Here’s some more intelligence for ya.
Since I’m sure you’re a very busy guy, you can jump right to the parts highlighted in red.
This is the part that I don’t understand. Why should Iraq be invaded as part of an “overall war against Mideast-sponsored terrorism”? What terrorism specifically did Iraq sponsor? I thought we invaded Iraq because of WMD-- not terrorism. And if they did in fact sponsor terrorism is this a justifiable reason to invade them? Saudi Arabia and Iran are more apparent (IMO) in their terrorism sponsorship; will we attack them too as part of this region-wide war?
Are we indeed at war with the entire Mideast? Shall and will we invade the entire region, or are we just trying to seek out and capture/kill terrorists? If it is the latter then that really isn’t a “war” at all (certainly not in the same way that the US invasion/occupation of Iraq is). Rather it’s an on-going, extensive and wide-ranging law-enforcement/para-military activity.
So I must ask again: what is the war that was “brought to us” that Rice speaks of? If she was speaking specifically of the Iraq War, then how did they bring the war to us? If she instead meant the “war” with terrorists in the Mideast then what does Iraq specifically have to do with that effort?
I’d also like to address this whole Nazism thing.
I think people are much too quick to cry “Godwinization!!!” whenever anyone compares anything to the Nazi party. Why do some people hold Nazi-comparison to a far stricter standard than comparisons made to anything else?
Sometimes it is fair to make comparisons to the Nazis . Just because someone compares certain current US machinations with the Nazis does NOT imply that everything the Bush administration does is equal to *everything * the Nazis did.
I personally see a alarming comparison between the American Right-Wing’s plans for further ascension to power and the way the Nazis cleverly and incrementally gained control of the German government; and like boiling a frog by sloooowly increasing the heat, it seems innocuous at the time and anyone who foresees that the pleasantly warm water may someday scald is quickly upbraided and shushed. (In the early to mid 1930s the US Government actually appreciated the Facists in both Italy and German as stong, effective counter-measures to Communist footholds in Europe.)
Today’s GOP is making a power play that some would like to see permanent and without oppostition. There are efforts to change some democratic devices that keep our important checks and balances in place. They also are using untruths and emotional and charismatic appeal to sway a credulous public. These instances are similar to how the Nazis tinkered with little bits and pieces of law under the radar to gain unchecked power and used feel-good nationalism and charismatic leaders to gain power.
There are other fair comparisons too–the suspension of certain civil rights (such as the cancellation of due process for certain terrorist suspects) and the use of less-than-honest propaganda to influence public opinon (for example, seeming administration lies about the Iraq war). It’s been pointed out before-- Mr. Goebbels comes to mind rather easily these days to some people–even some of the less cynical among us.
Anyway, my point is this-- feel free to completely disagree with people who make some comparisons to the Nazis, but don’t pre-emptively disallow ANY comparison to the Nazi’s just becuase “Nazi” is such a loaded word.
It is an anti-intellectual and counter-productive habit that reeks of Political Correctness for its own sake. It helps foster the same sort of unquestioning “whatever-you-say-Sir” environment in which the Nazi’s thrived.
ILM: Anyway, my point is this-- feel free to completely disagree with people who make some comparisons to the Nazis, but don’t pre-emptively disallow ANY comparison to the Nazi’s just becuase “Nazi” is such a loaded word.
I don’t think anybody is disallowing comparisons of policies, etc., with those pursued by the Nazis. But you’re not allowed actually to call another poster a Nazi, which was clearly implied by tagos’s “Herr Spiff” comment. That violates the rule against direct personal insults in Great Debates.
True, but a true nitpicker would point out that the honorific “Herr” simply means “Mister”, and only implies that one is male and German. Such effects are, of course, transitory, ‘Herr’ today, gone tomorrow…
Yeah I know, I think it’s kind of unfair that even the slightest hint of anything Teutonic can carry implications of Nazism, but that’s how it’s burned into our collective cultural brain. And certainly in this case the implications were very clear.
Neo-con doctrine says that those poor misguided people of the Middle East simply need to see a good democracy in action and they will all drop their Kalashnikovs, C-4, and pilots’ instruction manuals and turn into good, modern citizens willing to sell us oil while buying our trinkets (manufactured in China but distrubuted through the U.S.), and give up all this fanatical attachment to the Qur’an. It looks bad if we overthrow our allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, and assorted other countries are either too poor or too small to hold up as good beacons of imposed democracy. Iran still nurses a grudge about those 25+ years under the harsh regime of the Shah that we inflicted on them. So Iraq turns out to be the best candidate for our kind ministrations. They have a society that (used to be) fairly well accustomed to secular ideas (so we should not have had to wean them away from theocracy), a history of attacking their neighbors (so our invasion should be easy to sell to the rest of the region), along with a lot of oil. All we needed to do was topple their leader, pretend that we had never supported him, and set up a nice, secular democratic regime that would shine as a beacon in their midst. Since our current troubles in the Middle East were concerned with terrorism, then we had to sell the idea using a terrorist threat, regardless that Iraq was not tied to any terrorism directed to the U.S. or even Europe and the terrorism it did support was mostly aimed at its own people. Ends justify the means and all that.
I think you only made that post so you could use that awful pun… 
Given Tagos’ immediate previous reference to “Nazis” “with regard to the truth with respect to the issue of lying us into a war”, the “Herr” comment to Spifflog was clearly calling him one of those Nazis.
Thus unworthy one humbly submits, and offers a plea of nolo contendere.
That’s a gross distortion of neocon thought, and frankly, I think it’s unfair.
It might be a gross distortion, but it’s not unfair.
On the other hand, I think it is a deadly accurate (if admittedly snide) distillation of Wolfowitz’s term paper that has guided their hopes and actions for over ten years.
Speaking of good ole’ Wolfie, here are a couple of excerpts from a Statement he made before the House National Security Committee
On Scott Ritter:
On Saddam’s strenght:
And some of you still cry “foul!” when comparing the Bush Administration’s campaign of deceit with Nazi propaganda!
I would count myself among those who ‘cry “foul!” when comparing the Bush Administration’s campaign of deceit with Nazi propaganda’. I think the Bush adminstration is too easily led by unconsidered ideology, but I do not see them seeking world oppression or the persecution of peoples based on religion or culture. Whereas Hitler and his cronies would have continued to seek reasons to conquer territory, I suspect Bush would be quite happy to stay home if ecveryone in the world suddenly chose to see things his way.
It poisons the debate to make comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis because it distracts from genuine discussion of actual issues.
I am not going to cut and paste (again) the various “not found”, “no evidence of”, “no indication of” and “no apparenet capability” quotes from various U.S. govenment reports yet again, just because some people refuse to read or even acknowledge their existence. Those who insist on defending any WMD argument should start with the CIA report on the subject. Then they can read the “special commission” report. Top it of with the recent British report. The “facts” and the holes in the facts and the slogans were all spin, to support a decision that had already been made (invade Iraq).
Saying that the war was “brought to us” may be used to justify invading Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to us. Iraq did not attack us. It is a lie to claim otherwise.
I bet someone will say “but he (or she or whoever) isn’t lying because they never said blah blah”. In that case, I will take a position that any statement (a whole history of them actually) that deliberately distort, omit, or “doctor” the evidence (or lack of evidence) is deliberate disinformation. It is a lie.
Iraq did not bring a war to us. We brought it to them.
Sure, but I suspect that the Bush Administration would equate “see[ing] things his way” to “be completely submissive to the will of the United States.” Which is probably not a situation the rest of the world would care to comply with.
Don’t necessarily disagree with what you posted – but it’s all about framing. Here, allow me to attempt to explain myself further using your post as an example:
Power, Tom, power. Distilled down to its essense, I believe they both have that in common. Substitute “religion or culture” for “access and/or control of vital resources” and what do you get?
If everyone in the world chose to see things Hitler’s way, what would he have to conquer?
Further – and this ties in with Airman’s nuclear war thread and the ensuing controversy – do you not think that full implementation of neocon ideology could/would lead us straight into WW-III? I’m closing in on the half century mark, and at no time other than the Cuban Missile Crisis, have I seen the world march down such a dangerous venue. Guess that should explain to “some” why I feel as passionate as I do about the current path of American foreign policy.
Bottom line – and I am not trying to be hurtful, but simply honest – I’ve gained a better understanding, through the actions of the Bush Administration, of how it is actually possible to manipulate a whole nation in order to further a particular ideology.
Whether one is not as hideous as the other is yet to be determined, IMHO. But the warning signs are there for all to see.
If everyone saw the Jews as evil, the Germans as the legitimate heirs of some bogus Aryan ur-race, and communists as a threat to society, they would still prefer to keep German troops within Germany and not allow Berlin to legislate their criminal and political laws or Germany to make demands on their natural resources or manufacturing capacity.
As a thoroughly nuanced and carefully delineated comparison of power politics and propaganda, one could probably convene a seminar or a study to examine and explicate the similarities and differences between the use of propaganda and news dissemination by Bush administration and Germany in the early 1930s. However, when one simply lobs the “Nazi” bomb into the discussion, all the nuance is lost and one has simply created an equation between the U.S. administration and a group who were motivated to establish an evil government pursuing evil designs. (Hitler’s “master race” was noted in the 1920s; what do you claim that Bush has espoused in any equivalent fashion?) It has the same silencing effect as someone on the Right lobbing the “Stalin” or “communist” bomb at anyone whose politics hinted at anything on the Left. No discussion can occur in such a situation and there is no way to reach an understanding with one’s opponents.
You will never persuade your opponents to your position and you will never even persuade the undecided to your position if your rhetoric simply makes you look like an uninformed hurler of epithets.
This is a legitimate point, for example, (although you could use U.S. Cold War rhetoric in many cases, Wilson’s run up to WWI, Hearst’s championing of the War against Spain, or several other events from U.S. history without invoking the Nazi bomb). I’m glad that it has increased your understanding, but you harm your cause when you throw out claims that will prevent further discussion by equating a current group–with much support–with a clearly evil historical figure.
That was not my intention (it was just a jibe at him partaking in Bush’s analagous process) but I hold up my hands and say that is a perfectly reasonable interpretation and so I should not have said it. Apologies all round.
Tried to send you an email or pm to apologise. Wasn’t my intention to call you a Nazi but the remark was thoughtless, offensive and uncalled for. Please accept my personal apology.