Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: Iraq isn't Hitler's Third Reich

  1. #1
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,025

    Iraq isn't Hitler's Third Reich

    A article from the Windy City Trib posted here for discussion.
    I agree with about 90% of it.

    Iraq isn't Hitler's Third Reich

    Steve Chapman
    Chicago Tribune

    Published September 3, 2006

    Among the many innovations generated by the Internet is an axiom called Godwin's Law, which says that given enough time, any online discussion will produce a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler. So common is this phenomenon in cyberspace arguments that it also spawned an informal rule: Whoever first mentions the Nazis loses.

    By that standard, the Bush administration is getting trounced in the debate on Iraq. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went to the American Legion convention and likened critics of our policy to those who discounted the threat posed by Nazism. The threat of "a new type of fascism," he said, is just as great as the one posed by Hitler and Mussolini.

    President Bush followed with his own address to the Legionnaires, asserting that the fighting in Iraq "can be as fierce as it was at Omaha Beach or Guadalcanal," while insisting that "victory is as important as it was in those earlier battles."

    The administration's top officials have been a poor guide to the future: Rumsfeld said before the war that it might go on for "five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." They have been a poor guide to the present, as when Vice President Dick Cheney declared--about 1,000 American deaths ago--that we were seeing "the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." And, judging from their recent forays into history, they are a poor guide to the past.

    One defect in this analogy is that it's extremely shopworn. No matter how many Hitlers we stop, another appears. During the first Gulf War in 1991, it was Saddam Hussein. During the Balkan wars of the '90s, it was Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. Now it's--well, anyone Islamic who might be an enemy.

    Rather than try to understand the unique challenges we face in the 21st Century, the analogizers assume they are replicas of ones we have confronted before. Such glib parallels bring to mind Mark Twain's remark: A cat that sits on a hot stove will never again sit on a hot stove, but it will also never sit on a cold one.

    The supposed moral of the 1930s is that you cannot negotiate or coexist with enemies. Instead, you must fight them. Anything less amounts to a replay of the Munich conference, where Britain and France acceded to Hitler's claims on Czechoslovakia in a futile effort to purchase peace.

    But we already know the analogy can be fatally misapplied. President Lyndon Johnson was guided by it during the Vietnam War. When the North Vietnamese won, though, it didn't set off a vast expansion of the communist empire. Ho Chi Minh looked like Hitler to LBJ, but he wasn't.

    If the 1930s taught that you can't coexist with aggressive enemies, the Cold War taught just the opposite. Britain and the United States, which refused to appease Hitler, did appease Stalin by allowing the enslavement of Eastern Europe. Yet we were able to contain--and eventually defeat--the Soviets without ever going to war.

    You don't have to take my word that Hitler is irrelevant here. The administration's own policies confirm as much. If the enemy in Iraq were comparable to the Third Reich, we certainly wouldn't be fighting this war the way Bush and Rumsfeld have fought it.

    When the U.S. entered the war against the Axis powers, we drafted millions of men, raised taxes, and mobilized every resource to assure victory. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, we sent an undersized force, cut taxes and told Americans to live their normal lives. If Islamic extremists are the new Nazis, Bush is no Churchill.

    In fact, the situation today is much different from the one then. Militant Islam is not one phenomenon but many. Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, far from being peas in a pod, are at war with each other. You can't barter with Osama bin Laden, but you may be able to negotiate with Syria. Persisting with the war in Iraq is less likely to undermine than advance the fight against Al Qaeda.

    Given the dire prospects in Iraq, it's not surprising that Bush and Rumsfeld would rather talk about the past than the present. But we already know how to defeat Hitler. What the administration has yet to prove is that it knows how to win in Iraq.
    I was almost floored the other day when I read a post by Bluesman.
    Where he was talking about the domino theory. This time with Muslims in europe. Have we broke out the Pro Vietnam talking points?
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  2. #2
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Well I certainly agree with one statement

    Bush is no Churchill.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor smilingassassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Dec 03
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    2,749
    Aha...the old "he who mentions Nazi's first loses the arguement" clause.....that article sure has the Bush Administration pinned!!

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Islamists have one thing in common with the Nazis. Their fanatic devotion to a single cause which states their way is better. I believe, given enough time, the Islamists pose even more threat to our way of life. Not through a grand army or wonder weapons, but through infiltration and transforming our society to conform to their way of life. Our "multi-culturalism" is the biggest weakness.

    Think about it, what do muslims do here? They spread their religion and their way of life. They have every right to do that as guaranteed under our constitution.

    What do they do to people who do the same thing in their land? They kill them.

