Third Reich Comparison: The greatest thing about America is that we have different opinions on every subject, yet we still move on together. We have a constitution that protects those with the minority opinion and therefore we've been allowed to speak our minds freely. The comparisons to Nazi Germany are fair. People who say this don't think that we are living in Nazi Germany, but that we might become that way if these trends continue. The media, as a whole, seems to be supporting the war in Iraq. Any disagreements are met by 'shut up' by an O'reilly or a rebuttal by some other anchor(just examples of this trend). These news positions are ones of power. They have the power to show you what's going on in the world and the power to hide your eyes from whatever they choose to. The media being united on this war front makes it harder for those opposing the war to get their media. People who are undecided or don't care enough to dig are handed one answer over and over until they believe it. It's a form of brainwashing, but it can be fought by thinking for yourself, so no excuses. If you don't like the trends to unite this country under one opinion, then stand your ground. Nazi Germany happened because the good people did not stand their ground when they saw the worst happening. But also realize that your opposition has every right to their opinion too. Again, this is America and this is what freedom is about. Both sides have very valid points and having two(or more) sides to this argument is what makes America free. When the argument becomes one sided we will have Nazi Germany. Don't fear that trend, just stand your ground. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. The only thing to fear is fear itself. You know the lines. No fear. Practice them in life and there are no worries. I'll leave you with this quote to ponder on: "To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men." -Ella Wheeler Wilcox
I won't say that I agree with a pre WWII nazi agenda, but I will say that most folks have very little understanding about how it happened. For most of my life I knew the "big" causes. Germans were down and out after WWI, Hitler instilled nationalistic pride, and used Jews, gypsies and others to target repressed anger. But less than two years ago I had the chance to talk to a holocaust survivor and it changed my perspective. He explained that not just Hitler and Germany but all of Europe and the U.S. was to blame as well for the holocaust. It wasn't as if everything was fine, and one day Hitler looked at the jews and said,"let's get 'em". It wasn't a drastic shift, but a very gradual one. So when people think of comparing something to Nazi germany they think of concentration camps, genocide etc. It didn't start like that. It started out much smaller and seemingly harmless. In the early days it was just the odd overgeneralization and stereotype about jews. Nobody was harming them, so nobody thought too much about it. But the stereotype was allowed to replace rational thought in folks minds all over Europe and the U.S. Added to this were false rumors about controling finances. Those spread for awhile, but it wasn't as if anyone was taking away the rights of the jewish people, so what was the big deal? Then the retoric was cranked up a notch, and Jews were blamed for various ills in Germany and elsewhere. By that time stereotypes, and ill publicity had already made fertile ground for many to believe the accusations. At first there was a law about which people could do certain things, and Jews were left off the list. Then they were required to carry their papers with them. Why should that be a problem if they weren't hiding anything. Meanwhile more propoganda against Jewish folks kept coming out, and so it wasn't a large jump to have them start identifying themselves with stars, and a little at a time folks were starting to be carted off to the concentration camps etc. The point this survivor made over and over, is that it didn't seem like a big deal, at first, and was mostly just talk. That is what created the atmosphere that allowed concentration camps to be set up all over Europe, not just in Germany. Add to that a general trust that nobody would believe their govt. capable of committing genocide against millions of innocents. Even more importantly nobody believed that just talk about a certain group, and stereo-types and generalizations could lead to something so horrific. But it did. All I can say is those that think all these things such as being held without trial isn't a big deal, because our govt. wouldn't really do anything wrong, have a dangerous attitude. Whether there is any legitimate comparison to Nazi Germany or not, the attitude sows the seeds that could lead to horrific crimes against humanity. And even if our current administration and govt. has zero parallels with Nazi Germany at any stage of their existence we should do everything in our power to make sure that a climate where a government like that could happen. Hearing this survivor stress that repeatedly struck me in a way few conversations ever have.
What a stupid comment. If he wanted to show respect for the troops he should go to Iraq for the speech.
If you cant see the eeeeeerie similarities to this comment and how George and the Republicans have played their tenure so far in power then I guess the same can be said of you.
