host

In the past, I've warned and advised about the crimes you commit against humanity by your support of Bush/Cheney policies of war crimes and of crimes against humanity.... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/search.php?searchid=485160

Here is a patriot, Ann Wright, a former US Army Colonel and State Dept. diplomat who re-opened the U.S. embassy in Kabul in late 2001, who sent Colin Powell her letter of resignation in March, 2003, because, as the first bombs fell on Iraq, in what she determined to be a baseless and illegal invasion, she <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Ann_Wright">felt I could not support this administration's decision to go into Iraq, and when you disagree with a policy that feels like kind of a cornerstone--I morally felt that I could not participate in it.</a>

I've only warned others about the personal risks of supporting the Bush administration. Ann Wright, a full bird colonel and diplomat with 29 years of devoted service to this country, is laying it all out, and now she is handing me the same warning and challenge that I've been posting to some of you. By her words and her example, Ms. Wright opens my eyes to consider that, unless each of us interrupts our life, our career, and regulalry engages in aggressive, non-violent, but invasive protest to interrupt and interfere with our criminal leaders....to personally impress upon them in sufficient frequency and numbers, that their own countrymen will not tolerate or allow them to continue commiting these crimes.....each of us is not unlike a "good German" of 60 some years ago.
I've "talked the talk" here. Ms. Wright is "walking the walk". I'm not doing anything to oppose these criminal policies....compared to her. I'll commence a renewed and more commited effort by asking everyone here to reconsider whether crimes against humanity are being commited on the order of the POTUS and members of his administration, and if so; what you are personally going to do to help stop them? In some ways, those of us who know better and are not acting more in the example set by Ms. Wright, are no less complicit and culpable than those who support these criminals. We know of at least one, genuine, American patriot, standing up for what is right. Are we just going to watch, or are we going to watch her back?

Toaster126

I think it's disgusting you are comparing this to the situation in Germany 60 years ago... unless Bush went about attempting a systematic killing of a race of people that I missed, the sitations are different. Don't cheapen WWII with that. Argue the issues, don't envoke the worst example I can think of right now of the evil humans are capable of.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

host

Toaster126, the inspiration for this thread came from my observation of the deeds and the statements of a courageous woman who served her country for 29 years, and who was commended for <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/290">heroism</a> by the State Dept.

I happen to agree with her descritpion of our present circumstances, contained in the last quote box of the thread opener:
<h4>And we are complicit, all of us, because, quite honestly, we're not standing out in front of the White House every single day, and every time that Vice President leaves throwing our bodies in front of his car, throwing blood on it. We need to get tough with these guys. They're not listening to us</h4>


The victims of the conspiracy of deception, the war crimes, and the crimes against humanity that our leaders have committed, be the U.S. troops or innocent Iraqis, are as dead or maimed for life as the victims of any prior illegal campaign of aggression.

Direct your disgust at those who planned and ordered the violence and re-examine your inappropriately muted reaction to what has happened and must be stopped. A patriot is telling us to consider "throwing our bodies in front of his car", after giving up everything that she spent her life working for, to protest the first day of aggressive war, and to now stop it from continuing. And your reaction is..................?

How is the reaction (or...non-reaction) of most Americans to our war criminals in high postiions, that much different than this:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fa..._Syndrome.html

politicophile

I'm a bit confused by the appeal to authority you are making, Host. Surely, you don't believe that the majority of Colonels or of State Department officials oppose the war? If your argument against the Bush administration rests on their inside knowledge and authority, it would only make sense for you to reverse your position, as Ann Wright is in the extreme minority in her views. I'm sure she is a wonderful person, but she is no more knowledgable or trustworthy than the next State Department employee. And if the authority of one is worth a Godwin's Law-violating post like this, isn't the authority of the hundreds who hold the opposite view just that much more convincing?

You also gracelessly dodged Toaster126's criticism of your OP, a criticism that I level against you as well. Your comparison of the death toll incurred so far in the war to democratize Iraq and the 12 million killed in Nazi death factories is... foolish, to make a tremendous understatement. I think it's time for you to do some soul searching: your criticisms of the Bush administration are becoming increasingly nonsensical and irrational, as is evidenced conclusively by your outlandish analogy between the American public and complacent Nazi citizens.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

djtestudo

Let me say that Ms. Wright has the right to say whatever she wants, and I do applaud that she stood up for what she believes in, even if I happen to disagree.

Fortunately we all have differing opinions, which make this world a much more interesting place, even if some of us are more condecending with their views then others.

It's very interesting to note you ignore the fact that if we were Germans sixty years ago, you would already have been executed in a concentration camp for your views, so I would hope that you would have some more respect for those who disagree.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Willravel

Before we get too high on our soapboxes, let's break this down.
Hitler, after and during his gain for power, consolidated his power by appointing Nazi officials and maintaining legality throughout the process of seizure of control. Bush has both houses of Congress, the majority of the Supreme Court, and many friends spread out all over the ranks of the government.

Hitler transformed Gernmany into a police state legally over a few years. Bush has personally pushed for the Patriot acts. Hitler, despite being a miliatry leader, publicly expressed his strong want for peace. Bush, despite the 2 wars under his administration in which we were the aggressors, preaces peace.

Hitler arranged for the Reichstag to burn to the ground, blaming Communists. Bush arranged for (or allowed) the Twin Towers to be destroyed by planes, blaming terrorists.

After Hitler took power, a concentration camp (at Daschau, I think) was formed to house arrested communists, socialists, and labor leaders. He passed the Enabling Act allowing him to set laws bypassing their parlament, the whole time saying it was for the protection of the german people. The Republicans have full control of the government, and the Patriot Acts passsed allowing the president to take the rights away from any citizen without, bypassing our legal system. Bases all over the world are opened for insurgents in which torture is routine.

Hitler supported anti-semitic propoganda. Bush supports racial profiling against Arabs.

Theere are similarities between what happened in Germany after WW1, and those who deny this are living in a seperate reality.

Is Bush Hitler? Of course not. Bush is Bush, Hitler was Hitler. Could Bush do what Hitler did? Is it possible for history to repeat itself? I can't really say. The only thin gi know is that saying that this won't happen would make it easier for it to happen again.

Back to what Host was trying to say....Simply posting online about what's going on, much like what I do, is not enough to stop this. We need organization, legal recourse against those who would wish us silent, and legal ways to stop those who would go to war simply for selfish gain.
If this were immediataly after the burning of the Reichstag, before Hitler took full power (what I would consider our current situation's equivelant in the Nazi climb to power), Host would be considered a communist or socialist conspirater, but nothing could be done yet. The nazis would hate him and want him dead, but they wouldn't have the power to get away with it yet. He would stand a chance to organize a resistance in Gernamny where in reality there was none.

djtestudo

But Congress was elected by the people and most of the Supreme Court was apponted before his time. And those "many friends" are put there by whomever is president.

Congratulations, you just compared every US president to Adolph Hitler
That's a BIG leap right there. The Patriot Act, despite what a few want to believe, is still extremely limited.
Hitler wasn't a military leader at all. And I must have missed the second war where we were the agressor.

You MIGHT have a comparison with concentration camps and whatever comes out about what the CIA has done. Comparing the Patriot Act and the Enabling Act is simply lying, and destroys your argument.
Must have missed all the Arabs we're killing.
I would like to hear these "similarities" if you can come back from your reality to share them.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

djtestudo

Except that four years after the burning of the Reichstag (since you are comparing that to September 11 ) was 1937, when the Nazis were in full control and were already beginning to exterminate people.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Willravel

Does daddy Bush count? I think he does. Does grandpappy Bush count? I think he does.
Yeah, it's not as if I had other things, too.
It is a legal step towards making the US a police state.
Hitler was a leader with strong military ties and who served in the military. We attack Afghanistan first, or don't you remember?
I dare you to make less sense.
Thank you for your conscession about teh concentration camps comparison. As for the Patriot Act vs. the the Enabling Act...does the Judicial branch have more or less power under the Patriot Act?
Watch the news.We're in this place called Iraq. It's far away, but our soldiers are there. Our soldiers have guns. Those guns are routinely aimed at the people of Iraq, called Iraqis. Those Iraqis are Arabs,as they are a member of a Semitic people originally from the Arabian peninsula and surrounding territories who speaks Arabic and who inhabits much of the Middle East. Millions have died because of bombings, political intereference, sanctions, and an invasion. How many have died total? No one knows. Roughly 1 million died because of the UN sanctions that were pushed by the US during the 90s.
I did. I'll repeat if necesssary, but it's easier to just reread.

samcol

I agree. The biggest difference that I see is the Bush administration's agenda hasn't worked as well as Hitler's did. Maybe that's because this administration underestimated the Iraqi resistance and overestimated the American people's "patriotism" after 9/11.

Lebell

Anyone who draws direct comparisions between Bush and Hitler should not be surprised when they find themselves marginalized from political discussions.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

There are comparisons to be drawn between many poltical leaders throughout history (try King David and Clinton for a fun ride). Just because one poltical leader is infamlus doesn't mean the comparison is or isn't apt. Listen to or read an argument for it's merrits and weight those merrits. If you deem it incorrect, then wite or say your peace. It helps no one if you simply shoot down the arguer instead of his or her argument. With all due respect, you didn't address what I was trying to say. You attacked me for my subject.

djtestudo

Umm...ok...?
By that logic, so is every single law that is passed.

