Bush and the Nazi's

That's why I don't buy Volkswagen cars or IBM products (including products that are offshoots of IBM Nazi products, such as most of the PCs sold today), and I think anybody who does is a freaking Nazi. I hope you're not one of them.

Old News actually. And factually false.  Did you bother to check out the stats on the issue?  I think not.

Watch out for Black Helicopters!

Old News actually. And factually false.

Like ancient...and like bogus!

Hey, but he wants whore points, and we are obliging him!  !

I did not realize that this was ancient news. I would like to know where the information proving that this is bogus could be found. As far as whore points go, that was never intended.

Guys, sure it's old news but please don't accuse people of things like "points whoring" and the like. Good bloggers write a lot. Don't discourage people from writing about things.

There was a war back in the 40's? Wow, I'll have to look into that.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I think this is about more than the war. Rat has a valid point, and maybe he just discovered it. So what. We should be supporting the exploration of information. Read, read, read. The more the better. Go Rat!

ll

Hey, you can always check out the americannaziparty.com or was it org, anyways something like that if you want to see what "real" modern day Nazis are like.

IMO, they are complete smacktards and nutters who need to go into years of Psychological Therapy to clear their little noggins of all that false bigoted information. Though I find what the Swiss Bank has done 100 times worse than playing the Nazi name calling or association game with Bush or any President.

On Time, On Target, On Topic!
Are we to always blame the sins of the Father or Grandfather on the Child?
Like Arnold?

Grim, Future-Past Plinko Nazi-Hunter Extraordinaire!!

Grim- yeah that site is sorta creepy.... im scared

SameOldRat, you should check out this article "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy" Link
Fact is, Prescott may have been Hitler's banker, but that, in and of itself, doesn't have any bearing on today's politics (other than the apple doesn't fall far from the tree). What is important is how it all progressed from there, including the Bush family ties that have evolved over the years - from the Nazis to the Saudis to the Bin Ladens to the Carlyle Group, and into American politics. It reads like a bad scifi novel of an alien takeover. Scary stuff.

The important thing is not what ones ancestors did. (Heck, look at Kennedy, Sr. Or consider some of the viewpoints of your own grandparents. ) The important thing is what the individual does.

President Bush has, in some ways, veered far enough right to make one nervous, given the history of the far right in the past century. His administration's viewpoints on prisoners ("Lets see how limited an interpretation of the Geneva Convention rules we can get away with") alarms me greatly. And the stirring up of nationalistic hatreds and resentment would remind most anyone of that dark era.

However, I think that a parallel between President Bush and fascists ignores the main facts of history:
1) Fascists were, at their core, cool to capitalism. The term National Socialist may have been a misnomer -- they were far more nationalistic than socialistic -- yet, the term was not meaningless either. Fascists championed the middle class, not the upper class.
2) Our current neocon view of the world has more in common with the late colonialists than it does with the fascists. Current policy is to define the national good in terms of what will make the world safe for the corporations -- for extraction of natural resources, and for the development of high consumption markets. That is how "American interests" are defined, and that is what tax dollars can be spent freely for. It is assumed that the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us... Think British Empire

If you want to understand the pros and cons of our current course of action, you would do better to read up on the late British Empire than the fascists.

" The important thing is not what ones ancestors did. (Heck, look at Kennedy, Sr ...."

Which would be even more apt, since the elder Kennedy's corruption secured his son the White House by a mere 112, 000 or so votes. Between the elder Kennedy's mob connections securing millions of union votes and the undead filing from graveyards to vote in Chicago and elsewhere, I think it could be said as many souls were sold to build Camelot as were to buy the ranch at Crawford.

His administration's viewpoints on prisoners ("Lets see how limited an interpretation of the Geneva Convention rules we can get away with") alarms me greatly.

I'm not in favor of torture, either, but didn't 9/11 "alarm you greatly?" The terrorists didn't just ignore the rule book that day, they tore it up and threw it in our faces.

I would have considered my President derelict in his duty after 9/11 if he had not instructed his administration to completely re-evaluate the full range of options open to us in dealing with an enemy and a threat unlike any we've ever faced, one that gives not one rat's ass about the Geneva Convention, would violate it right & left then run willingly under its protective umbrella, laughing all the way. Where in the Convention does it say it's OK to fly fully-loaded commercial jets into buildings?

The politics of the re-election campaign turned that re-evaluation into fodder for partisans of the left, an inevitable political risk. I'm grateful our President took that political risk and that 52% of the electorate saw through the left's distortions and understood what's at stake. We need to continue an honest and constructive discussion of how to deal with the threat that is still there, not more of this "Bush and the Nazi's" bullshit.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I would have considered my President derelict in his duty after 9/11 if he had not instructed his administration to completely re-evaluate the full range of options open to us in dealing with an enemy and a threat unlike any we've ever faced, one that gives not one rat's ass about the Geneva Convention, would violate it right & left then run willingly under its protective umbrella, laughing all the way

smart almost always trumps tough.  he may have instructed his administration to reevaluate all the options, in which case they failed him (rumsfeld's refusal to submit the marines recommendation for dealing with falloujah last april is a classic example of that) in pushing...ultimately he failed us by choosing...to employ a byzantine approach that hasnt contained at least 8 (like half of those released) who should still be in custody instead of back with the taliban while continuing to confine others who didnt deserve to be picked up in the first place.  legal scholars, lawyers and judges from both sides of the political divide are increasingly frustrated by the process which is rapidly disintegrating because it's so obviously flawed.  mistakes are understandable, especially when there's not enough time to consider all aspects carefully.  refusing to acknowledge mistakes isnt understandable or acceptable.

since this administration puts such a premium on secrecy, we may never know for certain how much useful intelligence was gathered in gitmo.  one thing we can be fairly certain of--based on 3000 years of actual hands-n experience: coercion is the least effective means of obtaining reliable information.

I think you're confusing the issues, kingbee.

I agree that hindsight has shown that some expectations were wrong and that mistakes were made. We need to learn from them.

But any administration needs sufficient privacy in its war deliberations to allow for a full airing of options, even unpleasant ones. The secrecy you talk about is partly a creature of the left's making. It's not particularly helpful for our strategies and intent to be published in the NYT for our enemy's benefit, nor is pulling bits & pieces out of context and publicly tearing them to shreds out of political hatred. And it can fairly be argued that, by listening to the left and moderating our military options in Iraq out of respect for perceived local & international sensitivities, we're facing a more difficult problem now than we faced previously. I note that the press is now conveniently saying we should have done Fallujah in April, before the insurgents could consolidate, but the left always wants it both ways.

My point is that the President should not be crucified for doing his job. Let's debate how to better protect our country without forcing anyone into a defensive posture.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I realize this is getting off the original topic, but I think it's imortant.

Where in the Convention does it say it's OK to fly fully-loaded commercial jets into buildings?

Obviously, it doesn't, but that doesn't give an administration the right to have a free for all in war games. I know that's just my interpretation of what happened, but you all know what I mean. It's the old 'two wrongs don't make a right.'

coercion is the least effective means of obtaining reliable information

Agreed. It's no wonder that this war has been so ineffective. Mission accomplished my A.

stupid

by listening to the left and moderating our military options in Iraq out of respect for perceived local & international sensitivities, we're facing a more difficult problem now than we faced previously. I note that the press is now conveniently saying we should have done Fallujah in April, before the insurgents could consolidate, but the left always wants it both ways.

for clarification of my statement about rumsfeld not offering the president options other than those rumsfeld himself approved and evidence your contention about the press (or at least one major newspaper's very detailed report about the factors that resulted in losing control in fallouja) may well be incorrect,  feel free to check this out: LINK.  not everything is about left/right. 

Thanks for the link, kingbee - I think it supports what I've been saying (that the critics want it both ways - we were right to not storm Falloujah in April but now we shouldn't have allowed the insurgency to consolidate), although I simply do not accept the bald assertion that the insurgency is all our own fault. I agree "not everything is about left/right" and that there were mistakes & miscalculations - no administration has ever achieved clairvoyance. The "left/right" of it frames the discussion more than it should, however, though I'm not trying to turn the criticism around on itself. The administration deserves some heat for having allowed those political considerations to influence decisions.

I believe there are constructive ways of dealing with our mistakes and there are destructive ways. My opinion is that the left has spent a lot more energy on destructive criticism than helpful criticism. God knows what that has to do with Nazi's, but I guess that was my original point.

Cheers,
Daiwa

that the critics want it both ways - we were right to not storm Falloujah in April but now we shouldn't have allowed the insurgency to consolidate), although I simply do not accept the bald assertion that the insurgency is all our own fault.

i got no idea what this has to do with nazis either but...

as far as that 'times' article: there was no suggestion we should or should not have stormed fallouja in april. or that the insurgency was our own fault (except in the broader sense that without an invasion, it wouldnt be our problem).  the most troubling aspects--to me anyway-- are: rumsfeld's rejection of the marine commander's input compounded by his refusal to put it in front of the president...any indication the president asked for other strategic options or input from the military.  the result was an order to attack that was then halted by washington's equally disturbing decision to keep the june hand-over on schedule (rather than risk the political capital it promised).  which led to the foolish (no matter how you look at it) rush to install the fallouja brigade and provide the insurgents with 800 weapons, 27 trucks, etc. (the parallel with arming vietnamese hamlets with modern assault weapons resulting in well-armed viet cong is painfully evident).  it's difficult for me to find anything constructive about the handling of fallouja last spring.

The terrorists didn't just ignore the rule book that day, they tore it up and threw it in our faces.

You are telling yourself one of America's favorite current myths.

Terrorism is not new. We used it in our own Revolutionary War, and it wasn't new then.

Anyway, we are not limiting our torture to those who took part in or planned that attack. We are torturing ordinary people on the other side.

And I want my nation to behave like a Christian nation. I believe that we have a special place and a special role. I don't think that this means trying to match the evils of others.

"We used it in our own Revolutionary War... "

Elaborate?

ChristianDog -

You are so wrong about that being a "myth." And you proceed in blindness at your peril. It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11. Just another day in history.

I don't advocate torture nor did I use that phrase to justify its use. I was referring to the fact that the status quo ante no longer applied and that a complete re-evaluation of our approach to dealing with the threat was not only appropriate, but necessary. I happen to believe, aside from the appropriate moral objections, that torture seldom "works" anyway. You and I agree on that point, but that point only. Abu Graib was a disgrace. As for whether such "enemy combatants" should have PX privileges, cigarettes or access to TV, my conscience will survive denying them such creature comforts.

Back to the original point (mine, anyway). Gonzales has been lambasted for allegedly advocating torture, as if it were his original idea to go figure out a way to obviate the Geneva Convention for the sole purpose of enabling "justifiable" torture, and that the whole exercise was an elaborate ruse for that purpose. That's just not an accurate or fair representation of what happened or Gonzales's role. Apologies to SameOldRat for this topic hijacking his original thread.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #24 By: Daiwa - 11/14/2004 11:04:31 AM ChristianDog - You are so wrong about that being a "myth." And you proceed in blindness at your peril. It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11. Just another day in history. I don't advocate torture nor did I use that phrase to justify its use. I was referring to the fact that the status quo ante no longer applied and that a complete re-evaluation of our approach to dealing with the threat was not only appropriate, but necessary. I happen to believe, aside from the appropriate moral objections, that torture seldom "works" anyway. You and I agree on that point, but that point only. Abu Graib was a disgrace. As for whether such "enemy combatants" should have PX privileges, cigarettes or access to TV, my conscience will survive denying them such creature comforts.

Torture can and does work but usually only if carried to extremes. Which ain't cool. If you think it doesn't work just go talk to someone who spent time in a Vietnamese prison camp.