In another thread I mentioned the similarities between Nazi Germany and Ba'athist Iraq and their ties with, respectively, Imperial Japan and al-Q'aeda. I did this to point out that most people in the U.S. who oppose the current war in Iraq probably supported U.S. attacking Nazi Germany despite the fact that Nazi Germany never attacked the United States and really never could, since Hitler was contained primarily to Europe even without U.S. involvment. Of course there are differences. History never repeats itself exactly. Such things as casualties (civilian and military) and how technology in the 21st Century has made it possible (even easy) to do some things Hitler and Japan never could are among the differences.
Hitler's Nazi Germany and Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq
Both Secular States
Neither Attacked the United States, Yet the U.S. Went to War with Each
Neither Had the Ability to Project Their Military to U.S. Soil
Both Governed by a Malignant Narcissist
Both Forged Uneasy Alliances with Religious Fanatic Fascists Who Shared a Common Enemy
In Each Case, That Shared Common Enemy was Britain and the U.S.
Each Suffered a Humiliating Previous Loss of a War
Each Would Want Revenge for Their Respective Losses
Each Invaded a Neighboring Nation
Hitler Wrote "Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle")
Saddam Called Himself "The Struggler"
Each State Used the Concept of "Blood Cement" to Keep a Tight Grip on Domestic Co-Conspirators
Each Used Poison Gas on Foreign & Domestic Enemies, Including Civilians
Each Used Rockets as Terror Weapons Specifically Targeting Civilians
Nazis & Ba'athists Each Believed Their Racial Demographic Superior Over Others, Especially Jews
Each Made Secret Deals with Adversaries to Further Own Goals
Each Had Ample Reason to Hide Their Involvement in Certain Acts
Each Orchestrated Genocide on a Mass Scale
A Few Differences
2,000,000 German Civilians Killed in WWII
39,460 to 43,927 Iraqi Civilians Killed in Iraq War
600,000 American Military Killed, Wounded or MIA in WWII
2,600 American Military Killed in Iraq War
2,499 U.S. Airborne alone Killed on D-Day
4696 U.S. D-Day Casualties
8,443 U.K & U.S. D-Day Casualties
Nuclear Weapons Did Not Existent in Hitler's Time
So-Called "Suitcase Nukes" Do Exist in Saddam's Time
Cheap, Easy Air Travel Into the U.S. Non-Existent in Hitler's Time
Cheap, Easy Air Travel Into the U.S. Happens Every Day of the Year in Saddam's Time
Ability for Small Numbers of Non-Military to Kill Large Numbers of Civilians Almost Non-Existent in Hitler's Time
Ability for Small Numbers of Non-Military to Kill Large Numbers of Civilians Readily Available in Saddam's Time
Hitler's Nazi Germany Issued an Official 337-Word Declaration of War Against the United States
Saddam's Iraq Never Put Any Such Thing in Writing
Imperial Japan and Islamofascist al-Q'aeda
Each a Religious State/Entity
Each Surprise Attacked the U.S.
Imperial Japan Attacked Military Targets
Al-Q'aeda Attacked Civilian and Military Targets
Each Expected a Relatively Weak U.S. Military Response Due to Perceived U.S. Concerns About Casualties
Each Glorified Suicide in Battle
Each Eventually Resorted to Suicide Pilots to Crash Planes Into Targets
U.S. Casualties at Pearl Harbor: 2,471
Number Killed in 9/11 Attacks: 2,819
Each Felt Their Race/Religion was Superior to Others
Despite the Above, Each Allied with a Secular State for Tactical Purposes
Each Shared a Common Enemy – Britain & the U.S. - With Their Respective Allied Secular State
WWII Continued After Admiral Yamamoto, Mastermind of Pearl Harbor, was Killed
War on Terror Continued After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mastermind of 9/11, was Captured
Forgive me for saying so, John. But you do seem to go through considerable contortions to draw an equivalence between justifications: U.S vs Germany, and U.S vs Iraq. In order to arrive at the unlikely and discredited conclusion that George Bush, et al, not to mention yourself, were fighting terrorism/ as opposed to carrying on a counterproductive invasion to defang a toothless tiger. In the meantime, who in his right mind believes that the administration's various actions have resulted in fewer terrorists ? Was the objective more terrorists, civil war, more theocracy? Can you point to one positive outcome of anything the Bush gang has attempted from "Shock and Awe" to Katrina?