The Brady Bill does just as much to that end.
True, but that IS different then being a "military leader". He had military support.
They were the aggressor. Or don't you remember.
The judical branch can declare the act unconstitutional if they decide to.
And you claim I have a problem with reality.
Then I believe you ment WWII, not WWI

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Willravel

Every law? Huh? There are planty of laws being made that have nothing to do with the loss of civil liberties and the gain of executive influence.
Bush is in the same boat, no?
Not really. The men supposedly on the planes who hit the twin towers (despite the fact that they are still alive), were Saudi, not Afghani. Also, we funded and armed the Taliban in order to drive Russia out of the reigion.
The judicial branch can be completly circumvented under the Patriot Act. Remember the pat "heald without trial"?
If that wasn't clear enough for you, I'm afraid I can't be more clear. Our solders take their orders from the government. Our soldiers take their orders from the government. Our soldiers kill Iraqis. Our soldiers kill Iraqis. Iraqis are Arabs. Iraqis are Arabs. Do you understand?
Did you ever get the feeling you were having a completly different conversation that the person your sppeaking or writing to? I'll bite. What are you talking about? Also, what was the picture of plastic wrap about? I'm sorry, I guess I don't get your subtle humor.

Elphaba

I didn't think it subtle at all, but subtle enough to get by a mod I guess.

It is a roll of Reynold's aluminum foil; the obvious suggestion being that you need an aluminum hat to protect your mind from those evil messages that you have been receiving.

It was insulting and immature, but seemingly acceptably because historical comparisons to Hitler were not mentioned.

Willravel

Oh, OH. Gotcha. Thank you, Elpgaba. To be honest, the picture is too small for me to see the 'aluminum' on the box. I'm not really insulted, though I'm sure that was the intention. I know that some people don't think it's necessary to question everything, and that's okay. There are plenty of people out there that think that 9/11 went down EXACTLY like the 9/11 Commisson Report lays it out, and I still respect them inspite of it. Those people don't try to make fun of me though. They know that making fun of me is below them, and they know that bringing it up only makes me bombard them with facts about 9/11 that don't add up.

djtestudo

Almost every law made is used to control. Therefore each brings us closer to a police state.
No.
They were in an organization based out of Afghanistan, supported publically by the government. And we didn't support the Taliban, but the mujahideen, of whom some evolved into the Taliban.
What does that have to do with what I said?
You cannot seriously believe that US troops defending themselves against attackers is the same thing as the systematic elimination of several ethnic groups.
You could read what you write.
Elphaba got it, although his comments got a little insulting and immature near the end.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Willravel

I am talking about a direct route towards a police state, like taking away freedoms like a right to a trial. Laws about the environment, for example, are not on a direct route to a police state.
So the policies of the Bush administration aren't affecting the military? The military is a tool of the Bush administration.
The Patriot Act allows people to be heald without trial. That circumvents the Judicial branch.
I didn't say that. I simply said they are killing Arabs, which is true. They are defending themselves, of course, but who told them to go there, and to what end? There is wherre the comparison lies. Not all Nazi soldiers were racist, hate filled people you know. Some simply followed orders.
After WW1, the Nazi party rose to and took power. They did not take power after they started a war. If we are to compare Bush to Hitler, this is now the equivelent to post WW1 Germany. After WW2, Germany lost and Hitler was dead, so the comparison kinda wouldn't work.
Maybe you should remove the log from your eye before addressing the splinter in Elphebas. If you want to make a point, make it. Leave Reynolds out of it. If you'd like me to pull out all of my info on 9/11, we can move to another thread.

Edit: //END THREADJACK, I'm so sorry.

pan6467

Before you read this and cut and paste "quotes" from me READ THE WHOLE DAMNED THING with open mind. Don't cut only what helps your argument because, my post hopefully will cover it.... but only if you read it as one person's, mine's, OPINION and with as open of a mind as possible perhaps you can see where the comparisons are and actually respect those who question because they hold the keys to never allowing a Hitler to run our country. As long as their dissensions and voices are heard and we respect what they say (whether we agree at all on what they say), we will not have, nor can we ever have a Hitleresque leader. But the second we laugh them off, believe their cries to be foolish and ignore them without second thought and we blindly follow the leader the a Hitler we will have in no time.

There is merit to comparing Bush to Hitler.

Is it realistic?

To say it can't be or never will be is to open the door for someone who WILL be.

Is Bush a "Hitler"?

To say he is, is a stretch........... To say he isn't and to laugh and believe he cannot ever be, is to be blind............. We need to always be aware of what our leaders do and to not give them "free reign" and turn blind eyes, which for Bush, we seem to have done, in many aspects.

- We ignore, laugh off and disbelieve the calls of our bases being used for torture, and there is obvious facts behind this, Abu Ghraib where we saw pictures, we should have had independant investiagtions and review panels that watch over ALL military "POW" prisons after seeing those. We haven't.

And what seperates us, who claim to be civilized and claim to have such great moral standards and beliefs from the very animals that perfomed 9/11 and torture our prisoners????? We didn't have this "need" in any other war and it is bullshit and ignorant to claim we need it in this one.

- we ignore the fact there are legitimate questions the Bush Administration refuses to answer over the information he passed to start the Iraqi war, first we went because of WMD's, then a 9/11 connection, then to liberate and topple an evil regime, whatever excuse happens to garner support when the questions start coming.

- we ignore, call partisan and allowed the Administration to bully, question patriotism among other truly disturbing things any of the vocal calls for Congressmen/women who question the Administration. Even on Veteran's Day, Bush tried to tell us that questioning the war was unsupportive to the troops and disruptive. It is OUR duty to question why our men and women are being killed overseas, and to challenge whether it is truly needed or not.

- the ties Bush had to the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan before 9/11 and how he put in the leadership afterward, much has been made over Iraq's elections but have we heard much about Afghanistan's

- we ignore the fact that the vast majority of our allies have left us, when after 9/11 we had the power and ability to bring almost every leader to the table and to work out true meaningful ways to make terrorism, through peaceful ways working WITH other leaders and not threatening them by telling them "You are with us or you are against us"

- we ignore the fact that even after courts have ruled we are holding people with no justification, we are breaking our own Constitution, the Geneva Convention and the very beliefs that we held.

- we ignore the fact that the administration holds the people in contempt and refuses to answer any question put forth over the treatments in supposed "POW" camps, the true cause for the war (on record having changed it numerous times to a more "correct and acceptable" answer.)

- we ignore the fact the "Patriot Acts" and all corresponding anti-rights laws are now "on the books" whether enforced yet or not.

- we ignore or have convientently forgotten that this administration tried to recruit Postmen, Cable repairmen, Phone repairmen (among others we allow in our homes to work for us), to spy on us in our own homes and report "anything that didn't seem right" to authorities. The only reason this was stopped wasn't because of the people's cries, it was because the Postmaster REFUSED to let his office be used as such.

But by ignoring these does not make us "NAZI" Germany or close yet. We still have a press (although we work to destroy it by telling everyone how biased it is and how we cannot believe what they say..... unless of course they agree with "us"), we still have an opposing party, who is starting to find their balls and truly dig in and hold accountable those that need be.

So, for some, who believe what I have just written in part or as a whole, yes Bush can arguably be compared to some degree to Hitler.

There are many similarities and if you study history you can see them.....

- the hatred for the press, educators and entertainment, and their never ending attacks until they were able to control all of them

- the hatred of the poor, blaming them for the problems of the nation, cutting social programs

- the radio talking heads that blindly spewed propaganda,

- the divisive and antagonizing, hatred of the dissenting party, the questioning of patriotism, humiliating, bullying of anyone who disagrees and giving total blind and unquestiong belief that the Administration can do no wrong whatsoever and the buying of excuses, the total belief that Bush has done "nothing wrong at all".

- Hitler used religion and religious leaders as a huge ally, then when they were no longer needed he destroyed them very effectively.... He used religion as excuses and religious leaders to further his hatred of homosexuals, those who disagreed with him, educators, media and so on......

All were very effective for Hitler and all have in one way or another been used by Bush.

BUT there are the differences:

- Germany was a defeated country, slow to rebuild facing great economic hardships, when Hitler came in and turned the economy around to make it one of the few in that era actually progressing during the Depression that gripped the world.

- Hitler invaded countries to start a war so that patriotism and his economical control over the people would stay great and make it easier for his attrocities against the Jews and dissenters to go more unnoticed and unquestioned and to give the state the right to have a "martial law" and control over the media, schools, cities and people

- going backwards financially instead of growing (although it can be argued that controlling the poor is far easier than controlling people who have money, Stalin proved that)

- the ability to dissent even if patriotism is questioned, mental facilities questioned and bullying with personal attacks are thrown at those

- a 2004 presidential election, a 2006 midterm election where the party in power may lose some of that power

- The American people were raised with far more freedoms and beliefs of tolerence than those of the 1920's - 1940 Germans

- an international press (and a domestic press, small that it maybe) that can still question.... no matter how attacked

- an internet that allows people to question and exchange facts and to be more viligent.

_ there has been no "Beer Hall Push" yet, not total domination of control, yet. In fact, with the approval polls at record lows and Dem. governors being elected in 2 major key states and people becoming more vocal and open to questions and themselves questioning, it seems maybe the administration has gone too far and people are starting to think, there is something there.

So where does all this leave us?

IMHO there are similarities that cannot be laughed at or ignored and there are great differences, that must be appreciated.

ALl we can do is be watchful and hold our leaders to the highest standard and question them even if they are in the same party. We cannot blindly follow or allow our voices nor or hearts be unheard, simply because we have been led down a road to "hate and totally disbelieve the other side in everything". We cannot continue the "I'm right and you're wrong and so I will attack everything you say and it will reaffirm my belief in the leader I chose."

We have a history of being forgiving to our enemies, to rebuilding them without prejudiced and to hold ourselves to the highest of moral, ethical and spiritual standards and to hold accountable leaders that do not. (This is where I see the hypocrasy between the people so quick to fry Clinton for anything they could find and yet turn blind eyes to Bush without questioning anything that comes out, without even allowing the thought there maybe something there and vice versa..... but that's another thread).

So in the end, even if Bush were another Hitler, it would take far more time to build the total blind following of a nation where dissenters disappear.

Is it possible though, that he can ever be? No, however, we have laid groundwork to continue down that path. (However, Bush can turn into a Hitleresque leader if something were to happen and elections were "suspended" in 2008, or he was somehow able to maintain control..... Bush himself though is a puppet, it is the puppet masters that may be able to retain control simply by putting in a more charismatic leader that inspires even more blind followings and partisan hatred.)

The biggest problem I have and the biggest fear I have in this subject is that when anyone does question the possibility of Bush becoming a "Hitler", within the 1st paragraph they have to say "Hitler killed Jews and everyone who questioned him". That's true, but if Bush did that right away there would be too much outcry, even with attacks, threats, and total disregard for opposing views if people who held them started "disappearing" or were imprisoned people in America would start doing something, but there maybe a time when they won't.

Theoretically, it is highly possible for someone as Bush to become Hitler, in practice it is not as simple as it looks and would take a very strong mastermind that could plot every concievable roadblock and methodically destroy them.

So in the end, there is far more against Bush being a Hitler than there is for, but we should never attack those that can find comparisons or try to raise awareness of similarities, because that will allow us to be vulnerable to the next Hitler.

There are 2 huge warning signs that cannot be ignored if or when they ever do appear:

- a government spending far more than it takes in, without any regard of debt (this is where Hitler had the help of the Krupps, the Swiss bankers, and some of the richest people of the time backing him and his ideas. It is also where we saw the government take over the factories, the transportaion industries and so on.... this was done to "prevent financial ruin of the companies and to better the state."

- a government that turns more federal than local, that puts into question who truly controls the state, county and city's. A federal law enforcement and laws that make it easier for the nation to control every aspect of every citizens life.

I can see bits and pieces of both either here or on the way.... however, again there is far more dissension than blind following to allow it to happen......YET. And I don't see it happening, but again we need to be ever dilligent and questioning and making sure that it can not happen. And if we see similarities we must make sure we hold our leaders accountable and not give into partisan blindness.

We must remember Hitler did not rise to power in the snap of his fingers, he came to power slowly and methodically, each step was carefully planned, analyzed, and executed to a surgeon's perfection. So, when one sees warning signs whether "the majority" does or not, we should listen with open mind look at the facts and be aware that the possibility is there and to put into place roadblocks or to question why. Because not every similarity is going to be used for the same reason Hitler used it. Also, in today's world it is harder to be so methodical that other countries will allow it to happen as easily as we allowed Hitler. However, it is still possible, the steps may just take longer before the power is realized. But again it is extremely viable and the groundwork is being done quite efficiently.

Hitler's mistakes can be learned from and worked to benefit that next Fuhrer. The biggest obstacle to overcome is to take liberties away without much opposition and selling the people into believing they are needed.

A very excellent read on how Hitler gained the support of the leaders of industry first and then went for the people is 1,068 page William Manchester book "The Arms of KRUPP.".

In that book, one can see many similarities of the rise of Hitler and compare them to America today.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Seaver

Congradulations! You've just lost the respect of any reasonable member who reads this thread!

Willravel

I'm not sure I understand what this post has to do with Host's OP.

Pan, excelent post. You said what I'm thinking!

Tashah

Although I have undeniable problems with many policies of the Bush administration, I cannot agree to a correlation between Dubya and Hitler. To do so is as disingenuous as it is offensive, as it implies that the President of the United States surreptitiously pursues a policy of Ausrottung.

The correlation is also disturbing on another level, as it tends to redact the criminality of Hitler in order to attenuate the shortfalls of George W. Bush. If your overarching intent is to demonize Dubya through historical analogy, I would suggest that you parse the annals of history with a bit more honesty and circumspection.

__________________

tecoyah

I have been waiting for the inevitable....a serious application of similarities between Bush and Hitler to bleed into our forum. To be honest I had intended to close a thread that did so. After reading this debate I am not so sure as of yet, and so I ask only one thing.....as usual:


Please do not get Nasty in this thread, So far it is actually quite good in my opinion, Lets just keep it that way....thanx.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

raveneye

Bush himself mentions Hitler a lot, saying Saddam was the "new Hitler" who would have destroyed the world if GWB had not leaped in and saved us all.

Of course he never mentions the fact that his grandpa Prescott Bush, "good German" that he was, helped bankroll Hitler's rise to power from 1934 to 1943. And that if he hadn't done that, the Bush fortune might not be as great as it is now.

"As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." --John Loftus, a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s

Although we shouldn't blame the son for the sins of the (grand)father, nevertheless it makes you wonder how far the Bush family is willing to go to make a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Banking_Corporation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html

pan6467

I disagree, as I said in my post, it is good to question and compare because it saves us from the next true "Hitler".

It doesn't take away the attrocities of Hitler, in fact it keeps those attrocities remembered even moreso, and allows us the oppurtunity to prevent them from happening again.

I would rather compare and see the differences, then be blindly following and not see the similarities and in what way those similarities are being used.

I think it's fair to compare all our future presidents to the most evil and to the greatest leaders, so that we can guard against tyranny and promote the best in our society.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

This thread got derailed because I used the metaphor of the "Good German", to emphasize Edmund Burke's premise that
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." It seemed and still seems like the best way to describe people who know better, but do not rise to challenge evil when they see it take root. It is the evil itself that should incite objection, not the effort to describe lack of resistance to it.

Toaster126 and politcophile temporarily turned the intent of this thread in an unintended direction. I want to make a new effort to put this discussion back on track. Is Ann Wright's response to what she perceives to be happening in American foreign and military policy appropriate? I believe that it is. I am concerned that I have been acting too much like the Ratzinger brothers did when their moment of conscience came and went. Ann Wright seems like today's equivalent of the "White Rose"..........
Above are three examples of what I intended for this thread to be about. This sentence in the thread starter;
was seized upon by two posters who wanted to discredit, not discuss the example of Ann Wright and what it means to the rest of us who believe that the Bush administration is acting against our interest and is committing crimes against humanity.

I wanted to discuss what we should be doing to back the efforts of the too few, "Ann Wrights" out there. At this late date, there is little to gain in trying to convince the remaining 36 percent who support the Bush regime. Nixon still enjoyed 25 percent support on the day that he resigned. I want a discussion that the 60+ percent who disapprove of the Bush job performance will participate in. You object, but what are you doing to tell Bush and Cheney that they must stop and allow an investigation of the investigation of war in Iraq to actually take place without their effort to impede or divert the investigators? Are you full of excuses, as in the above examples of Georg Ratzinger, and his brother, the current pope, or are you wiling to act more like their contemporaries, in the "White Rose", or somewhere in between?
http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/

Tashah

Then we respectfully agree to disagree. The art of questioning does indeed ultimately reveal an objective reality, while comparisons merely serve to buttress subjective perception. Comparisons assume a mantle of viability but are highly conditional on many disparate factors such as era, location, circumstance, contingency, agenda, and who is performing the comparison. I could compare Bush to everyone from Alexander the Great to Emiliano Zapata and posit similarities and dissimilarities... the results of which essentially reveal more about me than the compared. It's a fun parlor game, but it is no substitute for intense and objective examination.

Another consideration is that of comparison taken to the extremis. If any comparison leads one to conclude that dire action is necessary to save us from the next true evil, then the resultant assassination is perhaps more a deed of erroneous perception than a wanton crime of abject malice.

Since the initiator of this thread has voiced a concern over thread-drift, I will belatedly honor the request to stay on-topic. Perhaps we can pursue this theme another day.

__________________

Lebell

Just to clear up a misconception that a few seem to have:

I will reasonably listen to any argument...to a point. Examples of this are arguments for man-boy love (NAMBLA), denial of the Holocaust and teaching Intelligent Design in school.

As to this discussion, an irrational comparison of Bush to Hitler falls into that category.

Now there certainly are things they have in common, but I find that those things will be the same sorts of things that Hitler would have in common with 99% of other national leaders.

But I find the differences to be so overwhelming that I can only conclude that the comparision is being done either a) irrationally or b) for effect and frankly, I find both to be boring.

