ideologues in time. (And I am a Republican)

For a reason I don't know I get along better with Republicans than with Democrats most time.

Not to be conciliatory, but rather as a point of fact, our best successes against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism have been when American agencies have worked in conjunction with European agencies. This would be a better direction to move in than the current one of intransigently alienating every one of our traditional European allies.

Yes, the Frenchies have a lot of experience with fighting terrorism, maybe they were the first ones who stopped a big airplane which was planned to be flown in a building in Paris in 1994.

I don't know if this clarifies or confuses my positions, but it is what it is.

(I just saw a new post from Prof. Volker) Yes, I Do love posts that are informed yet highly opinionated - That's the way to get a stimulating and engaging discussion going!

Thank you very much, I am not a professor in real life, this is a forum feature.

 

[clockman]

I had no idea there were so many (or any) British and French troops still in Germany. How absurd! Don't worry about the American troops, though - the way things are going we'll need them in Iraq soon. I graduated high school in 1965, so lived through the horrible Vietnam War era. It sickens me to see it happening again. General Patton said (at least in the movie), "Americans love to fight, Americans love war." I'm afraid he may have been right.

This war on terror is not a real war, at least not in traditional meaning, they only call it this way in Washington.

True, it is not a traditional war, but to average Americans it is very much a real war. The Washington politicians, of course, "spin" the term for their own purposes. But 9/11 remains fresh in the minds of Americans as an outrage we cannot leave unavenged. The problem is, how do we attack a scattered, invisible enemy. Iraq made Americans feel good for a while, because we were attacking a real country, and blowing the daylights out of it. But the Iraq war is a mere chimera; it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism.

To look at this war from the perspective of the actual facts so far, the most effective operations against the enemy have been international police and intelligence actions. So, if we call it a war, we must be much more careful not to plan our strategies as if it were a traditional war. A classic case of the WORD misleading the ACTIONS it describes.

As far as I know, three of three members of this "Axis" have nothing to do with them.

Iran does support and supply Al Qaeda as well as Hezbollah, which is in reality nothing but a military branch of Al Qaeda.

For a reason I don't know I get along better with Republicans than with Democrats most time.

I'm sure I will outrage all Democrats reading this, but Republicans are more inclined to reach conclusions based on reasoning, and Democrats to reach conclusions based on emotion. (But before you get too mad at me, I'm voting for your guys this election, because I'm scared to death of the guys in the White House.)

I am not a professor in real life, this is a forum feature.

I must have been misled by your articulateness and cogent reasoning. (I am in a weltschmerz mood today, and cannot arouse my usual anger and sarcasm.)

 

[Volker]

I had no idea there were so many (or any) British and French troops still in Germany. How absurd! Don't worry about the American troops, though - the way things are going we'll need them in Iraq soon.

This is sarcasm :shock:

I graduated high school in 1965, so lived through the horrible Vietnam War era. It sickens me to see it happening again. General Patton said (at least in the movie), "Americans love to fight, Americans love war." I'm afraid he may have been right..

I don't know if it is this way, wasn't the Vietnam war not very unpopular with American people?

True, it is not a traditional war, but to average Americans it is very much a real war. The Washington politicians, of course, "spin" the term for their own purposes. But 9/11 remains fresh in the minds of Americans as an outrage we cannot leave unavenged.

Yes, the 9th of September 2001 was 5 years ago. It was a horrible. Not many people remember that is was the 9th of September in 1973 that Pinochet came to power in Chile. In 2001 there were about 20,000 people being killed during an earthquake in Gujarat and not many people remember. The 9/11 is kind of instrumentalized.

The problem is, how do we attack a scattered, invisible enemy. Iraq made Americans feel good for a while, because we were attacking a real country, and blowing the daylights out of it. But the Iraq war is a mere chimera; it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism.

Yes, this is true.

To look at this war from the perspective of the actual facts so far, the most effective operations against the enemy have been international police and intelligence actions. So, if we call it a war, we must be much more careful not to plan our strategies as if it were a traditional war. A classic case of the WORD misleading the ACTIONS it describes.

Yes, I agree.

Iran does support and supply Al Qaeda as well as Hezbollah, which is in reality nothing but a military branch of Al Qaeda.

Iran arrests Al-Qaeda members whenever they find them, that's why Al-Qaeda people avoid travelling through Iran. Hezbollah is very different from Al-Qaeda and I doubt there are links between these two organizations. Hezbollah is not the military branch of anyone, it is a party which has a military branch itself.

I'm sure I will outrage all Democrats reading this, but Republicans are more inclined to reach conclusions based on reasoning, and Democrats to reach conclusions based on emotion. (But before you get too mad at me, I'm voting for your guys this election, because I'm scared to death of the guys in the White House.)

I don't see much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to war and peace.

I must have been misled by your articulateness and cogent reasoning. (I am in a weltschmerz mood today, and cannot arouse my usual anger and sarcasm.)

Please feel free to switch to anger and sarcasm, well, you know, within the scope of the board rules :mrgreen: