"We occupied Germany from 1945 to 1990 without suicide attacks"

[Knightskye]

I listened to Dana Loesch's radio show a couple minutes ago. She talked to Stephen Green, the abominable (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=78626) snowman, about the Republican Party. Green said (I think) that the head of the right-wing of the party was Ron Paul. About a moment later, he said he agreed with Ron Paul on about 80% of things -- like many conservatives do -- and then went on a rant about his foreign policy.

There weren't any insults from Loesch, but she didn't defend us either. She seems nice. I saw her interviewed on Fox a couple times.

Green mentioned that he is a "small L libertarian". Good googly moogly. Someone show him this:
YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)

Anyway, Green made that point that we "occupied Germany from 1945 to 1990" without being attacked by a suicide bomber. That's probably a popular talking point. Heck, we still have 55,000 troops in Germany.

What's a good response to that? What I have so far is that Afghanistan doesn't have a centralized government, compared to Germany, which did back in 1945, when I guess we negotiated an agreement to keep some of our troops there. It was pretty clear that we came to help them. We didn't have a military base on German holy land...

What am I missing?

[majinkoola]

My response would be, what happened post World War I when German lands were occupied under the Treaty of Versailles?

[brandon]

We share a common religion and ancestry with most Germans. I am 75% German myself. Furthermore, we don't bomb them or police their streets. We just have troops hanging out in bases, minding their own business, spending our tax dollars. Big difference.

[ItsTime]

It is an outright lie. There were riots and much violence after WW2 all over Europe.

[Danke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

[ItsTime]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

Thanks it was on the tip of my brain and I couldnt remember.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Cells_%28RZ%29

which is held responsible for 296 bomb attacks, arson and other attacks between 1973 and 1995

[angelatc]

That's interesting. Ireland shares a lot of culture with Britain, but they didn't like British rule one little bit.

[ItsTime]

That's interesting. Ireland shares a lot of culture with Britain, but they didn't like British rule one little bit.

And if I remember correctly either did we :D

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

When the Nazi's were elected, the vote was so divided that they won with only a small plurality. Most Germans were never behind the aggressive military dictatorship that our occupation replaced. At the time, the US did have the moral credibility to be a legitimate force to secure peace and prosperity (irony noted).

Virtually all of our occupations now are more similar to the Nazi invasions and occupations of WWII than the US occupation of Germany.

[BuddyRey]

Well, the first fallacy is at the very beginning of the claim, since most of the individuals constituting "we" (the people) have never occupied anybody.

[MelissaWV]

We bombed Japan, and they didn't bomb us back, therefore we are able to bomb any nation and they won't bomb us back. We can do whatever we want! Party! Woooo!

See how dumb that sounds? That seems like the sort of thinking that's being espoused here: the reaction of one country will dictate the reactions of all of them.

The recruiting methods being used specifically mention occupation. This isn't conjecture. People who used to not care, or dismiss the terrorists as crazy kooks, are now listening to what they have to say. Why not? Those "kooks" made the case that Westerners were going to come and ruin everyone's life. At that time, probably a lot of people shrugged, thinking "what? They're going to McDonalds us to death?" Now, from their perspective, with a view of a "checkpoint" down the street and military personnel walking their towns... suddenly it doesn't SOUND as crazy. It only escalates from there.

Germany was plenty pissed off at us for various reasons. It did manifest itself. I would also, though, submit that "occupation" is a stupid way to label American presence in Germany from 1945 to 1990. Hell, there wasn't even "a Germany" during the vast majority of that time, so what is he talking about? Did we really patrol German streets, conducting random raids, and flooding the news at home with constant stories about how Germans are out to get us, so we need to get them first, because another Hitler is rising in their midst? I must have missed that?

Others have given valid reasons why the parallel isn't accurate, and they're darned good reasons. It's really one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Culturally, geographically, chronologically, and situationally, the entire thing is different.

[Pericles]

Let's extend that logic just a bit, and ignore the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955.

Would you consider the Soviet presence in the German Democratic Republic an occupation.

Feel free to discuss the similarities and differences, including the steps taken by the East Germans to remove foreign troops from their territory.

[newbitech]

What happened in the 1940's in Germany was a real war. What is going on now between the US and the Mideast countries is police action. Big difference. We were not trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Germans. We crushed them and ripped out their desire to fight. In the ME, we are propping up phony governments and inviting the "terrorist" to take target practice. Also, I would say that we didn't occupy the Japanese "homeland" YET, those folks were still willing to commit suicide to DEFEND it.

None of this changes the fact that the people doing the suicide attacks HAVE TOLD US WHAT their motives are. No need to try and understand why Germans didn't act like Afghans or Iraqs etc etc etc.

[dannno]

This thread is a great example of why I always say that the vast majority of Republicans are much less educated on foreign affairs than they give themselves credit for.

Not that Democrats are generally that much more educated (especially establishment Dems), but there are a lot of 'progressives' actually are much more educated in foreign affairs than their Dem buddies as well as Republicans... and that's really sad.

[Brian4Liberty]

It is an outright lie. There were riots and much violence after WW2 all over Europe.

Not to mention that every able-bodied (and willing) man, grandfather and boy had already been killed in a final suicide defense.

War tends to end when all willing combatants are dead.

[UK4Paul]

I've just realized the US Government's strategy. Since the terrorists hate you for your freedom, the Government has decided to take your freedoms away... so the terrorists won't hate you any more.

Genius! :D

[fj45lvr]

What happened in the 1940's in Germany was a real war. What is going on now between the US and the Mideast countries is police action. Big difference. We were not trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Germans. We crushed them and ripped out their desire to fight. In the ME, we are propping up phony governments and inviting the "terrorist" to take target practice. Also, I would say that we didn't occupy the Japanese "homeland" YET, those folks were still willing to commit suicide to DEFEND it.

None of this changes the fact that the people doing the suicide attacks HAVE TOLD US WHAT their motives are. No need to try and understand why Germans didn't act like Afghans or Iraqs etc etc etc.


I was thinking similar things in that it comes down to the people being occupied as to how much FIGHT they have.....what do they stand to gain or lose?? What motivates them? What percentage of men of fighting age were still alive after WWII?? I think one can more easily embrace what he has "grown up with" depending on how brutal the occupiers are.

Is resistance in concert with lunatics or Justice???

[RBS51]

I listened to Dana Loesch's radio show a couple minutes ago. She talked to Stephen Green, the abominable (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=78626) snowman, about the Republican Party. Green said (I think) that the head of the right-wing of the party was Ron Paul. About a moment later, he said he agreed with Ron Paul on about 80% of things -- like many conservatives do -- and then went on a rant about his foreign policy.

There weren't any insults from Loesch, but she didn't defend us either. She seems nice. I saw her interviewed on Fox a couple times.

Green mentioned that he is a "small L libertarian". Good googly moogly. Someone show him this:
YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)

Anyway, Green made that point that we "occupied Germany from 1945 to 1990" without being attacked by a suicide bomber. That's probably a popular talking point. Heck, we still have 55,000 troops in Germany.

What's a good response to that? What I have so far is that Afghanistan doesn't have a centralized government, compared to Germany, which did back in 1945, when I guess we negotiated an agreement to keep some of our troops there. It was pretty clear that we came to help them. We didn't have a military base on German holy land...

What am I missing?

Perhaps this is merely confirmation that most "terrorist attacks" are actually false flag operations, and the others may just be copy cats.

[South Park Fan]

Perhaps this is merely confirmation that most "terrorist attacks" are actually false flag operations, and the others may just be copy cats.

That may be a bit of a stretch. Occupying a country that is diamatrically opposed to it is bound to breed resentment toward the occupiers, some of which will be manifested through suicide attacks. Ask Michael Scheurer or Robert Pape.

[Bman]

What am I missing?

A couple of things.

First off German culture is heavily christian, so is America's. In other words we share common/simular moral values.

Secondly the second largest population of American citizens have ancestors in their blood line from Germany.

There was/is plenty of common thread between Americans and Germans.


We share a common religion and ancestry with most Germans. I am 75% German myself. Furthermore, we don't bomb them or police their streets. We just have troops hanging out in bases, minding their own business, spending our tax dollars. Big difference.

I should have read a little further. I think Brandon nailed it. You won't find too many PA boys/girls without German blood that's for sure.

[BlackTerrel]

To act is radical Islam plays no role would be very naive. But our occupation makes them more radical.

[Matt Collins]

We share a common religion and ancestry with most Germans. I am 75% German myself. Furthermore, we don't bomb them or police their streets. We just have troops hanging out in bases, minding their own business, spending our tax dollars. Big difference.
Well that and the Americans living in Germany spend a ton of money there. It's good for the German economy. :rolleyes:

[ItsTime]

To act is radical Islam plays no role would be very naive. But our occupation makes them more radical.

If Islam was bombing your neighbors would you be considered an "American Radical" if you wanted to kill the people that killed your neighbors, friends, family?

[Knightskye]

To act is radical Islam plays no role would be very naive. But our occupation makes them more radical.

Do you think the religion automatically makes them radical?

[Flash]

To act is radical Islam plays no role would be very naive. But our occupation makes them more radical.

I agree with you to a degree. Europeans are more atheistic than anything. And even the 'Christian' Europeans are secularists. But it still really comes down to occupation.

[Free Moral Agent]

Well its because both Germany and United States are predominately Christian nations. The label of the religion is not whats important, it is the fact that they are of the same. It makes it culturally unacceptable and unrewarding to be a suicide bomber in this scenario; martyrdom would never celebrated.