To reiterate, if you want to discuss Bush's policies that's fine, but I think there are more apropo comparisons than Nazi Germany.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Xazy

Just comparing this at all to Nazi germany is wrong. I think that we were lied to about the war, at the same time I think that there were other motives that make the war a smart choice.

But the truth is, this thread just disgusts me to much, to even continue.. Sorry but I know what Hitler, did...

jwoody

All it took was one, posted in haste, sentence.

The internet is a cruel and heartless bitch.

__________________
.

shakran

Yes but what that means is that such comparisons are not generally meaningful. After all, Hitler and Bush both used limos to get around. Doesn't have anything to do with whether Bush will do what Hitler did.

What you're missing in your attempt to cast Bush as a potential Hitler is that Bush could never be Hitler. Ever. He simply doesn't have the brains. Psychopathic as he was, Hitler was very intelligent. HE orchestrated his rise to power. Once there, HE made the decisions. Bush simply isn't smart enough for a repeat performance. Others got him there, others are making the decisions for him.

Hitler had a plan and an agenda and figured out how to accomplish it, and went and did it. He started young, was successful at just about everything he put his mind to, and did EXTREMELY well in getting the germans to trust him, at least until the point where he had enough power that public trust no longer mattered.

Bush was a ne'er-do-well playboy until his 40's. An upward failure. Every business he touched failed. He failed as governor of Texas. And he's now failing obviously as the president - and he does not have nearly the military backing to subdue the people at this point.

And to say that Bush compares to Hitler insinuates that Bush intends to wipe out some race or religion. Bush doesn't have such clarity in any of his plans.

We have to remember that this is a president who doesn't watch the news, doesn't read the newspapers, and rarely reads books. He does not like to be educated. He does not like to think. It's very difficult to form a master genocide strategy if you don't like thinking. In fact as we've seen Bush tackles one step at a time without thinking or perhaps even realizing that there will be steps beyond the one he's on. He pushed for the Iraq war without considering what would happen once we invaded. It's obvious he never considered how we'd get out of Iraq.

Frankly, Hitler was a far more competently evil leader than Bush could ever be. Comparisons between the two are crazy.

And that's even assuming Bush wants to be evil, which I do not necessarilly believe - I think it's far more likely that his evil advisors Cheney and Rumsfeld are using Bush as a puppet.


And comparing the invasion of Iraq to the invasion of Afghanistan is like comparing apples and aardvarks. They're not even in the same ballpark. Afghanistan was harboring the group that attacked us. We told them to give Al Qaeda up. They refused. They deserved to go down.

Iraq hadn't done anything to us and wasn't harboring Al Qaeda, and didn't have the capability to hurt us even if they planned to. Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was mugging and murder on a grand scale.

Willravel

I don't remember ever comparing anything Bush did to the holocaust. I've compared other actions that are seemingly similar between the two men, none of which have been refuted (except the twin towers thing, which we'll leave alone).
Hitler surrounded himself with intelligent people. Hitlers greates ability was that he was enthusiastic and could convince people of anything. He was a superb speaker. Can't the same be said of Bush?
That's true. The course that we seem to be heading in that the asministration is pushing for does in fact date back at least to the PNAC and it's ultra conservative members drawing up plans back in the early to mid 90s.
We'll have to wait and see. The reason this was brought up is do you want to be wrong? What if you're wrong and Bush has more power than you think. Do you want to be passivly responsible for something really bad happening?
No, it doesn't. If one were to compare Clinton to King David, one doesn't even have to mention God. One can talk about foreign policies, morality and military stratigies, despite the fact that King David is best known for his relationship to God in the bible. You can omit one characteristic and still compare two people on other facets. Yes, Hitler is best known for killing millions of innocent Jewish people and starting WW2. Was that all he did?
Are you so sure? What if this is a simple ploy to trick us into thinking he is partially retarded so that we underestimate him? Honeslty, I can't think of any president before Bush I'd consider anything less than intelligent. Could Bush be the first one? I suppose, but to me it's more likely that he is putting on a mask of ignorance.
Not so. Take the comparison I made above:
Is it possible that this comparison, standing alone, is apt? I think so.
What's the difference? Either way evil is coming through or from Bush. Either way there is evil. If Bush doesn't have the moral bravery to stand up to his puppet masters, then he still isn't fit to be president.
The situation there was a lot more complicated than that.
I half agree with you!

Lebell

Good post, Shakran.

You were willing to go much more into depth with it than I was.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

pan6467

People seem to forget the worst attrocity in the world was not Hitler, but the fact Britain, the US, Russia and other countries were willing to let him execute the Holocaust until he invaded Poland, the USSR and declared war on us after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We did not declare war on Hitler first.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

Actually, all it took was one, misunderstood, phrase.

I recognized the phrase "good German" immediately and it's reference is not about Hitler, but of the citizens and military of Nazi Germany. It ties directly to Host's title "War Crimes: Complicity and Culpability of Americans" and is very likely associated with his new avatar.

The big question after WWII was why were the atrocities allowed? The military excuse was "I was just following orders", meaning I am a good soldier and someone else is to blame. The civilian response was similar, "I am a good German", as opposed to a traitor to the homeland. "The good German" came to represent all those who turned a blind eye to murder and remained silent.

Willravel

Exactly. Those who were swayed by the talk of "patriotism is not question the government" were as much responsible for the atrocities as those who actually carried them out. Who Host suggests, and I agree whole heartedly with, is that those who are trying to be patriotic by going along with party lines and blindly following those in power are guilty of not thinking for themselves, and are thus partially responsible for any wrong doing done by those they follow. And I'm guilty of writing a run on sentence.

pan6467

Karma's a bitch, have a feeling some Bush fans will find that out someday, but today as long as you give them tax cuts, talk about Jesus, criminalizing homosexuality and abortion and tell them whatever else they want to hear and then of course, blame the Dems for everything bad in the country (even though they are the party in control), then the Bush followers will happily turn a blind eye and defend anything he does no matter how wrong.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

politicophile

Here, in my own words, is the comparison Host is trying to make:

"The American people of 2005 are passively allowing the government to get away with fabricating intelligence about the war in Iraq, operate secret CIA prisons where torture is occuring, etc. The Nazi Germans likewise turned a blind eye to the atrocities being committed by their government. For this reason, the American people are suffering from the "good German" syndrome we saw in Germany during WWII."

Now, here are the unstated premises I see in the argument:
-The response of the American public to Bush's crimes has been very similar to that of the Germans to Hitler
-The crimes committed by Bush are very similar to those committed by Hitler

The first premise is very obviously included in the argument because this is precisely what is implied by the "good German" argument. It is also, of course, false. For starters, there is, to the best of my knowledge, no plot within Bush's inner circle to kill him. Additionally, it is widely reported by the media that Bush is extremely unpopular amongst the people. And finally, the internet, CNN, etc. is filled with criticism of Bush's actions. None of these factors were present in the "good German" scenerio, so the comparison was a poor one from the outset.

The second premise is far less obvious, so let me explain why I think it is necessary to include it:

If we agree that the crimes respectively committed by Bush and Hitler are NOT very similar, then the "good German" syndrome is watered down to basically mean that the American people didn't rebel against a government that committed crimes. While it is true that the people didn't overthrow Bush's government, I don't think this is something that the people should be faulted for. Surely, Host, you are not advocating that all governments that commit crimes should be overthrown? If so, shouldn't we have started an insurrection against Bill Clinton, who lied under oath?

If you agree that we should not overthrow all governments that commit crimes, but continue to believe that we should overthrow the Bush administration, then you are buying into the comparison between Bush's crimes and Hitler's. How else would you be able to say that Bush's crimes are so severe that he should be thrown from power?

And so Elphaba, since Host will obviously take the "Bush's crimes and similar to Hitler's" route, it is perfectly reasonable to decry the comparison that is implicitly being made, even though it was not contained in the small phrase you quoted.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Willravel

More than that, he's asking what beyond talking we are willing to do to make sure our government is not out of control, but yes, that's about right!
Not necessarily. When comparing two things, levels of severity can be relative. For example. I can compare a Taco Bell burrito with a burrito from a 4 star Mexican restaurant. They are not to the same degree, but are similar enough to compare in a given situation where the comparison is apt. Again, Bush has not committed genocide yet. Until he has, in my mind, he is not on the same level as Hitler. This however, does not make them incomparable (did I just make up a word?). Likewise, we are not ignoring WW2 or holocaust level atrocities happening right now. We are ignorning breeches of the Geneva convention and constitution, that should be alarming. We are ignoring either falsification or minipulation of facts in order to start a war of aggression. These are not on the same level, but are comparable.
You are being too literal. Exaggerating the argument of one's opponent does not make your point correct.
Overthrown? No. Kept in check? Hell yes! There are many actions one can take against a government that is comitting crimes. I suggest legal routes, personally. Boycots, demonstrations, and other peacful resistences are most effective.
I'm too lazy to overthrow a government. Let's just hold those in government responsible for their actions and call it a night.

Elphaba

Politico, please note that I was responding to JWoody and assumed he was referring to the "good German" phrase. Perhaps I was wrong and he had another sentence in mind.

It's not so obvious to me which tact Host will take, so I will leave it to him.