THREAD BEGAN, October 29th, 2004
BOB: Jay, looking forward to your comparison of the threat that Hitler posed the world in the late 1930’s and the threat Saddam posed the world in 2004. Should be entertaining. Jay, you have been making more sensible observations lately…but this is not one of them. PS. 500 words should be plenty
JAY: Why should we be so worried about Saddam Hussein? “He certainly doesn't have as much power as he did before the Gulf War.” Let’s compare.
Germany was defeated in World War I. In the early 1930’s Hitler did not have sufficient power to cause the death of 30 million people. Less than a decade later he did. He was allowed to become powerful because liberal activists tried to prevent and succeeded in delaying U.S. entry into that conflict. The cost of their action in human lives was horrendous. They have not brought peace to the world and do not deserve the word “peace” or “anti-war” in their titles.
On PBS Lucy Barber researched the effects of such groups, admitted that they have never prevented a war from starting. One of the propaganda channels for Hitler was the Communist Party, USA. It recruited unwitting liberal activists to delay U.S. assistance to the European nations that Hitler was attacking. I give you guys’ credit for the endless whining effort, but look at the results of your protests. There is much historical evidence that they have delayed action against tyrants who finally had to be stopped in a much more costly conflict.
We should compare Saddam Hussein now with Hitler in the early 1930’s. However, Saddam Hussein has the advantages that Hitler did not have. Because of them he could’ve become much more powerful than Hitler unless we acted. Saddam Hussein sat on enormous oil wealth that he could use to acquire modern weapons, the likes of which Hitler could only dream. He had the potential for bringing all of the Middle East petroleum reserves under his control. He started this process a decade ago when he invaded Kuwait. Had our government responded the way liberal activists wanted, Saddam Hussein would now have that control. Can you imagine the economic, social and political impact on the United States and the rest of the World had he gained control over the Middle East oil reserves? Consider the economic conditions of people in the Middle East. Extreme birth rates and corrupt leaders have produced dire poverty for millions in that region, despite its oil wealth. Economic conditions for many are worse than that of the German people in the 1930’s. Poverty in Germany was the basis for Hitler’s climb to power. Saddam Hussein’s brutality rises at least to the level of Hitler’s and Stalin’s. He caused immense loss of young lives in his war with Iran. He gassed the Kurds. He raped and pillaged Kuwait, pumping oil from its well and setting the oil on fire as he retreated. He murders anyone, including family members, whom he suspects might betray him. He offered substantial sums of money to suicide bombers (some may say that is harboring terrorists).
After World War I there were treaties and observers to assure that Germany would not rearm and again cause a world war. As time passed the observers became frustrated with their impossible task and left. Diplomats went into denial. Hitler rearmed... OVER WORD LIMIT
BOB: O.K. Enough about the 380 tons of missing weapons (Or the "at-least-140-tons of missing weapons" as Ben likes to say) Even Kerry has dropped the charges from his stump speech. NEW SUBJECT: So OSAMA has a new video, and an interesting one at that! What are your thoughts? Do you think this will help / hurt anybody in the polls? PS Jay, I will respond to your Hitler-Saddam comparrison shortly. I just want to do a bit of research first.
JAY: Chuck, i'm not trying to lie. didn' you read my e-mail on this. i'll admit that kerry didn't use the term "imminent threat", but what he said in the debates, in my interpretation, equates to imminence. you can disagree, that's fine. the court systems have trouble sometimes w/ imminence so i don't expect us to have a 100% grasp on it. just to reiterate what kerry said in the debates, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace. It was a threat. That's not the issue." do you believe he meant imminent threat, threat to deal w/ later, or somewhere in between
MANEY: Everyone should enjoy this link. Please b fair when casting your vote...http://www.miniclip.com/hiphopdebate.htm copy and paste!!!After these debates I think we need to take a couple of weeks and we all need to reflect on our own personal feelings. Return to being nice and happy. Then go back to the politics..
ABRAMOVICH: This is worth reading.The Osama Litmus Test By DAVID BROOKS The New York Times10/30/04....Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."...But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself?We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.
What we do know...The forcast for rain all day in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is great news for us Republicans..."Republicans should have no problem making it to the polls in our SUV's" - Ben Keeler, editor, The Keeler Report
JAY: i'm surprised nobody responded to my "Liberals: WWII and today" e-mail. i thought someone would respond.
ZELIN: One last comment from Z:
Went to a wedding last Sunday night. Jewish dude marrying a Japanese lady. Okay, beside the point. Randomly sitting next to me was an American from Dayton, Ohio, of all places. More interesting, he was working in Baghdad as a civilian for a subsidiary of Halliburton. It seemed as though God, or the Minuteman Blog sent this guy from heaven, so I could ask him all the pressing questions we needed to see the truth.