    We are getting the short end of the deal here.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Islamists have one thing in common with the Nazis. Their fanatic devotion to a single cause which states their way is better. I believe, given enough time, the Islamists pose even more threat to our way of life. Not through a grand army or wonder weapons, but through infiltration and transforming our society to conform to their way of life. Our "multi-culturalism" is the biggest weakness.

    Think about it, what do muslims do here? They spread their religion and their way of life. They have every right to do that as guaranteed under our constitution.

    What do they do to people who do the same thing in their land? They kill them.

    We are getting the short end of the deal here.
    Multi-culturalism is out greatest strength, we can absorb them and continue, they can't. Their positive attributes we can adopt, they (Islamic nations) are static.
    Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 06, at 23:09.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  6. #6
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    SEE?!? I have been telling y'all that Iraq was no Third Reich, but nobody believed me.

    I just KNEW it.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,593
    Just because it isn't EXACTLY the Third Reich doesn't mean the same responses can't be used against it. After all, Japan wasn't the Third Reich, and Italy wasn't the Third Reich, either.

    Some key things that Chapman DOESN'T recognize (I prepared a counter-editorial to this specific piece, but didn't submit it):
    1. We didn't "live with" the Soviets. We actively tried to undermine them whenever they made a move, and sometimes risked all-out war. The amount of time we spent actually "peacefully coexisting" with the Soviet Union was quite small, and we only didn't invade them because we couldn't invade them at reasonable cost (or so we thought)
    2. We don't play enemies off each other without having the ability to attack the enemy if they turn on us. Evidence: We turned China against the Soviets, but, as soon as the USSR dissolved, we started ringing China with US allies. What happens when we DON'T have a check on our unrelaible allies? Good ol' Osama.
    3. He's got his Vietnam lecture wrong. After withdrawing from South Vietnam, the NVA took over South Vietnam AND Laos AND Cambodia. It was quite the communist empire. We just had China and Thailand fight them instead of us.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  8. #8
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by parihaka View Post
    Multi-culturalism is out greatest strength, we can absorb them and continue, they can't. Their positive attributes we can adopt, they (Islamic nations) are static.
    I agree with you. But we must be very careful in how we absorb them. Too much of their culture will undermine our culture which made us, us.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #9
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I agree with you. But we must be very careful in how we absorb them. Too much of their culture will undermine our culture which made us, us.
    So, what exactly is this culture that you wish to protect and how does it define us?
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  10. #10
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I agree with you. But we must be very careful in how we absorb them. Too much of their culture will undermine our culture which made us, us.
    I'm actually getting a lot more respect for Australia's John Howard (did I just say that ).

    It's sense, not discrimination

    By John Howard

    September 02, 2006 12:00
    Article from: The Daily Telegraph

    Font size: + -

    Send this article: Print Email

    AUSTRALIA has been greatly enriched by immigration and most people who have come to this nation have happily integrated with the community.

    They have willingly embraced the Australian way of life. They have become part of the fabric of the nation and have helped make Australia the great country it is today.

    I have said many times that people who come to this country - no matter where they are from - should become part of the Australian community.

    For new migrants, that means embracing Australian values, accepting our culture, being able to speak English if it's not their first language and understanding that men and women have equality.
    But it is an undeniable fact that some who have come here are resisting integration. There are pockets of this resistance in different migrant groups but it is perhaps most visible at this time in a small section of the Islamic community.

    A small minority of this community, and other groups that reject integration, regard appeals for them to fully integrate into the Australian way of life as some kind of discrimination.

    It is not. It is commonsense and, importantly, it is also a powerful symbol of a new migrant's willingness and enthusiasm about becoming an Australian.

    It is difficult to get anywhere in this country without learning English. It's the common language of Australia and is, quite simply, a passport to the future.

    Simple tasks like securing a job and making new friends would be so much harder in Australia without a working knowledge of English.

    Treating women as equals is an Australian value that should be embraced. Australians generally do not tolerate women being treated in an inferior fashion to men.

    There are some societies that do not treat women equally. Migrants from those societies must be fully prepared to embrace Australian attitudes towards women.

    We are an egalitarian nation that prides itself on the concept of a fair go, our equal treatment of men and women, our parliamentary democracy and free speech.

    Embracing these values and other Australian ideals is vital for new arrivals. All new arrivals.
    But it is self-evident that some people are resistant to Australian values.

    There are small sections of some communities, including the Islamic community, that are resistant to integration.

    As I have said on many occasions, 99 per cent of the Islamic community of Australia has integrated into, and is part of, the Australian community. They have added great value to our society and are making a valuable contribution to the nation.

    Australia's Islamic community is also worried about the attitude of this tiny minority. Most of the Islamic people I know are as appalled as me by the failure of some within the community to integrate.

    It is up to all of us to try to overcome the resistance.

    Perhaps we can take a lead from the pupils of Eastwood Heights Public School, a school in Sydney's northwest that I visited yesterday.

    The students share family backgrounds from all corners of the world. But it was immediately obvious they have quickly learned the values of tolerance, respect, fairness and equality. A vibrant example for all Australians.
    So I can sit on the verandah of my bungalow, eating Vietnamese takeaways and think, right on John.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  11. #11
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    So, what exactly is this culture that you wish to protect and how does it define us?
    Freedom and tolerance. Something the islamic nations don't seem to have.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  12. #12
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Freedom and tolerance. Something the islamic nations don't seem to have.
    So you want to be less tolerant towards Islamist so we can protect our culture of tolerance?

    Islamists have one thing in common with the Nazis. Their fanatic devotion to a single cause which states their way is better. I believe, given enough time, the Islamists pose even more threat to our way of life. Not through a grand army or wonder weapons, but through infiltration and transforming our society to conform to their way of life. Our "multi-culturalism" is the biggest weakness.
    And here is where you, and the "more right wing" loose me. You lump all of Islam together.

    I know a few Christians that fit the "Their fanatic devotion to a single cause which states their way is better. "

    Maybe we can turn it around and talk about how crazy Christians are because they play with poisonous snakes. I don't want them in my neighborhood. they are a danger to our children
    Think about it, what do muslims do here? They spread their religion and their way of life. They have every right to do that as guaranteed under our constitution.
    Isn't that what every religion tries to do? Why are you upset because Islamist do it?
    What do they do to people who do the same thing in their land? They kill them.
    Up until a few years ago there was a thriving christian population in Iraq.

    Make up about 10% of population in Lebanon with 20% of government post being held by christians.

    Christians are allowed to serve in the Iranian military and are one of the "protected minorities".

    Are they harrassed and discriminated against? Yes, but they are rarely killed for "Spreading the gospel".

    Yes I know about Sudan. They just got around to christians. They have been killing each other since 1985. So its not a Muslims against Christians thing by a long shot. It has more to do with Arab Muslim against African Muslim
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  13. #13
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Isn't that what every religion tries to do? Why are you upset because Islamist do it?
    Because Islam tries to control the state and use the state to impose Islamic law

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Christians are allowed to serve in the Iranian military and are one of the "protected minorities".

    Are they harrassed and discriminated against? Yes, but they are rarely killed for "Spreading the gospel".
    http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/a...?groupId=63010
    Last edited by Parihaka; 12 Sep 06, at 03:53.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  14. #14
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by parihaka View Post
    Because Islam tries to control the state and use the state to impose Islamic law
    Like the "Moral Majority" or maybe this little gem from a House member that is running for senate
    Rep. Katherine Harris

    "We have to have the faithful in government and over time,that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that certainly isn’t what God intended.

    She also said:

    If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin.
    Or from the recent PEW research poll
    http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=43
    For example, six-in-ten white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws when it conflicts with the will of the people, a view rejected by an equally large majority of Americans, including most Catholics and white mainline Protestants
    Theres even a book
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...72330?v=glance

    A Christian Manifesto

    In this explosive book, Francis Schaeffer shows why morality and freedom have crumbled in our society. He calls for a massive movement—in government, law, and all of life—to reestablish our Judeo-Christian foundation and turn the tide of moral decadence and loss of freedom.
    That sounds alot like what you are accusing the muslims of doing.



    From your link:
    Christians, in general, are allowed to participate in Iran's economic and social life and have achieved a high standard of living.

    However, Christians, including those recognized by the state as official religious minorities, have encountered officially sanctioned discrimination in the areas of employment, education, public accommodations, the legal system and property ownership

    It is often difficult for a Christian to obtain a passport. The publication of Christian texts, while legal, rarely receives the necessary government approval. Christians in Iran have also encountered various forms of harassment by the Iranian government including torture, long-term imprisonment (with and without trial), unfair trials (often accusing them of spying or other trumped up charges), and execution. However, recently there have been no reports of arrests and executions (REP0101-03 = 0; REP0601-03 = 0).
    As I said " Are they harrassed and discriminated against? Yes, but they are rarely killed for "Spreading the gospel"

    Thanks for the reinforcing fire
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  15. #15
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    So you want to be less tolerant towards Islamist so we can protect our culture of tolerance?
    If they would live and let live, there could still be tolerance. They won't. They aren't.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why We Are in Iraq
    By Leader in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 07 Nov 10,, 16:46
  2. The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 08:48
  3. Iraq in Books - Review Essay
    By Shek in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29 Feb 08,, 11:08
  4. Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Aug 05,, 12:29
  5. Quagmire or not?
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04 Jul 05,, 17:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •