The Nazi/appeasement analogy

[mburbank]

I would be willing to trade comparing Iraq to Vietnam with any analogy featuring Hitler, Nazis or appeasement.

Seriously. I'm that sick of it already.

[El Blanco]

Why are you sick of it? What are the main differences you see?

Because the main difference I see in the Iraq conflict is that the USSR isn't backing the insurgents this time. In fact, there really doesn't seem to be much cohesion in the insurgency at all. I'm wondering if they spend as much time fighting each other as they do fighting our guys.

I think the similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam (at least, from you and I are) happen to be the perception of whats happening. We are actually seeing the destruction and violence in live, screaming color. We didn't get that before VN. But, I think I'll collect my thoughts on that one a little better and start a thread on that.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Iraq and Nam are very different. In Nam we had a concrete ally to back, in Iraq we are creating this ally. In Vietnam we were defending against the spread of communism and the violence of the Maoists, In Iraq we were stopping a rogue state and a genocidal madman repsonsible for nearly 1 million deaths, and whose money, power and nfluence financed thousands more.

We found chemical weapons, we found mass graves, we found a country with no freedom of religon, and we found a country SPONSERING terrorism, not Al qaeda but everyone from Islammic Jihad to Hamas, going so far as to giving publishers clearing house style checks for $25,000 to the families of murderous suicide bombers who killed women and children as their exclusive plot.

Vietnam was approved by the UN and the UN sent almost no troops leaving the US hanging. In Iraq The UN didn't approve and we have far more allies there then we did in Nam.

Again, please stfu about the nam comparisons. You don't get to make that call unless you know jack shit about either war or served in one.

You want nazi comparisons? Saddam was raised by the second in command of the prominent Muslim Nazi Al husseigni who helped orchestrate and support the holocaust supplying thousnads of muslim soldiers from the former ottoman empire for hitler,

I say we may have thousands dead, but in doing so we may have likely saved the lives of another million. I would gladly die for this war.

[mburbank]

How old are you? You could easily have the chance.

[Abcdxxxx]

It's simple Burbank. You LIKE the Vietnam one because it's simple shorthand that fits your agenda. Vietname was the war most everybody can agree was bad news. No matter that Vietnam has become code for "a bad war you can't win, and even if you win it, it won't really be winning" and that Iraq probably deserves to be known for being it's own mess entirely, unique and special that it is.

The Nazi, Hitler, Appeasement one just makes you uncomfortable. Especially when it's applied with relevant context not as an analogy but an extension of the same bigoted fascist mindset.

I agree, the Holocaust references are a bit much (remember, I think Mel Brooks has even done damage in that regard), but The Leftists adopted turnspeak years ago, and you didn't say shit. You just don't like Bush... but what else is new.





See, so since it's not just an analogy, you're going to need some factual reason to dismiss it.

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, what were you saying that undermines the Vietnam analogy. I missed it, especially the part where everybody could agree that it was a bad war. It isn't almost everybody on Iraq, it's just sixty percent or so, but give it a few more years.

Mmmm. Ways in which Islmaic extremism isn't like appeasement. Tough, tough call.

Okay.
1.) They aren't a single unfied group, like, say, the Nazis.
2.) If they are like the Nazis, shouldn't we have a draft, war bonds, a totally redirected economy? If W believes this is in a league with that, shouldn't he be working hard to put us on the kind of WWII footing we had, concidering he's had both both houses of congress all this time?
W just said that Victory in Iraq was as inmportant as victory at Omaha Beach. IF that's true, how come he hasn't even tried to fight that fight?
3.) They don't have the budget the Nazis had.
4.) They don't have the army the nazis had.
5.) They don't have a leader that commands loyalty on even a remote par with Hitler.

The whole point of the Nazi/appeasment argument is it was the last war everybody agreed HAD to be fought. If W thought for a moment this was that, he'd have canned Rummy long ago, since he's secretary of defense and we are having such a bad time.

And, like I said, I'm more than willing to trade. In light of this particular new flight of fantasy, I'm off comparisons. I've decided Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. It's completely it's own unique clusterfuck. Vietnam was something we could get ourselves out of eventually. This may not be.

[Geggy]

Ok I know you're all sick of me comparing the nazis to the current bush administration but just take a look at this and think about it...

-George W. Bush//Adolf Hitler
-Dick Cheney//Adolf Eichmann or Karl Heinz Roverer (karl rove's grandpa)
-John Ashcroft//Hermann Goering
-GOP//SS
-Project for New American Century(PNAC)//National Socialist German Workers Party(NSDAP)
-September 11//Reichstag fire
-Patriot Act//Enabling Act
-Homeland Security//Fatherland Security
-Afghanistan//Poland
-War on terror//Phony War
-Baghad//Stalingrad
-Guantenamo Bay//Dachau
-Thugs at Abu Gharib//Brown shirts
-Arabs//Jews
-NSA//IBM
-no child left behind//hitler youth organization

Too many more to list...

[Geggy]

Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California

George W. Bush's grandfather helped finance the Nazi Party. Karl Rove's grandfather allegedly helped run the Nazi Party, and helped build the Birkenau Death Camp. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian father volunteered for the infamous Nazi SA and became a ranking officer.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-08.htm

Edit: "Ah luv hitlah" -arnold

[AChimp]

The best thing about this thread is that all those guys in that picture have funny hats. It's like a Shriner convention.

[Abcdxxxx]

yeah and they don't speak fluent german or goosestep either.

what a fucking bimbo.

(edit: because i guess you really ARE that stupid...

it's their fascism combined with their end goals which are so similar. but forget similarities (like say, oh i don't know, the term aryan for example?) and do the fucking research for the actual outright ties between the nazis and islamic /arab supremacists. start with an event called the farhud)

[Archduke Tips]

The Nazis tried to establish peace on Earth by uniting under once race. The US is trying to establish peace on Earth by uniting under Democracy.

There you go.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Geggy

bullshit bullshit bullshit

No breakdown of 9-11 like I've been telling you?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

1.) They aren't a single unfied group, like, say, the Nazis.

S the fact that Persians and Arabs, governments and para-military groups spanning several nations, all bound by a single, fundamentalist view of the world, isn't a sign of unity? What about this dreaded "Shia Crescent" I keep hearing about?

2.) If they are like the Nazis, shouldn't we have a draft, war bonds, a totally redirected economy? If W believes this is in a league with that, shouldn't he be working hard to put us on the kind of WWII footing we had, concidering he's had both both houses of congress all this time?

Just because Bush has failed to fully put this war in perspective for Americans doesn't mean the threat isn't there.

3.) They don't have the budget the Nazis had.

Huh? I'm not even sure what this means. I guess Hezbollah wasn't really using top of the line, British made night vision goggles and Iranian (via Russia) weaponry. Nope, just rocks and sticks.

You have some of the most oil rich nations in the world being led by Islamic radicals. How exactly do they not have the cash?

4.) They don't have the army the nazis had.

The average age in Iran is like 28. They have a pretty big, well trained standing army. That's just Iran.

Not to mention that the Palestinian population continues to boom, and all they do is breed generation of generation of angry, brainwashed young men ready to kill Zionists and other Westerners.

5.) They don't have a leader that commands loyalty on even a remote par with Hitler.

I dunno, anybody who can convince someone to strap a bomb around themself and take ut a bus or store is pretty "commanding."

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Well first of all I'd like to thank Kevin for answering everypoint befor I could. The examples are far more outreaching except unlike the nazis they have nukes.

Vietnam was us trying to protect a foriegn country that would never really affect us from a bad form of government in a war we could not fight that would never really reach home.

Saddam, as just a part of the "Axis" as Bush calls it. Has been waging war againsnt our allies and calling us the great satan and making constant rehtoric of attacking us, as well does Iran and even Korea. Vietnam was a war the UN sent us into without sufficent backup. This war is to protect our allies and ourselves from a group of leaders with nuclear capability who is constantly LITERALLY threatening us.

You want a nazi comparison? Here's my comparison, when they cam for the jews we didn't stand up, when they came for the hindus and buddhists we didn't care. but next on the list is everyone else. Wahabi Islaam is far worse then communism and we need to fight with all we can to keep it from power.

We either die fighting it over there, or die when the nukes/gas/suicide bombers hit us at home.

Don't see a connection between Iraq and terrorism in america? Who cares? They support terrorism anywhere they can, from Israel to Kuwait, as soon as they would have become strong enough Saddam would simply support it in the US. Besides What makes those Israeli/arab/hindu lives more important then our own?

Would you not sacrifice one person to save 500? Because that's the equivalent of people Saddam has killed in cold blood compared to the people who have died taking him down. Do you really think he would never kill again or support more and further terrorism?

Would you sacrifice yourself to save 500 people? no? What if they were white and not arabic? Or european? Do they have to be american cause he called us the Great Satan time and time again, do you not think eventually he would go for us?

[Zhukov]

Here's my comparison, when they cam for the jews we didn't stand up, when they came for the hindus and buddhists we didn't care. but next on the list is everyone else.

Nice butcher of a popular poem (that was widely used by US social activists to support the anti-vietnam war drive).

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Nice butcher of a popular poem (that was widely used by US social activists to support the anti-vietnam war drive).

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

I wasn't quoting i was comparing

I was trying to compare wahabi islaam, they came for the jews first, then the hindus and buddhists in india, no they are expanding to the far east and earopeans and christians in africa.

Who the hell else is left but us when they are done everyhere else?

[Zhukov]

I didn't say you were quoting, I said you were butchering.

I found it funny that you used it, because the poem is mainly used to 'defend' communists and anti-vietnam war stances.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

how could that poem be anything but a call to arms about gathering threats?

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I found it funny that you used it, because the poem is mainly used to 'defend' communists and anti-vietnam war stances.

The hell it is. It was written by a Priest who supported Hitler before they sent him to Dachua. The poem wasn't meant to defend anyone - it was meant to explain to the communists that they are in danger too - obviously some people missed the point.

There isn't a Holocaust or tolerance museum or human rights cause in the world that hasn't appropriated the poem in some way.

[Zhukov]

There isn't a Holocaust or tolerance museum or human rights cause in the world that hasn't appropriated the poem in some way.

true. But there aren't many pro-war stances that use it, which is my fleeting point.

It wasn't a warning to communists, they had been taken care of first, if you recall.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I can't think of a pro war stance that DOESNT use it. How could this poem possibly be interpreted as anti war?

[Abcdxxxx]

That's hilarious Zuhkov.... do you think Helter Skelter is about race wars too?

I have a hard time believing you're not already aware of this but - the poem is mainly used to justify action, both military or otherwise, against genocide and other injustices. You know, like all that "policing the world" stuff you object to. The poem addresses the type of thinking where one might say "it's just the Zionists they want to kill". People use it the same way they use the whole "well we would have never fought the Nazis in WWII then" argument. I'm sorry you took it so literally, and missed the larger statement there. That's why people keep having to "butcher" it to get the point across. You know, like just in case someone actually thinks it's a poem about communists written in 70's. That anyone would think it belongs at an anti-war rally is sort of sad.

[Zhukov]

Well I guess we just have had different personal experiences then.

My uncle tells me that when he got back from Vietnam they used to parade the returned soldiers onstage while somebody recited it, at an anti-war rally. This was at a time when Asian restaurants etc were being firebombed, and the police weren't worrying about them. So it would be in a "nobody gives a shit about the asians now, but they wont give a shit about you soon enough" context.

It has been used by the Greens party here in Australia to 'defend' refugees - changing the lyrics around somewhat...

"the poem is mainly used to justify action, both military or otherwise, against genocide and other injustices"

action against injustice or genocide... so an anti war protest, maybe? I've seen it hijacked by the 'left' more than the 'right', and I've never encountered it in a pro war light. Weird huh? But I never took it as a poem written about communists in the 70s, where did you get that from? Is that humour?

[Abcdxxxx]

You said:

the poem is mainly used to 'defend' communists and anti-vietnam war stances.

See, at the moment I see the poem mainly being evoked by the Pro-Israel contingent, or in relation to Darfur. I can't think of two more appropriate applications. It says to take genocide personally even when you are not the target. ...or that "their" problem IS your problem. I don't know man, do you think the "Never Again" slogan is about pacifism?

[Zhukov]

Pacifism and war are not the only options. Action against war through non-pacifist means is how I see the poem, and just like countless other people, I guess I'll interpret it how I want and you do it how you want.

I'm not commenting on what the poem is about, just how I have seen it been apropriated. I see now that it has gone both ways.