US to punish pacifist country

[RZetlin]

Remember if you don't agree with America, then you will be made to agree with them.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html

[Patrick Bateman]

Just great. Now Germany is going to be pissed at us. Dammit, I'm sick of this! What are we, a bunch of communists? This is nothing more than a "You have your own opinion, so screw you!" type of thing. The people running this country are out of line. Their job is to look out for us, the people, not their own selfish ideals. I hope they're ready for the backlash. I wonder what they'll think when the people of the United States themselves start turning their backs on them.

[Lucky Bob]

A British tabloid. How quaint.

Here's one with a badly doctored picture of Prince Harry.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003072494,00.html

[BLACKHEART]

What's next Japan?

[matb]

It is a tabloid...why not go to TheOnion.com for your news if you rely on this place for news.

[James]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
A British tabloid. How quaint.

Here's one with a badly doctored picture of Prince Harry.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003072494,00.html

Wasn't sure if you were referring to the first link. If so, just to set the record straight on the source, The Guardian isn't a tabloid, it's a 'high brow' paper of a central left stance. It is not backing the US.

The Sun is a tabloid, and one of the better ones to my horror (compared to The Star and The News Of The World which horrendously distorts any issue). It is however one of the few who backs an attack on Saddam...

If the news is true about the US, I am deeply dissappointed with Bush's government, this low and as close to blackmail as you can get. I had hoped that it wouldn't have come to moves like this from any side...

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by SJJ
Wasn't sure if you were referring to the first link. If so, just to set the record straight on the source, The Guardian isn't a tabloid, it's a 'high brow' paper of a central left stance. It is not backing the US.

The Sun is a tabloid, and one of the better ones to my horror (compared to The Star and The News Of The World which horrendously distorts any issue). It is however one of the few who backs an attack on Saddam...

If the news is true about the US, I am deeply dissappointed with Bush's government, this low and as close to blackmail as you can get. I had hoped that it wouldn't have come to moves like this from any side...

Sorry! My mistake, I keep getting them confused. In Britain, seems that some members of the media aren't scared of being called biased. I have a hard time differentiating between who's the "news" and who's the "opinon". But, if it's reputedly a "central left" paper, I'd say that the story is blown a wee bit out of proportion.

[DJ Raza]

If this is true, why is there NOTHING about it at www.cnn.com or www.bbc.com ?


Wasn't sure if you were referring to the first link. If so, just to set the record straight on the source, The Guardian isn't a tabloid, it's a 'high brow' paper of a central left stance. It is not backing the US.

Its not a tabloid?

Then why is it a part of www.firstnewspapers.com which lists pretty much every British tabloid?

It might also be noted that the Guardian is listed in there with the Daily Express/Sunday Express which also stated that they had confirmation of a US attack on Iraq on February 21 "at midnight".

These are not reliable sources.

[Ben]

With the uncertain language and talk about "reliable sources" in that article I'll wait 'til I hear about it from BBC or the New York Times (not that I expect I ever will).

[James]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
If this is true, why is there NOTHING about it at www.cnn.com or www.bbc.com ?



Its not a tabloid?

Then why is it a part of www.firstnewspapers.com which lists pretty much every British tabloid?

It might also be noted that the Guardian is listed in there with the Daily Express/Sunday Express which also stated that they had confirmation of a US attack on Iraq on February 21 "at midnight".

These are not reliable sources.

I cannot identify which are accurate sources, but I can offer you the information on each source. It matters little upon what list you have there, I can confirm from reading the paper myself - it's not a tabloid. It's a quality paper.

On the topic, I have no clue what is accurate. I hope that it is an error - some presumptous reporting. As for the Express - I class that as a tabloid that wants to be a quality paper, but sits just on the top end of the gutter list.

[Ben]

Originally posted by SJJ
On the topic, I have no clue what is accurate. I hope that it is an error - some presumptous reporting.

I expect that's all it is -- Bush is selfish but not irrational (which is more than I can say for the Democrats' recent actions but that's another story). I think it's laughable to even suggest that Bush would cut off economic ties to Germany over their government's opposition to war with Iraq. If it was policy to stop trading with people who don't do what we want, how come our biggest trade partner is still China? Also, why would Bush want to help France in its efforts to become the dominant economy of the EU and end up strengthening the organization's political clout? Makes no sense to me at all.

[James]

Originally posted by Twage
I expect that's all it is -- Bush is selfish but not irrational (which is more than I can say for the Democrats' recent actions but that's another story). I think it's laughable to even suggest that Bush would cut off economic ties to Germany over their government's opposition to war with Iraq. If it was policy to stop trading with people who don't do what we want, how come our biggest trade partner is still China? Also, why would Bush want to help France in its efforts to become the dominant economy of the EU and end up strengthening the organization's political clout? Makes no sense to me at all.

I agree. If so, it is surprising the Guardian ran it. Yes, it is more left of center in terms of political interest, but this is (hopefully) plainly inaccurate - worthy of the gutter press rather than a newspaper.

Disappointing.

[Joe Tully]

Notice that this is the Observer rather than the actual Guardian. While the two are related, there is some difference. The Guardian is www.guardian.co.uk while Observer is at www.observer.co.uk Yahoo describes the Observer as "Sunday broadsheet on the Guardian Unlimited network"

I'm not completely sure what the difference is, but from a glance, The Observer seems to be much more opinion-based than The Guardian.

[wonderfly]

You know what they say: "Resistance is futile."

[Drachentöter]

I'm crossing my fingers that this is false, but I wouldn't put it past Rumsfeld.

This is just the sort of barbaric and imperalistic move the administration would make to force other countries to support them. US foreign policy is emulating the US President--it's acting like a spoiled brat. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Co. should have the balls to go it alone without worrying about what the other kids in the playground are saying about them. What bullies.

I wish I had more words to express my distaste for this type of gesture.

And, btw, the reason CNN or BBC won't report this is because there is a lot of pro-Bush bias in American and British media. This may be one of those rare cases where the more underground papers are the more reliable.

[matb]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
And, btw, the reason CNN or BBC won't report this is because there is a lot of pro-Bush bias in American and British media. This may be one of those rare cases where the more underground papers are the more reliable.

Or maybe it is because it is a...............

TABLOID

[DJ Raza]

Or maybe it is because it is a...............

TABLOID

Exactly.

[TimTwoFace]

Well, now it looks like the US only has two allies in this "war that shouldn't be...yet" - Britain and Canada...the latter of the two will only jump into action 100%, however, when the UN gives the OK.

-Tim

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by TimTwoFace
Well, now it looks like the US only has two allies in this "war that shouldn't be...yet" - Britain and Canada...the latter of the two will only jump into action 100%, however, when the UN gives the OK.

-Tim

You forgot Spain, Italy, Australia, Turkey, and several others which I currently forgot as well. Depending on how you look at this, since this whole Iraq thing was brought up, Germany and France haven't really acted like allies.

[Joe Tully]

It's just the Ed/Op page for the Guardian. That's all it is. Not a tabloid, not regular news. Just opinions on the what's happening in the world. Use the scrolling menu in the upper right corner and you can choose the regular news, as well as Film, Business, etc. which are at www.guardian.co.uk rather than www.observer.co.uk No need to get yourselves all worked up over it, people. It is a shame (and somewhat wrong) that they don't make that more clear, but it is obvious if you bother to familiarize yourself with the site. Observer articles all have one author whereas the proper Guardian articles usually cite "staff and agencies"

That's all it is. Mere opinion on what's going on in the world. Naturally, it leaves plenty of room for personal slants.

[Ben]

If it's an Op/Ed piece it certainly doesn't read like one. It's written in a news style, and, although if you examine the language closely it's obvious the writer has no real information, it certainly came off as a news piece to me. Nice to know, though, that it's relegated to the op/ed page in print.

[JimmyTheHands]

Intentional deception. An editorial made to look like news. They're just making up a bunch of sensationalist crap. Only rabid anti-americans would believe this obviously exagerated article. I'm sure that a bunch of insiders in the Pentagon are going to just out and out tell all our strategic nformation to a group of liberal Brits, especially in such blatant terms. FORGERY. I wonder if there's some kind of law about truth in reporting in Britain... Never heard of such a thing, but if there was, these guys would deserve to have it borne down upon them with utmost force, lying like this.

[Supreme]

Originally posted by JimmyTheHands
Intentional deception. An editorial made to look like news. They're just making up a bunch of sensationalist crap. Only rabid anti-americans would believe this obviously exagerated article.

RZetlin, BYO, SJJ? :D

In other news*, Bat Child named embassador to France:
http://www.dougstorm.com/images/uglyboy.jpg

*not really. Just a little reference to a tabloid :)

[Stardust]

I have problems with this "article", too. I thought it was Germany that wanted us to withdraw our troops from its country, just the same demand as South Korea, but we weren't going to.

It's not a well written article. It is incredibly opinionated, and while I don't believe there is ever an objective article, reporters have a duty to present the facts without instilling their opinions in it. I have my skepticisms about it, but then again, news makers have a tendency to white-wash international news to sway the nation's opinions. If the event even makes it into the papers, it will be a little blurb in the international sections.

I found a similar story on Washington Post. Let me tell you, it was kind of hard to find.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59326-2003Feb11.html

U.S. May Shift Troops in Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5332-2003Feb13.html)

Iraq Feud Eats at Europe's Unity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10143-2003Feb14.html)

I have my doubts it would actually happen.

[Lucky Bob]

I've found some stories today that put a question mark on The Observer.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

Now this story seems straightforward. We're gonna spy on our allies, so says Frank Koza. (Remember that name.) He's "chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests. "

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905954,00.html

This "email" contains the "evidence" to back up this story. But wait, why is it from a Frank Kozu? I thought it was Koza! Maybe it's a typo.

Speaking of which, for an American, Mr. Koza-Kozu seems to make quite a few himself. "Favourable" is "Favourable", "Recognize" is "Recognise" and "Emphasize" is "Emphasise". You'd only see that kind of spelling in places like...say...Britain? :D

Also, notice the date stamp: 31/01/2003 0:16. If that's the actual copy of the text, an American never wrote that, as the month always goes first in a date!

Seems dodgy to me.

[James]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
It's just the Ed/Op page for the Guardian. That's all it is. Not a tabloid, not regular news. Just opinions on the what's happening in the world. Use the scrolling menu in the upper right corner and you can choose the regular news, as well as Film, Business, etc. which are at www.guardian.co.uk rather than www.observer.co.uk No need to get yourselves all worked up over it, people. It is a shame (and somewhat wrong) that they don't make that more clear, but it is obvious if you bother to familiarize yourself with the site. Observer articles all have one author whereas the proper Guardian articles usually cite "staff and agencies"

That's all it is. Mere opinion on what's going on in the world. Naturally, it leaves plenty of room for personal slants.

Thanks for the clarification. Since I live in the UK, I do know that whether the Guardian is a tabloid or not. Not refering to you there Joe, but I noticed that many simply ignored my point. Not wanting to press the point, but it is annoying when people who don't have a precise knowledge of the UK papers, question what over here is common knowledge. Besides, knowing what source is what helps determine it's credibility or political slant. The Guardian is anti-war - as are most papers here.

Good to see it's not true in any case! :)

[zmanjz]

Well... there is some truth within it. But it's not being done just to get back at Germany

http://www.msnbc.com/news/550115.asp

The reality is that we (the USA) want to have our equipment stored in areas where it can be moved cheaply and quickly to where we want to use it.

During the cold war when we thought we would be fighting a war in the streets of berlin, stationing armored divisions there made sense.

Today the only fighting in Germany I expect will be Police v. Rabid Protesters, so I don't see why we should waste billions on bases that aren't that useful anymore when we could either have our bases closer to regions in conflict. This would: Pump some desperately needed money into some of the poorer European Countries, Cost Less for us, Increase our response times, and decrease transportation costs.

So I say, the US Military doesn't exist to employ Germans. It exists to project US Policy. And The Germans ought to be happy that they are able to get the "warmongering" US out of their country. If they lose money on the deal, too bad.

[Pilmedium]

This does not sound like a reliable source, based on what was said here. That does seem like something the U.S. government would do, though.

[Supreme]

Some people just need to let dead threads R.I.P. :rolleyes:

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Supreme
Some people just need to let dead threads R.I.P. :rolleyes:

Well, if it's more than 3 weeks to a month old, I can see that. BUt this is still a pretty hot topic, with new info.

[Stardust]

Originally posted by Pilmedium
This does not sound like a reliable source, based on what was said here. That does seem like something the U.S. government would do, though.

I agree with that, but it's true.

The problem with this is that in order for troops to leave Germany, they must be approved upon leaving the border, or so I heard. Right now they don't have permission to leave the borders, so I don't know what's going to happen with that, except it's not a cool place to be deployed right now. =\