If you replaced all the words relating to Jews with Muslims and Nazi Germany with America, the parallels are uncanny. That is the problem that I see with the foreign policy of America right now. Our attitude towards the Muslim world. If the terrorists(ex: Osama bin Laden)[/SIZE=1] would have hidden in South Africa or Holland, would we have invaded? I doubt it. We could have asked Afghanistan to take care of the terrorist epidemic going on their soil and asked them to join our cause. Instead we said, 'hand over your problem' and they said, 'no, we want to use our methods'. And we invaded. America does not seem to trust the Muslim world because of a few Muslims(not positive on this one) crashed airplanes into various places on 9/11/2001. That sucked for us, but our nation has changed it's opinions of Muslims unfairly. Muslims did not fly planes into our buildings, terrorists did. Pakistan is an allied Muslim country, but a 'terrorist nation'. India has terrorism going on it's country too, but no one claims that India is a terrorist nation. There aren't many countries in the world that have not experienced terrorism, yet we act like Muslims are the only responsible parties. Ireland has had terrorism in their country based on religious grounds. How is that different than the Sunni/Shia thing? Do we call them Catholic terrorists? No. But you can be sure that if a Muslim does something in the name of religion he's labeled a 'Muslim Terrorist' Does all this sound familiar? It's what's going on in the news right now. Many many Muslims were kicked out of the United States, many others stay here and face scrutiny. It's not an easy life for them in the States and it wasn't easy being Jewish in Germany pre-WWII either. We're not Nazi Germany, but we are a powerhouse in the world just like Germany was during the War. We shouldn't play with fire unless we know what we want to do with it. Our reputation around the world is suffering in certain areas because of the way our government is handling the 9/11 situation. Citizens have to hold our government very responsible no matter how hard it is. Being on top ain't easy. Deal with it or we're gonna start sounding like these spoiled hockey players to the rest of the world. 'Oh my God, my iPod crashed on me today. I'm going to die.' -the American. 'Oh my God, how am I gonna get clean water to drink today.' -the poor world
What a stupid comment. If he goes to Iraq, he probably takes even more criticism from people like you for exploiting the war for political gain. Off to bury my head in the sand!
"Joker, make sleeping sounds here tonight and head up to Hue in the morning. We've had reports the VC have executed hundreds of civilians, maybe thousands. They've uncovered several mass graves. Walter Cronkite is due here tomorrow so we'll be busy. But your job is important, too. We need some good, clear photographs. And some hard-hitting captions. Get me photographs of indigenous civilian personnel who have been executed with their hands tied behind their backs, people buried alive, priests with their throats cut, dead babies - you know what I want. Then get me some good feature stuff on the fighting with good body counts. And remember: we're writing our own report cards in this country. Don't be afraid to give us a few A's." "Yes, sir."
Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy By Peter Baker and Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, June 30, 2005; A01 When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness. But the president's full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week's prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission. The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helpingBush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won. "There's going to be an appetite by some to relitigate past decisions," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. But the studies consulted by the White House show that in the long run public support for war is "mostly linked to whether you think you can prevail," he added, which is one reason it is important for Bush to explain "why he thinks it's working and why he thinks it'll win." For Bush, Bartlett emphasized, the public rhetoric matches the private conviction that his strategy will succeed. But it also leaves Bush in the difficult position of balancing confidence and credibility. The more optimism Bush expresses, the more criticism he draws from Congress and commentators that he is not facing the reality of a tenacious insurgency that, according to U.S. military commanders, remains as potent today as six months ago. Bush has never been one to dwell publicly on past miscalculations in Iraq, on such issues as weapons of mass destruction, the reception forecast for invading U.S. troops and the durability of the armed resistance after the fall of Saddam Hussein. As he continues to tout progress in the face of near-daily car bombings, critics say, his standing with the public will continue to slip. "Unless they're more candid with the American people, there's no reason to think the drift in public opinion is going to turn around," said P.J. Crowley of the Center for American Progress, a retired Air Force colonel who was a national security aide in the Clinton White House. Bush adversaries insisted yesterday that they remain no less committed to victory and denied engaging in defeatism. "I really do think it's winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said in an interview. "That's why I urged them to give the speech. He told us the why. He didn't tell us the how. Business as usual won't get us there. I think he has to change some policy or alter some policy." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has also been highly critical of Bush's handling of the war effort, rushed out a statement after Tuesday night's speech asserting his own confidence in victory. "I have had differences with the administration over the planning and execution of our postwar policy in Iraq," he said. "However, we all are working toward finding a way to succeed in Iraq." At stake is the ability to sustain a war that so far has claimed the lives of nearly 1,750 U.S. troops and that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has predicted could last years. The Bush team is acutely aware that public support remains critical for the long-term viability of such a venture, and in the face of sagging polls in recent weeks it has determined to refocus energy on shoring up popular opinion. In shaping their message, White House officials have drawn on the work of Duke University political scientists Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi, who have examined public opinion on Iraq and previous conflicts. Feaver, who served on the staff of the National Security Council in the early years of the Clinton administration, joined the Bush NSC staff about a month ago as special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform. Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?" In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable. "The most important single factor in determining public support for a war is the perception that the mission will succeed," Gelpi said in an interview yesterday. Key Bush advisers think the general public has considerable patience for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq, but they are mindful that opinion leaders, including members of Congress, high-profile analysts, editorial writers and columnists, are more pessimistic on that question. And they acknowledge that images of mayhem that people see from Iraq create doubt about the prospects for success. In studying past wars, they have drawn lessons different from the conventional wisdom. Bush advisers challenge the widespread view that public opinion turned sour on the Vietnam War because of mounting casualties that were beamed into living rooms every night. Instead, Bush advisers have concluded that public opinion shifted after opinion leaders signaled that they no longer believed the United States could win in Vietnam. Most devastating to public opinion, the advisers believe, are public signs of doubt or pessimism by a president, whether it was Ronald Reagan after 241 Marines, soldiers and sailors were killed in a barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, forcing a U.S. retreat, or Bill Clinton in 1993 when 18 Americans were killed in a bloody battle in Somalia, which eventually led to the U.S. withdrawal there. The more resolute a commander in chief, the Bush aides said, the more likely the public will see a difficult conflict through to the end. "We want people to understand the difficult work that's ahead," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely. "We want them to understand there's a political process to which the Iraqis are committed and there's a military process, a security process, to which we, our coalition partners and the Iraqis are committed. And that there is progress being made but progress in a time of war is tough." Bush drew criticism for repeated references to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in explaining the stakes in Iraq, but White House officials see that as a crucial part of setting the context for the battle ahead. "One challenge we face is that there's a clear pre-9/11 mind-set among many people," another senior official said. "Thankfully, the president isn't one of them. He knows we are at war -- and he's acting like we are at war. That's what commanders in chief are supposed to do." But Gelpi, whose studies with Feaver have helped influence the White House thinking, said he thinks the president did not truly achieve what he needed to with the Tuesday speech. As Gelpi described it, the American people remained supportive of the Iraq effort despite extensive violence when they saw incremental goals being met -- first the handover of partial sovereignty last summer, and then the democratic elections in January. Since then, he said, public support has fallen because there are no more intermediary benchmarks. Bush could have laid some out in his speech short of a timetable for withdrawal, Gelpi said, such as setting targets for how many Iraqi security forces would be trained by certain dates. That, he said, would give the American public a sense of moving forward as these benchmarks are attained. "What's important for him now to keep the public with him is to look forward and say we're going to make progress and this is what progress looks like," Gelpi said. "He may have stemmed the flow for a little bit, but I don't think he's given the public a framework for showing how we're making progress." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902792.html
"What's important for him now to keep the public with him is to look forward and say we're going to make progress and this is what progress looks like," Gelpi said. "He may have stemmed the flow for a little bit, but I don't think he's given the public a framework for showing how we're making progress." Too bad an actual successful strategy on winning the war in Iraq is not as important as massaging public opinion. As an aside, I bet Rove et al must be sared sh*tless about the mid-term elections.
Interesting comments FB and Don. Since it was my posts about historical parallels that kicked this off for the record I actually had ancient Rome and Athens in mind rather than Nazi Germany but I see the parallels. I think this is a key point here. I've often criticized this Admin. and its supporters as being faith based not necessarily in the terms of being religious but in the terms of being that dogma is more important than factual reality. This applies too almost everything this Admin does but is most prevalent in the war on Iraq. The Admin's argument is that we're right, don't worry about the bad things that you see believe us. Faith in the leadership is the key feature of this argument and is reflected in the rhetoric used by the supporters of this policy even here on Clutch BBS. Some examples are "Surely the Admin knows more about the situation than we do so don't question them.", "9/11 has changed everything and we need to trust that the Admin. to take care of threats as they see fit." and "Those who question the Admin. even on factual information are tacitly in league with our enemies." All of those aren't rational arguments but are faith arguments because the underlining assumption here is that what the Admin is doing is right no matter what the fact say so and that trust is the key point. This view is so strong and pervasive that some posters have even go so far as to invent up reasons to justify the invasion that not the Admin has put forward in order to bolster that faith.
Here you go ostrich boy. MSM wades in Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate All Its Own By DAVID E. SANGER Published: June 30, 2005 WASHINGTON, June 29 - So what happened to the applause? When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything. So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders. With Iraq once more atop the political agenda, the Senate on Wednesday gave hasty approval to an additional $1.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, to cover a budget gap caused in part by unexpected demands for health care by returning Iraqi veterans. The administration has reversed itself, and now plans to seek emergency money from both the House and the Senate. Before the Senate voted unanimously to raise the spending for health care, the head of the veterans administration returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to tell House members that, contrary to his testimony the previous day, the agency needs emergency financing for this year and the administration will be submitting a request. Democrats had seized on the veterans' spending issue as another example of the administration's mishandling of the war. Republicans moved quickly to respond to what was becoming a significant embarrassment. Capt. Tom Earnhardt, a public affairs officer at Fort Bragg who participated in the planning for the president's trip, said that from the first meetings with White House officials there was agreement that a hall full of wildly cheering troops would not create the right atmosphere for a speech devoted to policy and strategy. "The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account. As the message drifted down to commanders, it appears that it may have gained an interpretation beyond what the administration's image-makers had in mind. "This is a very disciplined environment," said Captain Earnhardt, "and some guys may have taken it a bit far," leaving the troops hesitant to applaud. After two presidential campaigns, Mr. Bush has finely tuned his sense of timing for cueing applause, especially when it comes to his most oft-expressed declarations of resolve to face down terrorists. But when the crowd did not respond on Tuesday , he seemed to speed up his delivery a bit. Then, toward the end of the 28-minute speech, there was an outbreak of clapping when Mr. Bush said, "We will stay in the fight until the fight is done." Terry Moran, an ABC News White House correspondent, said on the air on Tuesday night that the first to clap appeared to be a woman who works for the White House, arranging events. Some other reporters had the same account, but Captain Earnhardt and others in the back of the room say the applause was started by a group of officers. While the White House tried to explain the silence, Democrats were critical of Mr. Bush's use of the Sept. 11 attacks - comparing it to the administration's argument, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda. The independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks found no evidence of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's organization. Mr. Bush declared in his speech, as he has many times in recent months, that the Iraq campaign is part of a wider war on terrorism that was brought home to America on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Bush, his aides said, was referring not to the past, but to the arrival in Iraq of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda once Mr. Hussein's government fell. "What we need is a policy to get it right in Iraq," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Mr. Bush's opponents in the 2004 election, said on the NBC morning show "Today." "The way you honor the troops is not to bring up the memory of 9/11. It's to give the troops leadership that's equal to the sacrifice."
You are correct. It is very interesting from a sociological standpoint. I don't remember if it was you or someone else who mentioned that 9/11 changed things in people feeling a need for strong leadership. That ties in with your comments here. It is a scary thing realizing that we were vulnerable to the kind of destruction we saw on 9/11. The faith in the leadership is fascinating, and I might be guilty of it myself under different situations. It is just that when some many facts fly in the face of the news that the administration is trying to feed the people only a strong faith in their leadership could get people to ignore that in preference of believing that the administration knows best. I don't know if there has ever been anything like it in our nation's history.
look into my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality I know your anger, i know your dreams I've been everything you want to be I'm the cult of personality Like mussolini and kennedy I'm the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality Neon lights, a nobel prize The mirror speaks, the reflection lies You don't have to follow me Only you can set me free I sell the things you need to be I'm the smiling face on your t.v. I'm the cult of personality I exploit you still you love me I tell you one and one makes three I'm the cult of personality Like joseph stalin and gandi I'm the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality Neon lights a nobel prize A leader speaks, that leader dies You don't have to follow me Only you can set you free You gave me fortune You gave me fame You me power in your god's name I'm every person you need to be I'm the cult of personality Look into my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality I know your anger, i know your dreams I've been everything you want to be I'm the cult of personality Like mussolini and kennedy I'm the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality
So the WH wanted the speech to be low key and the soldiers didn't clap after every sentence. Still not sure what the big deal is. Mountain? Meet mohill. BTW, I saw Living Colour at Club X-cess in 1988. Best show I've ever seen.
I wouldn't expect a roudy audience for a live television address. Despite my dislike for the Bush administration, this is about as news worthy as the runaway bride.