It's an interesting comparison, and I guess there is some truth in it, but it seems forced. There are very significant differences left out of the lists, and trivial similarities included.
For example Nazi Germany was, arguably, the strongest military power in the world at the time of US intervention. It was possible for Nazi Germany to have taken over Europe and Russia, and it was in the middle of doing so. It was clearly in US interests to do something about the Nazi's taking over half the planet. Hussein's Iraq, on the other hand, couldn't even project military power properly within its own borders. US interests, post 9/11, lay in combatting terrorism and al Qaeda - not Iraq.
"Both forged uneasy alliances..." is a bit of a stretch. We've yet to see convincing evidence of a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq, or between radical and violent Islamic fundamentalism in general and Hussein's Iraq. (For example, the best anyone has come up with is 'spun' statements like "Iraq hosted Zarqawi". No it didn't; Zarqawi set up a group of religious fanatics in the Kurdish-controlled Northern no-fly zone. Zarqawi was not 'hosted' by Iraq; Hussein didn't welcome him in, fill his glass and give him a cigar. And we know that Hussein gave more money to families of dead suicide bombers than he gave to other bereaved families in Palestine - but other Middle Eastern bodies did much the same. answerpool.com). On the other hand, for example, we know Hitler and Stalin signed a pact and stuck by it for a while, and that Germany and Japan had an alliance which they held to (apparently, Nazi geneticists spent time and energy trying to prove Japanese people are Aryan). Hussein's Iraq was militarily pathetic and diplomatically isolated. (Yes, some wanted to prop up his dictatorship for private financial gain, and some for fear for of greater instability should he fall - but Hussein's Iraq just wasn't comparable to Hitler's Germany in terms of strength, alliances and threat.)
And 'Each a Religious State/Entity' as a similarity between WWII Japan and Al Qaeda strikes me as a very vague comparison. What, actually, would the significant parallel be between Japanese worship of their emperor as a God, and Bin Laden's fundamentalist distortion of the message of Islam? Just about any state or entity can be described as 'religious' (there are those who'd describe the US or the theory of evolution as such, for example) - what's the point of this particular comparison, if not just to pad out the list? It's not clear that Japanese militarism, imperialism or competition with the US was any more "religious" really, than similar impulses in any other country at the time.
Talking of Bin Laden, why isn't he mentioned in "War on Terror Continued After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mastermind of 9/11, was Captured"? I realise Bush & Co would like everyone to just forget about Bin Laden, as his continued liberty points up their incompetence, but why should we follow their lead?
Originally posted by frankvan: Forgive me for saying so, John. But you do seem to go through considerable contortions to draw an equivalence between justifications: U.S vs Germany, and U.S vs Iraq. In order to arrive at the unlikely and discredited conclusion that George Bush, et al, not to mention yourself, were fighting terrorism/ as opposed to carrying on a counterproductive invasion to defang a toothless tiger.
Do you know how disgustingly fake and phony most liberals come off when it comes to this war? I don't think you do. Your blindness is all-encompassing! These same liberals never said a word when Clinton routinely bombed and attacked various nations and sites around the globe. Clinton never got U.N. approval. Clinton rarely got Congressional approval. There was no hand wringing talk of "disproportionate response" when Clinton would use Stealth Bombers and Cruise Missiles on various third world targets undoubtedly resulting in unintended civilian casualties. (To be fair, after much reading up on one subject, I have recently changed my mind on one of those and believe Clinton potentially saved countless lives when he bombed a chemical weapons factory with links to both bin Laden and Iraq – see I CAN say something good about Clinton!)
You are so petty that you cannot allow any republican any type of victory whatsoever, even if that means handing an advantage – or even victory – over to people who want to kill you and all Americans. So you have to abandon all your alleged principles of caring about human suffering when you ignore all the mass graves that Saddam was filling up and his undeniable working ties with Islamofascists! You claim you oppose the religious right in the U.S. trying to create a Theocracy here, but you never say a word about the World-Wide Caliphate another, more deadly group of religious radicals, are currently trying to install by force. How pathetic! I!m sick! ******* sick of the left in this country and their desire to see America lose just so they can deny anything to Bush! It disgusts me beyond belief!
quote:
Originally posted by frankvan: Can you point to one positive outcome of anything the Bush gang has attempted from "Shock and Awe" to Katrina?
Just because I hate Saddam Hussein (and was not a fan of Clinton) does not automatically mean that I like Bush. I have been very critical of him on a wide variety of issues. I could never reach the level of vitriol and hate spewed by the left, however. That means the left will never accept anything I have to say - to them, it's either hate Bush across the board with as much passion as they do, or be demonized and tossed aside. Just ask Joe Lieberman. But to answer your question, here is one good thing Bush has done:
President Bush ordered yesterday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads. The move occurred on the one-year anniversary of a controversial Supreme Court decision that gave local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes for commercial development.
"I did this to point out that most people in the U.S. who oppose the current war in Iraq probably supported U.S. attacking Nazi Germany despite the fact that Nazi Germany never attacked the United States and really never could, since Hitler was contained primarily to Europe even without U.S. involvment." - JohnGalt
May 5, 1941 - US merchant ship Robin Moor is sunk by U-69 (Kptlt. Metzler)
September 4, 1941 - U-652 attacks the US destroyer Greer off Iceland
October 17, 1941 - Destroyer USS Kearny damaged by German torpedo off Iceland.
October 31, 1941 - The US destroyer Reuben James escorting Convoy HX-156 is sunk by U-552 (Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp) with the loss of 100 of her crew.
December 9, 1941 - Hitler lifts the ban on U-boats operating in US territorial waters, two days before he declares war on the USA. This was to allow Dönitz to deploy 5 U-boats along the USA's eastern seaboard in order to be available for immediate action when the declaration of war was made.
December 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the U.S.
December 11, 1941, The U.S. responds to Germany's declaration with a declaration of war against Germany.
As usual, John gives a faulty premise, ignoring facts that would seem to work against any point he is trying to make. It's either that, or he lives in an alternate universe, one in which the history is different than the one most of us are familiar with. John's world apparently contains a US launching an unprovoked attack on Germany, thus starting a war between the two countries, and several instances in which charges against Saddam Hussein of Iraq were not proven to be false, manipulated information, or outright lies, as it happened in what the rest of us call the real world. (I have to wonder if George Patton was elected US President in his world, as suggested by noted Science Fiction author Robert A. Heinlein in his fictional "The Number of the Beast." In some of his later novels, Heinlein got rather childish in outlook, and his Oedipus complex became somewhat of an embarassment for fans of his earlier, more serious work.)
Just remember that, if John gives you a fact that you didn't know, it is entirely possible that no one else knows it either, at least, not in this universe.
Posts: 16592 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
But to answer your question, here is one good thing Bush has done:
President Bush ordered yesterday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads. The move occurred on the one-year anniversary of a controversial Supreme Court decision that gave local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes for commercial development.
Gee, John, you should have posted this in one of the threads titled "Good things Bush Has Done" (or something similar). There have been a few threads like that on AP, all started by those you call the Left. Of course, doing so would some how wrong your earlier comment ("You are so petty that you cannot allow any republican any type of victory whatsoever, even if that means handing an advantage – or even victory – over to people who want to kill you and all Americans.") was.
Like I said, John ignores any reality that would interfere with his theories.
Posts: 16592 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
supported U.S. attacking Nazi Germany despite the fact that Nazi Germany never attacked the United States
In that other thread, I asked how many more times we'd have to hear this . At least once more, apparently. It does seem to have quietly evolved without JG admitting he was wrong. Before it was: "if it was permissible to go to war with Nazi German simply because they were allied with Imperial Japan, who attacked the United States"
But that's ignoring history (I know, I'm shocked too). Since it was ignored in the previous thread, I'll repost an excerpt of what I said.
The events, in order, were: 1) Japan attacked the US. 2) The US declared war on Japan but not Germany. 3) Germany declared war on the US. 4) The US declared war on Germany.
Germany declared war on us. We, not surprisingly, reciprocated.
In any event, the idea that a country with one of the most advanced militaries of the time already running rampant over Europe is comparable to a country unable to project power against its neighbors, is ridiculous.
"Just because I hate Saddam Hussein (and was not a fan of Clinton) does not automatically mean that I like Bush. I have been very critical of him on a wide variety of issues. I could never reach the level of vitriol and hate spewed by the left, however. That means the left will never accept anything I have to say - to them, it's either hate Bush across the board with as much passion as they do, or be demonized and tossed aside. Just ask Joe Lieberman." :JG.
But really, John. I have accepted many things you have said in the past. I'm sure we see eye to eye on several otherwise controversial issues. However, when you insist on lumping together, everyone who disagrees with one of your pet theories, in that hateful cabal of "Bush Haters, Inc." , we must respectfully disagree. I'm convinced that the man is a draft dodging, coke snorting, incompetent. His election, twice, to the highest office in my country, will go down in history as a worse calamity than the great depression, in my opinion - and I'm far from being alone. But I, and many who share my opoinion, are not motivated by personal blind hatred. The man is more deserving of contempt than hatred. I'm willing to accept that he may be kind to animals - except for that bit about blowing up frogs with firecrackers. I can credit him with having given up the booze - but I would have preferred he had done it by some other means than embracing fundamental sanctimony If that is the rule you require, that for every criticism of our fearless leader, we have to try and find something complimentary to say, I'll try to abide. Would it be possible to ask you to reciprocate? Could you find an occasional positive attribute among the hated political "left" as defined by yourself? I think you are far too valuable a contributor to be "demonized and tossed aside". I think Joe Lieberman is on the right (as distinguished from the "right") side of many issues, but he tried to capitalize on the president's popularity (before it evaporated) and his timing was off. I think you suffer from the same tendency, clinging to your favorite arguments - long after they have left you "weary and old with service to the mercy of a rude stream that must forever hide (you)". No WMD, No al-Quaeda link to Saddam, No "last throes of insurgency", No discernible Victory in this so-called War, etc.
There was no hand wringing talk of "disproportionate response" when Clinton would use Stealth Bombers and Cruise Missiles on various third world targets undoubtedly resulting in unintended civilian casualties. (To be fair, after much reading up on one subject, I have recently changed my mind on one of those and believe Clinton potentially saved countless lives when he bombed a chemical weapons factory with links to both bin Laden and Iraq – see I CAN say something good about Clinton!)
Actually, from what I remember, there was a lot of criticism of these actions. Just about everybody pointed out the parallel with the movie "Wag The Dog", for example. Anyone saying there was no attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky affair would have been a very lonely voice indeed.
What changed your mind about the Al Shifa plant? As far as I know, the US still hasn't come up with any evidence that it was producing chemical weapons, and has ducked out of ever trying out its allegations in court.
'Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."[4] The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: "Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."[5]'en.wikipedia.org
'The Clinton administration released $24 million in assets from a frozen bank account of the Saudi businessman whose El Shifa pharmaceutical firm in Sudan was bombed on Aug. 20, 1998 on orders of the National Security Council. The decision, revealed in papers filed with the U.S. District Court on May 3, are a major victory for the owner, Saleh Idris, who sued when his accounts were blocked immediately after the attack, because the administration fraudulently claimed that the plant was making biological and chemical warfare components. In lifting the freeze, the Treasury Department chose not to contest Idris's lawsuit.' www.aboutsudan.com
'U.S. officials acknowledged a month after the attack that they had no evidence directly connecting bin Laden to Shifa when President Clinton ordered the factory’s destruction. Their account of the target selection process, moreover, suggests that desire to act swiftly led them to draw firm conclusions from inconclusive evidence.
U.S. officials explained that intelligence officers searched commercial databases and Sudanese internet sites, including Shifa’s, for information. Because they did not find any list of medicines for sale by the plant, they mistakenly concluded that it did not produce pharmaceuticals.
U.S. officials have also admitted to uncertainty as to whether their own evidence indicated that precursor chemicals were produced at Shifa, or only stored or shipped through the plant.60 And Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals.'cns.miis.edu (PDF - this article also looks at the evidence of an al Qaeda or Iraq connection to the plant)
There has been some new evidence, it seems. In 2001, a Sudanese al Qaeda defector, Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl, testified that 'al-Qaida had indeed been working to produce chemical weapons in Khartoum'. He doesn't seem to have mentioned al Shifa in particular, however - Testimony of prosecution witness Jamal Ahmad Al-Fadl.
It still seems murky to me, to say the least. Why the change of mind?
Thirty reasons the War On Terror is not like WWII:
'1. There is no federally funded day care for children of working mothers in industries vital to the war effort; 2. There has been no expansion of the public health care system to take care of workers in the industries vital to the war effort; 3. There is no Supply Priorities and Allocation Board to oversee the allocation of resources for the war and adjusting domestic consumption; 4. There is no Office of Price Management checking the threat of inflation with price caps; 5. There is no National War Labor Board to mediate disputes between management and labor in industries vital to the war effort; 6. There is no War Manpower Commission designed to mobilize military and civilian services for the "War on Terror"; 7. There is no Office of War Mobilization to oversee and coordinate all of the other agencies; 8. There is no Senate Subcommittee explicitly designed to investigate waste and fraud in the awarding of military contracts; 9. There is no War Production Board to put the economy on a war footing; 10. There is no "Food for Freedom" program urging farmers to expand production for the war effort; 11. There are no "Victory Gardens" encouraging people to grow their own food; 12. There is no campaign targeting "Mrs. Stay-at-Home" and criticizing her for not becoming "Rosie the Riveter." ("Instead of cutting a cake," one newsreel explained, "this woman [factory worker] cuts the pattern of aircraft parts."); 13. There is no welcoming of Mexican immigrants to the US to harvest crops similar to the 200,000 who entered under the bracero program enacted during World War Two; 14. There is no National Housing Agency building over 2 million low-cost residential units financed by the federal government; 15. There is no "Share Your Home" campaign encouraging families to open up their homes to friends, relatives, or strangers to ease the housing crunch caused by the movement of populations due to the war effort; 16. There is no tax increase on the wealthy to help pay for the war, (but tax cuts instead); 17. There is no military draft; 18. There are no shared sacrifices asked for; 19. The enemy has no technology that can compare to the US; 20. There is no real "Axis of Evil"; 21. There are no real "Allies"; 22. There are no war bonds being sold; 23. There are no scrap metal or rubber drives; 24. There is no sugar, meat, cheese, butter and gasoline rationing; 25. There is no major developed nation on the side of the enemy; 26. There are no farmers being asked to grow "Hemp for Victory"; 27. There is no call for GM, Ford, etc. to stop churning out cars and SUVs, and start producing tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers; 28. There is no contribution to the actual fighting from the rich (there is no equivalent of a JFK or George Herbert Walker Bush now serving); 29. There is no unity of purpose that bridges ideological, class, and racial lines for the higher cause; (In World War Two, even Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn served); 30. There is no great leader calling for us to pull together as a nation.' www.huffingtonpost.com
To add to #28, during WWII, 4 out of the 5 living children of the President served in the military, seeing action. The fifth, Anna, served as the President's assistant in the White House near the end of the war and accompanied him when he went to Yalta. To date, neither of the current Prseident's children have felt it necessary to serve.
Further, one of the two Vice Presidents during WWII served in the military, having joined at the onset of WWI at age 34. The current Vice President has stated he "had other priorities in the '60s than military service" during the war fought by the US when he was in his 20s and 30s.
Posts: 16592 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
"Americans should not allow their own religious tolerance to cloud their understanding of the "holy war" Islamic radicals are waging against the Western way of life." Sen. Rick Santorum.
"We're at war with Islamic fascism," said Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican. "Afghanistan and Iraq and southern Lebanon and every country around the world is a front."
Errrr... I hope he isn't going to advocate fighting on the Australian front any time soon (being as we're one of the countries which belongs to the rest of the world, a.k.a. any place other than the US).
Emphasis mine, btw.
Posts: 509 | Location: Australia | Registered: 02-19-03
'There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says. The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.
US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.
Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.'news.bbc.co.uk
