D: Wasn't trying to sidetrack you at all, rather get back to your original topic. Well my original topic was about whether Bush's rhetoric was similar to the ones used in Goering quote. D: so I'm just as done with you as you appear to be with me. toblerone: I'm quite willing to continue if you stick to the original topic. I think the justification for war is a seperate issue from the rhetoric and it deserves its own seperate discussion since frankly I haven't really thought through it yet. I don't have anything against you. Dr. B --Thats because so many of them seem to be the same; "Blah blash, bash bush,etc..." I could count off almost 5 right now Toblerone: Well that's pretty much the same logic racists use to discriminate against people. Those 5 people aren't me so why judge me based on them. Dr. Bailey are you Bakerstreet under another pen name? If not would you let him argue for himself because that comment wasn't even directed at you. If you are him would you please identify yourself as such so I know who I am talking to. Dr. Bailey: , there are those who IMO are a lot nicer, and that i enjoy debating with, the others......

Toblerone: Now you are getting personal. I have merely reflected the tone of the replies sent to me. If I get arrogant, condescending and sarcastic comments I send an similar reply back. Gee what a concept: if someone is rude to me I'm rude back! I don't mind people having different opinion than me but my opinion was attacked first (not debated against I might add) and for the most part they weren't even opinions I actually held!

I'm just getting frustrated, here is debate in summary so far:

ME: Hastily write post a Quote + inflammatory headline = lots of angry people. (at this point I exit to finish an essay for uni due the same day not thinking about how the inflammatory headline would be misterpreted)

others: You callled Bush a Nazi! (insert something that is implictly insulting to me here)

Me: No, I just think he used similar rhetorical techniques. (attempt to clarify my position after realising how people might interpret the headline)(insert jibe to get them back for insulting me)

O: So you think Bush is a Nazi just because he used same rhetorical tactics. That's like saying hippies and Nazis are the same because the both use toothbrushes.

Me: No I'm just saying he used the same rhetorical techniques. I think ethics and rhetorical techniques are two different things.

O: But some people will make that link.

Me: Probably but that is not my intention.

O: Yes it is.

Me: No it isn't

O: Yes it is times infinity plus one.

Me: Err, no... IT....ISN'T!

O:(random stuff about the justification for war)

Me: (me getting sucked into the arguement then later pointing out it wasn't connected to my original topic)

O: (Them trying to convince me it was my point)

Me: (me trying to convince them it wasn't)

O: (Them calling me rigid, arrogant etc. for not agreeing it was my point. as if I don't know my own mind, and basically saying I was not sucked off topic I was merely debating the issue I set out to all along)

So here we are, do you think that might get a little annoying after a while? If people decide to debate me on the topic I am happy to continue. If you think you know what topic I wanted to debate better than I do then I suggest they get treatment for delusions of mind-reading.

I apologise to anyone I have insulted but only on the understanding that you get what you dish out.

Toblerone

Then what is the end result to likening Bush to Nazis rhetorically? What judgement are we supposed to base on that, if not to associate Bush with Nazism?

I mean, do we say, "Wow, Bush sounds like a Nazi!" and not make a moral equation? Do you really think people won't?

Of course you do, which is why you posted it.

--I haven't been dishing out anythig Toblerone...i apologize if i have, i never realized it, if you would show me where, we could discuss it...

--and whoever said:

Dr. Bailey are you Bakerstreet under another pen name? If not would you let him argue for himself because that comment wasn't even directed at you. If you are him would you please identify yourself as such so I know who I am talking to.

--I am not BakerStreet, I was also known as Lucas Bailey before...then i changed my nn as i am know a professor at U/Arizonia...

mean, do we say, "Wow, Bush sounds like a Nazi!" and not make a moral equation? Do you really think people won't? Of course you do, which is why you posted it.

--Not necessarily, some might not care...

Then what is the end result to likening Bush to Nazis rhetorically? What judgement are we supposed to base on that, if not to associate Bush with Nazism?

First things first AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!

Now that I've got that out of the way. No, it was just meant to be a discussion about how different sorts of leaders manipulate people in similar ways. I'm sorry if I have higher intellectual aspirations than getting people to draw false associations. I'm sorry I can't be a stupid as the people you would like to compare me to. Shall I take out my brain and try this again?

Don't ascribe to malice what can merely be ascribed to thoughlessness on my part.

In the words of George Jetson "Jane! Get me off this crazy thing!" (and no, I am not wishing to associate myself with furturistic cartoon families or Hanna Barbera).

(goes off to play "Head versus Wall" for real)

I haven't been dishing out anythig Toblerone...i apologize if i have, i never realized it, if you would show me where, we could discuss it... --and whoever said: Dr. Bailey are you Bakerstreet under another pen name? If not would you let him argue for himself because that comment wasn't even directed at you. If you are him would you please identify yourself as such so I know who I am talking to. --I am not BakerStreet, I was also known as Lucas Bailey before...then i changed my nn as i am know a professor at U/Arizonia...

I fucked up the quote thing earlier and put quotes within quotes accidently.

Yeah Dr. Bailey I just got confused because you replied to something that I had directed at Bakerstreet. Now, I'm not sure which of your comments were actually directly at me. Anyway apology excepted if the thing about me not being nice was directed at me....I'm confused.

Only a few weeks out from election time a group of Australian comedians travelled to the USA to ask the people on the street ... if they supported Bush's stance on Kyrgyzstan... In case you are wondering, Kyrgyzstan doesn't exist.

Excuse me, but Joe Public in Mainstreet, USA may not be the only under-informed people here. LOL Kyrgyzstan most certainly does exist.

One of the former Soviet Republics, it has been an independent nation since 1991 and recently made the news because of political unrest resulting in the deposing of President Akayev in April of this year.

As to the Bush administration's policy towards this 'non-existent' nation, "Kyrgyzstan ... signed a strategic treaty with the US which stipulated the need for political and economic reform". [Ahmed Rashid, Eurasianet.org]

So, if the Australian comedians were asking, "do you agree with the Bush administration's stance in linking aid and strategic co-operation to further democratisation and market reform in the former soviet republics of central asia?" the enthusiastic "hell, yes!"es reported show a remarkably well-informed and progressive side to American public opinion. LOL LOL

Dr. Bailey -

No, I'm not from Italy. Indiana originally, but now residing about 100 miles north of you, actually.

Toblerone -

One last try. In what other context has Bush used Nazi-style propaganda tactics, as you allege, aside from the Iraq war? That's why I used the issue of the Iraq war as an example to explain why I disagree with you. Furthermore, why else would you post Goering's quote, which is explicitly about war (see line 1 of the quote)? If you are trying to generalize it to the whole War on Terror, I still disagree, because the specific allegations of the employment of these tactics (lying, deception, fearmongering, etc.) have to do with circumstances surrounding the decision of Congress to authorize the invasion of Iraq (Congress did that, if you racall). This is why it seems silly to pretend that's not what this is about. The tactics you allege are meaningless except as they are applied to something.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"The Jews. I mean, not really, but Hitler created the impression in the German people that this was the case. Bush also created the impression that Hussein was a threat to the USA, and personally I don't buy it. Nonetheless, it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but I don't think it was justified under the reasons that Bush and Powell gave. Herein lies the analogy to Goering's quote. There is no analogy between Bush's actions and Hitler's though."

Well, one difference appears to be that "the Jews" in the 1930s did not actually run a country that was known to invade their neighbours every now and then. Hitler's propaganda about them was made up. Iraq, however, was known to be a possible threat and perceived as such by the Clinton administration and Iraq's neighbours. Bush's policy, you might remember, is to act BEFORE the target becomes a threat.

If that had been done with Nazi Germany, the world would have been a much happier place.

Otherwise you are quite correct.

#118 by Toblerone Wednesday, June 22, 2005 What about a set of circumstances wherein the people actually are attacked? And what if some individuals by their actions actually do expose them to danger, is it still "Nazi propaganda tactics" for the government to let the people know? Well if they are actually are attacked, and they have proof of who who involved, saying someone is attacking you wouldn't be a tactic then. Now tell me when did Iraq attack the US again

Try this on for size!

Iraq backs down on threat against allied planes Sources: No U.S. strike on Iraq likely until next week September 13, 1996 Web posted at: 3:00 p.m. EDT WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As stealth fighter-bombers arrived in Kuwait Friday, President Clinton's top advisers met at the White House to discuss when and how to strike at Iraq. Sources said it appeared the attack, if it comes, would not occur until Tuesday or Wednesday. Iraq, meantime, appeared to back down from a confrontation by announcing Friday it will no longer fire at U.S. and allied warplanes enforcing no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Iraq said it would halt its attacks on U.S. and allied warplanes flying over its north and south as of midnight local time (2000 GMT), the Iraqi News Agency (INA) said, quoting an official spokesman for the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

If you are trying to generalize it to the whole War on Terror, I still disagree, because the specific allegations of the employment of these tactics (lying, deception, fearmongering, etc.)

I was thinking more specifically about the Iraq war. However I can think of instances where he used the technique to involve other countries in the War on Terror. Firstly I should point out I agree with the idea of fighting terrorism, in principle, though I think a review and possible reforms of foreign policy should be used in place of bombs when it is not a case of giving in to terrorists but correcting bad policies that quite unstandably invoke anger. Please read the bold type carefully because if I start getting accused of saying we should give in to terrorists I shall scream. I think in certain situations the US has supported one side of conflicts when in fact both sides have been complete dickheads.

Err, back to the point I think the tactic in question (i.e All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.) was used with respect to the War on Terror. The bit about telling the world they are under attack was interesting. Now all signs pointed to it being an attack against America not any other country. So they had to come up with more general sounding motives for the terrorists like:

? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other

I personally think their motive is to change American foreign policy and that stuff about hating freedom etc. is crap, it is sort of like saying poachers shoot elephants because they are grey rather becuase they want their Ivory. I'm NOT saying we shouldn't have got involved but I don't think it is correct to say we were a terrorist target before we did despite being a nation with freedom of speech etc. etc. The Bali bombers even admitted that their targets were Americans not Australians (though I'm sure it didn't bother them much that Australians were killed) .

From a Bush speech in Sept 2001: Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Now this quote is a tad ambigous, it seems as though he is only refering to countries that are actively supporting terrorists by funding or deliberately sheltering them, which is fair enough, though I'm made uneasy with the "you're either with us or against us" sentiment. However he goes on to clarify the point later on in Nov 2001:

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Held accountable for simply choosing not to get involved?! Now that is going a bit far in my opinion. Did America step in to WW2 before Pearl Habor? No. Some may have disagreed with that, had I been alive I probably would have been one of them, but that was America's right.

Anyway the point is he seems to imply (and almost explictly state) that if you don't join the war on terrorism you are unpatriotic towards the world (if such a thing is possible).

Well that's my bit. God I'm dreading the inevidible "He's saying we should give in to terrorists" debate, but perhaps I should have a bit of faith that it won't occur...but it is probably a self fulfilling prophecy now.

Okay, now for your rebuttal.

Again I am sorry if I have insulted you personally at any point, take care.

Try this on for size!

Umm, I mean immediately before the last war not in 1996. Nice to see something approaching a direct rebuttal though, good work drmiler.

Try this on for size! Umm, I mean immediately before the last war not in 1996. Nice to see something approaching a direct rebuttal though, good work drmiler.

You wanted something more current? Check the date.

U.S. NO-FLY ZONES IN IRAQ: TO WHAT END? By Lt. Col. Phillip Gibbons The Washington Institute for Near East Policy POLICYWATCH, No. 632 July 1, 2002 Since 1991, the United States has averaged over 34,000 military sorties per year in support of no-fly zone operations in Iraq. One might ask, to what effect? Degrading Saddam's Capabilities The no-fly zones have neither forced Saddam Husayn to comply with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections nor stopped Iraqi attacks on U.S. and British air patrols. Last year alone, Iraqi military forces engaged coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles or antiaircraft fire on more than 500 occasions. In response, coalition forces attacked -- and, for the most part, destroyed -- these missile or artillery sites in thirty-eight separate instances.

I personally think their motive is to change American foreign policy and that stuff about hating freedom etc. is crap

Because freedom is so abundant in the Middle East, right? Terrorists want nothing less than a world wide islamic state.

Because freedom is so abundant in the Middle East, right? Terrorists want nothing less than a world wide islamic state.

That is just the sort of non-sequiter I was refering to when I said "it is sort of like saying poachers shoot elephants because they are grey rather becuase they want their Ivory." which admittedly I didn't explain. What I meant was an elephant poacher kills elephants who happen to be grey but not because they are grey. In the same way terrorists have attacked America which happens to be a democracy but not because it is a democracy. The sooner the US recognises the mistakes it has made with foreign policy the better. For instance why did the US believe Iraq had WMDs? It's because they (and the UK) sold some to them in the first place.

Now I'm not saying there aren't terrorist's whose goal is to take power but they are usually attacking within their own country. I am thinking more specifically about the terrorist involved in 9/11 and the Bali bombings and those of the same ilk. Trying to blackmail a western country into changing policy is one thing but I don't think any terrorists seriously think they are going to turn a western mostly non-muslim country into an Islamic state. If they have that goal for any country it probably a simple matter of keeping the status quo for countries in their own region. I mean what do you expect them to do, go around with a gun in one hand and a Qu'ran in the other like some sort of Morman postal worker on a bad hair day trying to convert people?

Drmiler

Okay maybe I'll clarify again. An attack on US soil. If you are flying planes over their country and they don't like you what do expect is going to happen. What do you think would happen to an Iraqi fighter jet flying over America before Saddam was removed?
Saddam was a terror to his own people and surrounding countries but absolutely no match for America, I'm pretty sure he knew it too. He liked taking pot shots as way of trying to show his people what a "strong leader" he was, it was an ego thing for his benefit. I mean the guy is completely unstable he STILL thinks he is the president of Iraq (but then I don't need to tell you that).

I think we are on track people, any more questions, critisisms, advice or offers of sexual favours from beautiful women.....not that the last thing ever happens but one can always dream.

Ahhh, Toblerone, your infinite ability to tackle a serious topic with cutting humour, while still making a valid point never ceases to amaze me. The angrier you get, the funnier.

As many people like Draginol et al have pointed out before, the great thing about debating with Right wingers, as opposed to "the Left" (aka Satan) is that right wingers stick to actual debate rather than shrill, emotive arguments. Lefties constantly resort to insults to avoid the topic. May I commend the follwoing excellent examples of debating skill:

ParaTed2K: “Idiot.”

Island Dog: “You have lost it.”

DrMiler: “Get real Klink!”

Dr Bailey: “Thats because so many of them seem to be the same; "Blah blash, bash bush,etc..." I could count off almost 5 right now, there are those who IMO are a lot nicer, and that i enjoy debating with, the others......”

Intellectual stuff guys!

Cakgogka, thanks for clearing that up for me, but the Kyrgyzstan referred to in the video is actuall fictional, because they place it in the Middle East and many of the respondants admit to never having heard of it before and then proclaim that they agree with Bush that we should go to war with them. How accurate a picture of the voters this is we'll never know.

"When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership." http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm

He then gained absolute power by getting a democratically elected Parliament to vote to grant him rights that meant he no longer had to bother with usual constitutional demands. It was after all a state of emergency. (Interestingly, it was the Social Democrats that opposed this move).

Mr Brehm, I do not concede to you that Iraq was a threat to the USA, and therein lies our disagreement. Saddam was worth removing because he was a threat to the Iraqi people.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that debating with drmiler is like debating with google.com? ...Sorry .... I got distracted...

Quite frankly I think this debate is straightforward:
Did Bush denounce those who disagreed with him as unpatriotic? Yes.

Did he manipulate information to create the impression that Saddam was a threat to the USA? Debatable, depends whether you believe they geneuinely believed that Iraq had WMDs, and whether they genuinely believed he would use them against the USA..

Are people easily manipulated? Always have been, always will be. No matter what side they vote for.

Were the Nazis' tactics as simple as Gioering makes out? No, there was more to it, but there were elements of these tactics in what the Nazis did, as there were elements of it in every country.

Is it ethical to lie to the people to get them to agree to a just cause? Matter of opinion.

s it ever occurred to anyone that debating with drmiler is like debating with google.com? ...Sorry .... I got distracted...

You know why that is? Because of people like you. I make a statement and proof is wanted. So I try to have the proof ahead of time when I post. And what is your problem with that?

IdlandDog

We NEVER controlled Iraq and that allowed the terrorists to access the unguarded Amo Dumps; it allowed foreign fighters to come over the unprotected borders and we did not deal with the pockets of resistance. Bush sent 130,000 troops to do the job the TOP generals (Franks and the Army COS) told him would require at least 300,000!

The Downing Street Memo's do exist. What the hell are you talking about. They show Bush did not plan for the post Saddam Iraq and every day shows we were not prepared to stop the violance. We DID NOT have the manpower required as stated by our TOP military officials!!!!! Gen Frank's war plan called for 300,000 troops in Iraq the day Saddam was removed from power!

As to the Bush National Guard service -- His records prove he did not attend drills in last half of 1972 and he was grounded for refusing to take a required Flight Physical. The National Guard stories are true as proven by the Bush military records. The NBC documents were fake. Also the direct statements of the Former Speaker of the Texas House admitted he got Bush into the Guard along with others who had political pull like GWB!

As to the Bush National Guard service -- His records prove he did not attend drills in last half of 1972 and he was grounded for refusing to take a required Flight Physical. The National Guard stories are true as proven by the Bush military records. The NBC documents were fake. Also the direct statements of the Former Speaker of the Texas House admitted he got Bush into the Guard along with others who had political pull like GWB!

What a crock. "If" what your saying was true and that's a BIG if. Then why hasn't he been brought up on charges? And your "downing street memos"? WHERE are the originals? What? They were destroyed....Awww to bad now they can't be used as evidence. No judge will give ANY legal standing to them without being able to see the originals. So where does that leave you? Out in the cold?

For instance why did the US believe Iraq had WMDs? It's because they (and the UK) sold some to them in the first place.

We didn't sell Iraq WMD's. That is one of the worst lies around. The U.S. Congress allowed Iraq to have samples (along with any other country who asked for them)of certain items. Iraq bought the equipment from I believe France and Germany to make these items into weapons. Also, Russia, Frances, and Germany were the biggest weapons suppliers to Iraq in the 80's and 90's.

Trying to blackmail a western country into changing policy is one thing but I don't think any terrorists seriously think they are going to turn a western mostly non-muslim country into an Islamic state.

Do you really think that's beyond the crazy mind of a islamic terrorist?

We NEVER controlled Iraq and that allowed the terrorists to access the unguarded Amo Dumps; it allowed foreign fighters to come over the unprotected borders and we did not deal with the pockets of resistance. Bush sent 130,000 troops to do the job the TOP generals (Franks and the Army COS) told him would require at least 300,000!

We controlled Iraq from the start. You can't guard every dump especially when you don't know where they all are. The Iraqis buried fighter jets in the desert, they don't have big signs on the front saying "Ammo Dump". Once again you have no proof that sending more troops would have helped in any way.

The Downing Street Memo's do exist. What the hell are you talking about. They show Bush did not plan for the post Saddam Iraq and every day shows we were not prepared to stop the violance. We DID NOT have the manpower required as stated by our TOP military officials!!!!! Gen Frank's war plan called for 300,000 troops in Iraq the day Saddam was removed from power!

I have to say your hatred for Bush has pushed you over the edge. There is no evidence that the "memos" are real. They are typed copies that a "reporter" typed and burned the so-called originals. So until an official memo has been released, we can debate it then. Until then, they are not real. Well as about as real as the CBS memo.

As to the Bush National Guard service -- His records prove he did not attend drills in last half of 1972 and he was grounded for refusing to take a required Flight Physical. The National Guard stories are true as proven by the Bush military records. The NBC documents were fake. Also the direct statements of the Former Speaker of the Texas House admitted he got Bush into the Guard along with others who had political pull like GWB!

Like I told you before, you were proved wrong about this long ago. We can start that discussion up again if you want.

Do you really think that's beyond the crazy mind of a islamic terrorist?

I wouldn't say they are crazy. Misguided arseholes yes, crazy no.

I wouldn't say they are crazy. Misguided arseholes yes, crazy no.

These are people that think they will get 72 virgins when they blow up a busload of children. You don't think that's crazy?

Dr Bailey: “Thats because so many of them seem to be the same; "Blah blash, bash bush,etc..." I could count off almost 5 right now, there are those who IMO are a lot nicer, and that i enjoy debating with, the others......” Intellectual stuff guys!

--Sarcasm? wow, you are capable of something....

The Downing Street Memo's do exist. What the hell are you talking about

--then tell us where they are...

These are people that think they will get 72 virgins when they blow up a busload of children

--i've gotta find that joke i have on the '72 virgins....'

IslandDog

I have copies of his pay records that show Bush DID NOT ATTEND drills in the second half of 1972. I also have a copy of the order that grounded him for not taking the required physical. I have E-Mails and letters from George Bush's Economics Prof at Harvard who he told that his fathers friends got him in and out of the National Guard. You are the one that does not know what you are talking about. The story about Bush on CBS was ALL true even though they used fake documents. The documents I have copies of were released by DoD and are the REAL THING!

Its amazing that Lefties play down the fact that Kerry lied about his service, lied about being in Cambodia, etc., and yet can sit and scrutinize Bush's service record month-by-month. Hell, Kerry wouldn't even release all his records, did all these anti-Bush veterans toss a fit about HIM? Nope.

Means to and end, Col. You wouldn't be the least bit interested in Bush's service record if you didn't hate him, because you had every opportunity to take Kerry to task for his lies and opted not to. Therefore, this is about your hate for Bush, not the fact that Bush may or may not have cut corners on his reserve time.