If the brain has been neglected, morality is very often taken. I love Wiglaf Droste’s sentence as if it were mine. One of my favorites is also a bon mot by Egon Bahr: “When a politician starts talking about values instead of naming his interests, it’s high time to leave the room.” If everyone did that, there would be constant mass panic at the exits of Parliament.
I’ve never been drunk. The last moral drunkenness was a long time ago. You can have fun when you’re sober. For example, when Robert Habeck recently bowed to the commercial sheikh in Doha as if he wanted to polish his shoes with his nose. Because of Putin’s miserable blood gas levels, Germany is now on the mat with slave owners. Well, at least Qatar doesn’t massacre itself in Yemen. At the same time, Annalena Baerbock courted a colleague via Twitter: “Thank you for our strong German-Turkish partnership!” Also cute. Erdogan’s imperial ambitions are not unlike Putin’s. That is why his troops are going about their daily work in northern Syria.
Nobody comes out of world politics with clean hands
I do not in any way condemn the contortions of the ministers. One cannot live on the planet and be free from it. Nobody comes out of world politics with clean hands. It just sometimes seems funny because of the drop between postulated values and pursued interests. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have said about Nicaragua’s dictator Somoza: “He is a bastard. But he’s our bastard.” Such openness is as beneficial as a throat candy. Only less often. A next step would be the realization that others may also consider you a bastard.
Oskar Lafontaine and Norbert Röttgen were arguing on a talk show. Lafontaine admitted that Putin is a war criminal, only to immediately ask the CDU foreign politician whether George W. Bush was one too. This debate technique is frowned upon as “Whataboutism”. The discussant, who sees himself on the defensive, shifts the debate to an area where he believes he has tactical advantages: “Okay, but what about it?”
Is Bush a war criminal?
Bush? Not a war criminal. said Rottgen. That may have surprised some viewers. After all, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified just as well as the “denazification of Ukraine” now. International law experts are largely in agreement. It is more controversial whether that illegal combat event cost the lives of 100,000 or many more civilians. Anyway, she must have been okay anyway. Because I remember that editorials at the time said that the bombing of Baghdad was as tragic as it was necessary. Because then at the time – like now against the “Z” pointer – it would have had to be determined because of the approval of a war of aggression. In addition, Bruce Willis was in Iraq to entertain the troops and never had to do penance to be allowed to appear in German cinemas. The ultimate proof of Schorsch Dabbelju’s innocence: Today he lives undisturbed as a pensioner in Texas.
It may be that Lafontaine wanted to distract from Russia’s aggression. Or even, as Bild wrote, put them into perspective. However, he was not the only one who noticed that standards can be juggled like oranges. An existence without standards leads to chaos. Blessed is he who has them twice.
Do you have an opinion on this text? Write us! [email protected]