First of all, he is a Republican and is voting for Bush. But he said this, because Bush pays his bill. Then I flat I asked him, “Why are we in Iraq.” His answer, “Because his father couldn’t finish the job.” Flat out answer, no flinching, he replied in a manner of seconds. No mention of weapons, Saddam, or liberation. He went on to say that most civilians are voting for Bush (to keep their jobs). But the soldiers, the ones who are putting forth the real sacrifice are either not voting, or voting for Kerry. He went on to say, in an almost degrading tone, that most soldiers barely graduated high school and don’t even know which party each candidate is from. Interesting. Then, he mentioned how he is happy to be in Iraq since he is making big fucking money, but Halliburton is a joke and only go the job because of Cheney.
Just some interesting facts that are from the ground. And honestly, this guy is voting for Bush, but for some reason, is stating some of our liberal arguments we have been making.
May the best man win, or Bush.
CHUCK: Hey All, Good times tomorrow. I really do think a Kerry win (279-259), but I am not going to be surprised if Bush wins.
I wish everyone the best, while I still am deciding if the blog has strengthened or weakened my convictions. Either way, its been fun. (and sorry for randomly losing it and making a personal jab, here and there).
Well, whoever wins, there is a lot to do. If Kerry wins he is going to have a tough time getting much done. If Bush wins.....well, I have always said "the only way I will get a Bush supporter to agree w/ me is 4 more years of Bush".
JAY: zelin, who's this guy that seems to know everything. it's a fact that the miltary favors bush 3 to 1. i asked one of my friends why she is voting for kerry. her answer, "bush is a liar and he says umm too much." i asaked her where she gets her info. her response, "tv commercials." mypoint, the guy from haliburton and my friend are just uninformed individuals. stop wasting your time w/ your moore type banter. how about a response to my liberal e-mail?
MANEY: Just to clear the air, I had today off and started to feel guilty just sitting around all day. So at 6:00 PM I went to Copley and voted!!!!!!
ZELIN: You just go ahead and discredit everything the other side says. Jay, he works in Iraq. In Baghdad. A hell of a lot closer than we are. That is all man, you can listen a bit instead of relating a republican living in Iraq to Michael Moore.
JAY: zelin, you said that this guy said that the troops in harms way are voting for kerry. you made it appear as if most troops are voting for kerry. i and others disagree. my point was that that's one man's position. i listen to the sides.
ZELIN: Lawyer Jay, one more time. This guy said, in his opinion, most troops he knew or talked with, were voting for Kerry.
PETE: Y'all will thank us later.
JAY: that's fine, but that's not how you originally put it you misrepresenter. just joshin z-dizzy.
Bob, I was wondering why you haven't posted any e-mails. I cant believe nobody responded to this so I'm reposting it. My liberal comments. Please read and attack me.
BOB: i cant believe it. the democrates were running against a president with an approval rating below 50%, who turned a huge surplus into a record defecit, who lost jobs and who took us to war in a country that didn't have WMDs after all.
And still we lost the pop vote by 4 million votes!?
i dont know what to say...maybe i was living in a fantasy world...i thought americans had snapped out of their sept 11th haze...my spirit is fucking broken.
george w bush is president again? i have zero hope for America.....fucking zero.
CHUCK: i cant comment on policy stuff right now.
congratulations to the bush supporters. i really do hope i am wrong, because there are huge consequences.
SAMMY: First I must congraulate Bush in a victorious campaign. A job well done exploiting americans fears of terrorism to win an election. I feel I have been robbed, but what can I say. Kerry's campaign was obviously not good enough. I can't wait for the day that religion and government can be seperated. This will not happen until Bush is out of office. I will have to wait 4 more years, but fags, abortion, and stem cell will be a thing of the past. Just 4 more years and morality will be a thing people laugh at. It will be a time of change. Bush will be a president that people will look back on with more disrespect than Nixon. Don't despair democrats, all will see the errors of our ways. Democrats will be in office in 4 years. There is no question.
CHUCK: Bush Supporters, I am going to give your guy the benefit of the doubt from here on out. But let me add something to an old discussion, in which Jay and Ben were very confident.....well, unless these troops are liars, those weapons were looted UNDER OUR WATCH. and that is BUSH's RESPONSIBILITY. And those weapons are being used to kill our troops.
Here in this article, you can read of Bush's shitty leadership, and click on an ad to celebrate victory. Enjoy. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041104-125213-3388r.htm
part of me wants to give up, but i am not going to. when you guys blow up on me and tell me how these weapons were not looted under our watch, its someones responsibility to set you guys straight.
ZELIN: Must also commend the effort of the Republicans. They are meticulously organized and have done a wonderful job of rallying there troops. Dems on the other hand, choose to whine about the right, but then take no action to rally there constituencies. I think this should be a lesson for democrats to start getting more organized and use their negative feelings towards the administration in a positive way. I am amazed in the direction that our nation is heading. I feel that as I have gotten older, and maybe a bit wiser, I have become more accepting of people from all different colors, religions, sexual preferences, etc. But, our country seems to be heading increasingly towards the right.
And, not that any Americans care, but the predominant view from abroad is disbelief, and even laughter. People can't understand how Americans can vote him back into office and I am really trying to figure that out myself.
CHUCK: totally agree w/ your concern for the direction. and the GOP did an amazing job.
But i completely disagree that Dems sat around and complained.
we had amazing turnout.
we had our greatest ground operations ever. (ACT and moveon were unprecedented for our movement)
we have made inroads in AM radio (remember, everyone said air america would be off the radio by now...but its thriving)
and we almost won the damn thing. (we only lost by 100,000 votes)
The dems were beat, and the credit goes to the victors, but to act like we laid down is false.
in my opinion, we had more passion and ground work, but lost to Fear and other deeper issues (the corporate media, especially)
JAY: chuck, before you go blaming the "corporate media" look at the statistics. after you actually discover who the corporate media was supporting maybe you'll stop whining. health care is better off, social security will hopefully be somewhat privatized, and the world will be safer. a passive hardcore liberal as president, c'mon now. maybe this will fill the gas tanks of the liberal side. will someone please respond to my liberal "thesis" or at least this e-mail. or have you figured out there is no logical response to what i wrote? did you guys "run out of gas" or give up?
CHUCK: jay i am not responding to you, because i dont feel like playing your games. you know jay, i have made all sorts of concessions and congratulations (and a few personal emails thank you and agreeing w/ you), and you are still being a dick. and when i blame the corporate media, i am indicting everyone, because the bottom line is profits. its a problem, and to say its not is fucking ignorant.
JAY: from your statement, "in my opinion, we had more passion and ground work, but lost to Fear and other deeper issues (the corporate media, especially)," it appeared you were blaming the media for supporting bush (your statement infers that you lost b/c the media). if that's not the case i'm sorry for being a "dick." it's clear that a majority of the media was favoring kerry. i understand if you guys want to throw in the towel, but i'd like to discuss the issues; why the u.s. is better off.
CHUCK: whatever jay
JAY: that's a response i would expect (nothing toward my "liberal; wwII and today," wow)
SAMMY: Actually Jay I was very surprised how you connected WWII and Iraq. I must congratulate you. Their are some simularities. And you did a good job of pointing them out. But I would like to say you could probably find simularities in any war. Deaths, bad guys, corruption,etc. Shit, have you heard of the game "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" . Jay, I'm sorry but your thesis is basically the same thing.
Do you know how many differences I could say their are between Hitler and Hussien. I don't think your comuter has enough memory to handle the differnces.
I will say you did find simularities, and they do seem important, but you are taking things way out of context. These are two different men, in two different time periods. Their is know denying that.
You have tried to compare the lesser of two evils. And we know who that is SADDAM! It is too obvious.
BOB: Jay, sorry that I have been slow to respond. This election was really hard for me to swallow and I really wasn’t in the mood to split hairs last week. I read your emails about the comparsion between Hitler and Saddam and there are some shocking similarities:
---They were both bastards
---They were both aggressors
---They both gassed civilians
The list goes on and on.
But there is a limit. As I said before, in regards to the threat that these men posed, their ability to dominate the globe…there is no comparison.
When comparing, you say that the weapons that Saddam has today are far more deadly than those that Hitler employed. True. But irrelevant. We need to compare Hilter’s level of military capabilities in THAT era to Saddam’s level of military capabilities in THIS era.
In the 1930s Hitler was rebuilding what was 15 years earlier, the strongest military in the world. He had (and was developing) weaponry that was comparable (and sometimes superior) to the other superpowers. There was no technology gap between the French/British/American armies and immerging German threat. If you can find anything to the contrary please let me know.
Now there is Saddam in Iraq. I saw on a WORLDFACT BOOK web site that the US military spends 270 billion dollars each year on military expeditures. They listed Iraq on the same list in position #45 at, I think, 1.5 billion (between PERU and MORROCO).
Now I am NOT trying to say that Saddam didn’t have lots of dangerous weapons. He did. What I am trying to point out is the huge gap between the capabilities of a country like Iraq and the U.S.
And we have two instances that clearly prove this. In the first Gulf war we spanked Saddam. I remember the one day when we destroyed 200 some tanks, shooting over the horizon. They couldn’t get close enough to fire a single shot! We had a handful of casualties (I think more from friendly fire than Saddam’s men) and we crushed them. Then in March and April of 2003 it was confirmed once again that Saddam was not in our league militarily. Not even close.
If you want to argue that Saddam was a threat because he was trying to get his hands on WMDs which he would have smuggled to terrorist who in turn would have attacked us…OK. We can argue that.
But this idea that Saddam was poised to conquer the Middle East and take control of the world’s oil supply is complete farse. He couldn’t conquer little-old Kuwait and he couldn’t even conquer Iran WITH our help.
So if you want to compare the mentalities of Saddam and Hitler…fine.
The evil aspirations…I agree.
The atrocities…absolutlely.
But the threat of global domination that they posed?
I don't buy it.
JAY: good points, but i was focusing more on liberals; comparing their actions and arguments then and now.
